Economic globalization has done terrible damage to this country in its twin manifestations: Outsourcing has removed entire industries to overseas havens of cheap labor, and immigration has lowered wages for businesses that couldn’t be shipped abroad.
We see the long-term effects particularly among the lower classes. A couple generations back, a young person with average skills could go directly from high school graduation to a job at a local manufacturing plant and have a nice life.
That’s nearly all gone, because of factories sent overseas with the government’s help via bogus trade deals like NAFTA that promised no job loss for the US. Later came the assurances that outsourced jobs would be replaced by tech occupations, but those have been largely globalized away as well.
In 2012, Pat Buchanan wrote, “the United States since 2000 has lost 6 million manufacturing jobs and 55,000 factories.”
PBS Newshour had a decent report August 20 (transcript):
NPR had a lengthier report which investigated some of the negotiations that went on between furniture executive John Bassett III and the US Commerce Dept because the Chinese furniture makers were dumping their products in the US, which is prohibited by the WTO: Continue reading this article
On April 15, 2013, two bombs went off near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing three and seriously injuring 264 including 14 persons losing limbs. It’s likely the casualty list would have been longer if not for the many medically trained people at the race finish who provided excellent first aid to the injured in the early minutes.
Another casualty was young MIT police officer Sean Collier, who was murdered later by Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev when the brothers were trying to escape.
We found that several red flags and warnings were missed. We found that Tamerlan was on the radar of the FBI and somehow dropped off. We found that Tamerlan travelled to Dagestan, known for its Chechen terrorists. This is precisely what the Russian letter warned our Intelligence Community and FBI about. He came back even more radicalized. We also found that unfortunately Customs, FBI, and the IC somehow missed it. Arrogantly, some US officials said “It would not have made a difference” if they had known about his overseas travel. We now know that a check of his public social media would have shown indicators such as Jihadists video postings. His Mosque had seen escalating behavior as well. It likely would have been clear that he was becoming more and more of a threat to the community.
Which takes me to me to my last point: State and Local police have a strong role in Counter Terrorism. They know the streets better than anybody and they know the local threats. The Boston Police Department should have been given more information throughout the entire process. They must know the terror threats in their own backyards. This process in my judgment has to change.
Meanwhile, the administration does not like the “T” word applied to its watch. Monday’s Statement by the President referred to the attack as a “tragedy” and emphasized the heroic response of Bostonians.
Robert Spencer reviewed the event and focused on FBI dereliction — even though the government allowing Muslim immigration to continue is the worst failure:
With the first anniversary of the Boston Marathon jihad bombings now here (April 15), the New York Times made yet another attempt to exonerate the Obama Administration of responsibility for one of its manifest failures, claiming that an inspector general’s report on the bombings was an “exoneration of the F.B.I.,” as it showed that “the Russian government declined to provide the F.B.I. with information about one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects that would most likely have led to more extensive scrutiny of him at least two years before the attack.”
See? The bombing was all the fault of that scoundrel Putin. It had nothing to do with the FBI, because of fecklessness and political correctness, failing to act properly on information the Russians gave them.
Full disclosure: I used to give FBI agents and other law enforcement and military personnel training on the teachings of Islam about jihad warfare against and subjugation of non-Muslims, so that they would understand the motives and goals of those who have vowed to destroy the United States as a free society, and be better equipped to counter them. I provided this training free of charge, out of a sense of patriotic duty, and it was well received: I received certificates of appreciation from the United States Central Command and the Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group.
But as I explain in detail in my book Arab Winter Comes to America, all that ended on October 19, 2011, when Islamic supremacist advocacy groups, many with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, demanded that FBI counter-terror trainers (including me) and training materials that referred to Islam and jihad in connection with terrorism be discarded, and agents educated by them be retrained. John Brennan, then the U.S. Homeland Security Advisor and now the director of the CIA, readily agreed in a response that was written on White House stationery – thereby emphasizing how seriously the Obama Administration took this demand. Continue reading this article
On Saturday, BookTV broadcast a discussion from James Barrat, the author of “Our Final Invention.” (Watch.) He listed a few job categories that can now be done by a smart machine: sport writers, pharmacists, postal workers, bank tellers, travel agents, manufacturing and clerical workers. Barrat noted several occupations that will soon face machine competition, including medical diagnosis, driving, piloting airplanes, space exploration and software development.
Google Chairman Eric Schmidt spoke about Google’s bevy of recent robot acquisitions at the Oasis: The Montgomery Summit conference in Santa Monica, California, on Tuesday. “We’re experimenting with what automation will lead to. Robots will become omnipresent in our lives in a good way,” Schmidt said, according to a report from Bloomberg.
Schmidt went on to say that he thinks automated technology will “replace a lot of the repetitive behavior in our lives.” Robotics and artificial intelligence are two arenas that Google has been heavily investing in to stay ahead of the next big technological advancements.
“The biggest thing will be artificial intelligence,” Schmidt said, per Bloomberg. “Technology is evolving from asking a question to making a relevant recommendation. It will figure out things you care about and make recommendations. That’s possible with today’s technology.”
Google has been steadily collecting robotics and artificial intelligence companies over the past several months, leading the tech press to speculate widely about a dystopian future occupied by Google-designed robots. In December, Google purchased the robotics company Boston Dynamics, which has long been a Pentagon contractor and is known for building creepily animal-like robots. Boston Dynamics was the eighth robotics company Google purchased in the past six months. Continue reading this article
Young jihadist fellows can learn combat and bombing techniques when they volunteer to kill for Allah on the Syrian front. It’s not a bad thing when hostile Muslims are energetically blasting each other, but the survivors from Europe and the United States will have deadly new skills to employ when they return home.
Has anyone noticed yet that Muslim immigration in the name of total diversity has been a really bad idea? Not every Muslim is a murderous Soldier of Allah, but some are, so why admit any?
Fox News’ Greg Palkot reported on Tuesday that the number of fighters in Syria from America is estimated to be 70, but that’s nothing compared to the nearly 2,000 trained jihad killers who may head back to Europe after Syria is done.
One of the reasons this subject has come up has been intelligence hearings in the House and Senate in recent days. You can watch Tuesday’s House Intelligence Committee hearing Global Threats to the U.S. on C-SPAN that includes the new FBI Director Comey, as well as CIA Director Brennan and DNI Director Clapper.
For the second time in a week, the nation’s top intelligence chiefs Tuesday issued a scathing assessment of the global threats facing the United States, warning that Syria is becoming a base from which extremist, Al Qaeda-linked groups could attack the U.S.
“We are concerned about the use of Syrian territory by the Al Qaeda organization to recruit individuals and develop the capability to be able not just to carry out attacks inside of Syria, but also to use Syria as a launching pad,” said CIA Director John Brennan at a hearing before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
“There are camps inside of both Iraq and Syria that are used by Al Qaeda to develop capabilities that are applicable, both in the theater, as well as beyond.”
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper put the threat assessment in stark terms: “Looking back over my more than half a century in intelligence, I have not experienced a time when we’ve been beset by more crises and threats around the globe,” he said. Continue reading this article
In the nation’s capital, hypocrisy is the universal sport, played enthusiastically by both parties in the Congress. However there are times when the craven political lies are so extreme as to make eyes roll back and heads explode from the shamelessness demonstrated.
One such was Thursday’s all-Democrat “hearing” to promote an extension of emergency unemployment benefits for American workers about to lose their checks. The purpose was to smack Republicans who want to end crazed overspending, and the Dems presented a theatrical tableau consisting of teary-eyed citizens telling their hard-luck stories.
At the same time, the Democrat loudmouths leading the “hearing” are the biggest advocates for amnesty for millions and a doubling of legal immigration — the worst policy imaginable for citizen employment. Far from being the friend of American workers, Democrats are their worst enemies. One example: ALL Senate Democrats voted for the loophole-ridden S.744 amnesty bill. That bill would be clearly harmful to US workers, since it would reduce average wages in America for 12 years and increase unemployment for 7 years, according to a CBO report.
The House Democrats ran true to form, and were more concerned with government benefits being spread around rather than improving the job-creation climate in the current economy, in which growth is tepid at best.
You can watch the entire presentation online through C-SPAN, although it is 90 minutes long with much headache-inducing political posturing: Long-Term Unemployment Benefits.
For a shorter sample, you can watch Nevada Congressman Stephen Horsford as he made a general statement about unemployment in his state, then addressed out-of-work electrician Stan Osnowitz:
“Stan, I want to ask you a specific question, because one sector that has been hardest hit in my state is the construction sector. And I have building trade workers and unions, like IBEW, and a lot of other trades that have been unemployed now for more than a year. And there really are no jobs in that sector coming back anytime soon in my community because of the sustained recession. The construction industry was our number two sector behind gaming. So it’s been hardest hit. So it is good to hear a union perspective. So I want to ask you, as a building trades worker, what about the quality of the job that you’re looking for? I mean you come from a sector with good, livable wages, good benefits with pension, and apprenticeship to come back and retrain. What happens to you if the jobs that they are trying to put you in don’t really provide for family-sustaining wages for you and your family?”
“As you sit out of work, you start questioning your ability to do a job. Your worth drops, your self-confidence drops, and it takes quite a bit to build it back up. It’s hard to be unemployed. I feel myself as a craftsman. I build. I enjoy building. I like to look back on what I built and say I did that. That’s my pride. When I don’t have that, when I don’t have a job, you feel worthless. It’s a feeling I don’t like. I’ve been in the trade 43 years. I have worked everything from bridges, to steel mills, to car plants, and I’ve always given the top, best job I could, and the quality is what my pride is and that’s what I try to give. To do anything else is unfulfilling. It doesn’t give you a feeling of worth. It doesn’t make you feel good. It’s hard to do something else, not after all of these years and all the training: the continuous training that we go under.”
As it happens, Nevada has had a huge influx of illegal alien labor into the construction industry. In 2003, house framer William Ennis described how his career was ruined: “I started out making $800 to $1,200 a week here for a 40-hour week. It got to where I was having to work seven days a week, 12 hours a day, just to make $600 a week. And that’s just in the past three or four years.”
In another screaming hypocrisy, Father Larry Snyder, the President of Catholic Charities USA, spoke at the hearing, remarking, “Our Catholic tradition teaches us that society acting through the government has a special obligation to consider first the needs of the poor and the vulnerable.”
Tuesday’s House hearing, The President’s Constitutional Duty to Faithfully Execute the Laws, was more gripping than a wonky examination of law might suggest. Constitutionalist Tea Party Republicans were in attendance, while the Democrat side of the dais was somewhat empty. Perhaps members of the President’s party didn’t want to be seen defending him, now that Obamacare has become the disaster without end.
The House is the branch of government most damaged by the “imperial President” (a phrase used by liberal Prof. Jonathan Turley in his testimony).
The opening statement of Chairman Bob Goodlatte was straightforward and specific.
Chairman Goodlatte: Today’s hearing is about the President’s role in our constitutional system.
Our system of government is a tripartite one, with each branch having certain defined functions delegated to it by the Constitution. The President is charged with executing the laws; the Congress with writing the laws; and the Judiciary with interpreting them.
The Obama Administration, however, has ignored the Constitution’s carefully balanced separation of powers and unilaterally granted itself the extra-constitutional authority to amend the laws and to waive or suspend their enforcement. [. . .]
From Obamacare to immigration, the current administration is picking and choosing which laws to enforce. But the Constitution does not confer upon the President the “executive authority” to disregard the separation of powers by unilaterally waiving, suspending, or revising the laws. It is a bedrock principle of constitutional law that the President must “faithfully execute” Acts of Congress. The President cannot refuse to enforce a law simply because he dislikes it. [. . .]
In place of the checks and balances established by the Constitution, President Obama has proclaimed that “I refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer” and that “where [Congress] won’t act, I will.” Throughout the Obama presidency we have seen a pattern: President Obama circumvents Congress when he doesn’t get his way.
For instance, while Congress is currently debating how to reform our immigration laws, the President effectively enacted the DREAM Act himself by ordering immigration officials to stop enforcing the immigration laws against certain unlawful immigrants. [. . .]
Also noteworthy was Congressman Trey Gowdy, the former prosecutor, who asked witnesses on the panel of lawyers, “If you can suspend mandatory minimum and immigration laws, why not election laws?” referring to the President.
Professor Turley expressed his deep concern with the slow-moving Constitutional crisis and its harm done to the House of Representatives:
TURLEY (starting 6.45): The great concern I have for this body is that it is not only being circumvented, but it is also being denied the ability to enforce its inherent powers. Many of these questions are not close in my view; the President is outside the line. But it has to go in front of a court and that court has to grant review, and that’s where we have the most serious Constitutional crisis I view in my lifetime. And that is, this body is becoming less and less relevant.
Iowa Congressman Steve King is not a lawyer, but he is well read on the Constitution. His questioning of Prof Turley brought another statement of concern about how this President is destroying the brilliant system created by the framers:
TURLEY (starting at 5.28): I have great trepidation of where we are headed, because we are creating a new system here – something that is not what was designed. We have a rising fourth branch in a system that was tripartite. The center of gravity is shifting and that makes it unstable. And ithin that system, you have the rise of an Uber-Presidency. There could be no greater danger for individual liberty. I really think that the Framers would be horrified by that shift, because everything they dedicated themselves to was creating political balance – and we’ve lost it.
Some of that vanload of freebies goes to Marita Nelson, who unlawfully swam across the Rio Grande to get her American Welfare Dream. A 50-year-old single mother, the illegal alien resides in Florida, where she receives government-funded housing, medication, $240 in food stamps and $700/month in Social Security. She has received assistance for 20 years, and generously recommends taxpayer-funded welfare for others!
The Fox report below also observed that Florida has many food stamp recruiters, and the state aims to increase its federal welfare by $1 billion annually.
Welfare and immigration cost expert Robert Rector appeared on a panel Wednesday (watch on C-SPAN) where he noted that immigrants being a “public charge” not long ago was cause to send them back where they came from. These days, foreigners are seen as victims who need government help — and Obama is just the President to see they get it.
Rector explained that the taxpayer costs of massive redistribution are enormous when the government imports millions of poor foreigners:
RECTOR: The difference is at the time of Ellis Island we didn’t have a $2 trillion redistributive state. . . most people don’t realize, we spend close to a trillion dollars a year aiding poor people, 80 different programs. . .
We can barely afford to do that for U.S.-born citizens and for legal immigrants. But to try to apply this massive system of redistribution to people whose only claim to U.S. taxpayer resources is that they came here and broke the law, I think that’s a travesty, and I think it’s an assault on the U.S. taxpayer that’s unmerited.
Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX) gave a speech earlier this month to a Horowitz Freedom Center Texas Weekend in Dallas.
Gohmert is one of the strongest defenders of freedom in Congress. His sometimes-relaxed style can belie his toughness, knowledge and courage (last fall speaking about Obama’s legacy in building a second Ottoman Empire). He has gone after members of the administration for their comfy relationship with hostile Islam, as he did last week when he questioned AG Eric Holder during a hearing [Watch]. The Representative’s request was for Congress to be allowed to see the documents about the 2007 Holy Land Foundation trial which were given to the accused contributors to Hamas terrorists but have been kept from the public.
The Congressman is also a defender of American sovereignty who stood with a handful of House conservatives on May 14 to speak against amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. He understands that immigration enforcement is integral to national security, remarking near the end of his Texas talk, “There are consequences to giving citizenship and to letting anybody in.”
Bad consequences, as we saw in the Boston bombing.
Frank Gaffney: I’m very pleased to present to you all tonight a great American, a great Texan, one of my personal heroes and a man I’m very proud to call a great friend, Congressman Louie Gohmert.
Louie Gohmert: Oh, gosh. Thank you. Well, I’m so glad you did that before I talked. That’s really good. Now, I don’t know what you’ll do when I finish.
You’ve heard from three of our best experts earlier today, and then the ultimate expert did the introduction of me tonight. Boy, what a juxtaposition that was. But thank you, Frank, and I appreciate your kind comments. You know, I’m not a household name other than with people that work at the Huffington Post –
– and I tell my family, “Just don’t Google my name. You won’t recognize what you see.”
Back in East Texas, all three networks have stations in my hometown of Tyler, and for a town that small, 85,000, to have all three networks, they all have their own news programs, six and 10, and they’re always looking for news. Back when I was a judge, they were constantly coming to the courthouse and asking for comments. Yeah, Andy is an ultimate expert, having prosecuted the blind sheik that we really need to let go …
… or at least that’s what the people visiting the White House on a regular basis have been saying.
But anyway, so in East Texas, I’m better known. You spend a couple million dollars running for Congress, people get tired of seeing your face. And I was coming home back to Tyler one night, stopped at a — it was about two-thirty in the morning. I stopped at one of the fast fuel places. I like to travel in jeans because I don’t want to wallow around in my suit, you know? They cost too much. Jeans are comfortable. So I had on my jeans. I had my shirttail out. I prefer boots except I’ve got some Brookstone moccasins that are so great to drive in.
And so it’s two-thirty. I shuffle into this place, and I go get my Dr. Pepper and some chocolate, and I see a girl like in her 20s go over to an elderly man who was back stocking something, and she kind of pointed in my direction. Obviously seen the commercials. And I put my stuff on the counter, and she says, “Can I ask you something?” I said, “Sure.” And she said, “Are you James Taylor?”
And so I started to try to sing “Sweet Baby James,” but it wasn’t any use. I couldn’t pull it off, not talking like that, but I thanked her. But anyway, so you never know.
You know, I’m so envious of Frank’s beard. He looks so distinguished. I grew a beard one time for about six weeks before I was a judge or chief justice, and I got ready to try a case in federal court, and I was going to pick the jury that Monday.
My daughter was five. Heard me tell my wife that in East Texas, there’s some people that don’t like beards. So I was going to shave my beard before I went to pick the jury, and anyway, I was tucking our five-year-old daughter in, and she said, “Daddy, are you really going to shave your beard?” And I said, “Yeah, you like it?” And she said, “Yeah, it helps you not look like a clown.”
So, Frank, you don’t look like a clown, buddy. You look really distinguished, and I appreciate that so much.
But anyway, all of those lessons are still muddled around in my mind. I talked to Andy earlier about the things that had been discussed because you’ve had ultimate experts before you. But you hear all the talk about the Muslim Brotherhood, and sometimes — well, I’ve run into so many people that say, “When did it get started? What was it about?” And some of you may have heard me challenged in some of the small networks, you know, those that you add up all of their ratings and they don’t quite add up to Fox News viewers. But when you don’t have as many viewers as C-SPAN, it’s time to check it in. But CNN, MSNBC, they’re still hanging in there.
But anyway, they raised some cane back when I said, “This president has really jumpstarted a new Ottoman Empire.” Now, I don’t know why they had never heard about the Ottoman Empire before. Continue reading this article
Thursday was Day #3 of the Senate mark-up of S.744 in the Judiciary Committee. Unsurprisingly the Gang of Eight Republicans on the committee (Senators McCain and Flake) continued to hang tough with Democrats to prevent any meaningful amendments. It looked like a committee markup on the surface, but it was a dog-and-pony show with foregone conclusions because the pro-amnesty members meet in advance to decide what tiny increments of change they will allow. Genuine friends of sovereignty Jeff Sessions and Chuck Grassley deserve our respect for plugging away in such a corrupt environment.
The interests of the nation surely cannot be safe when amnesty hack Frank Sharry is pleased, as indicated by his remark upon the proceedings: “The Gang of Eight has . . . accepted a number of Republican amendments, but none of them undermine the core elements of the bill.”
You can watch the three-hour hearing on C-span, which allows the viewer to use the search function which will go to that place in the video when clicked. So if you search for grassley in the Timeline search function on the left of the page, then click, that part of the video will begin to run. It saves time and unnecessary brain pain.
After a Senate committee finished poring through the enforcement sections of a sweeping immigration bill on Thursday, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, didn’t want to dwell on the three amendments he proposed that were voted down by his colleagues.
He has already been thinking of other ways to change the bill.
The core of the immigration bill, which was produced by a bipartisan group of senators known as the Gang of Eight, remained largely intact after the third hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee that is considering more than 300 amendments. Grassley said little had been accomplished to satisfy him and other Republicans who feel the bill doesn’t do enough to secure the border and ensure that unauthorized immigrants can’t find work in the U.S.
Grassley said he will try to bolster those provisions on the Senate floor and lobby House members working on their own version of an immigration bill.
“I had my day in court (today), and I’m going to have a lot of other days in court,” said Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. “It’s a long process. It’ll be going on for the next six months, so you shouldn’t be drawing any conclusions right now.”
Grassley’s disappointment was met by tempered enthusiasm from members of the Gang of Eight, and other pushing to pass the bill, which would allow the nation’s unauthorized immigrants the chance to become U.S. citizens.
Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, a group that supports the bill, said having four members of the Gang of Eight on the Senate Judiciary Committee — Republicans Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona, and Democrats Charles Schumer of New York and Dick Durbin of Illinois — allowed them to fight off any amendments that would critically damage the bill.
“The Gang of Eight has held strong,” Sharry said. “They’ve accepted a number of Republican amendments, but none of them undermine the core elements of the bill. The early threats — the poison pills, the delaying tactics, things that we thought might actually hurt the process — they’ve been overcome.” Continue reading this article
On Tuesday, Congressman Steve King organized a presser with several House colleagues who strongly oppose the Senate amnesty bill.
The other speakers included Republican Congressmen Louie Gohmert, Mo Brooks, Steve Stockman, John Fleming and Paul Gosar.
Rep. King noted that he has been a fierce foe of Obamacare, but sees the Senate amnesty as “far, far worse.” Like the other assembled representatives, a primary focus of King is to maintain the rule of law, which amnesty shreds by the act of rewarding lawbreakers. His other concerns are cultural assimilation, border control and national security.
Rep Gohmert of Texas (a drought-troubled state) observed that it’s likely a billion or more people abroad would like to move here. He was not reassured that authorities are able to keep out dangerous persons among the millions to be amnestied when the FBI couldn’t sort out the Boston bomber Tsarnaev brother when warned about Tamerlan by Russian police.
John Fleming of Louisiana reminded listeners that the 1986 amnesty was a failure and the government should not go down that path again.
Dr. Paul Gosar of Arizona warned against a huge bill which puts too much enforcement authority in the hands of Janet Napolitano.
Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks alerted about the enormous numbers of foreigners who would like to relocate here, e.g. 20 percent of Mexicans who would come illegally. He doesn’t want millions of lawbreakers to be future Americans, who will also cost taxpayers trillions of dollars according to the recent Heritage study. An open-borders society promotes anarchy, he stated.
Steve Stockman (R-TX) emphasized fairness for legal immigrants, whose care in doing immigration the lawful way is undermined by rewarding lawbreakers.
Congressman King emphasized how the bill is really really bad. He fears a doomsday scenario in which House leadership allows a conference between the House and Senate versions that might pass legislation unfavorable to the rule of law.
Rep. King said, “That conference committee could produce from it some version of the amnesty bill and send it to the floor, unamendable, an up-or-down vote, in which case, every Democrat would vote for it, it would only take a couple of dozen Republicans, and we could be stuck with a very bad bill on the way to the president. So I’m most concerned about that and I’ll continue to talk about that.”
Attorney General Eric Holder recently voiced a belief that many liberals hold — that entering this country illegally is a human right — but mostly refrain from saying. These days, the extreme anti-borders ideology of the anarchist left is becoming mainstream, at least under the Obama administration.
Still, the idea of national sovereignty has many defenders among the little citizens who continue to revere the Constitution despite the globalist future pushed by elites in government and in the press.
Nevertheless, the top law enforcement officer in the nation spoke openly in support of the anti-borders, anti-law agenda:
Holder was addressing a friendly crowd (“committed partners”), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) on the occasion of their annual awards banquet last Wednesday. You can WATCH the entire 18-minute speech on C-SPAN. He discussed a medley of topics close to raza hearts, like the voting rights act, but the major theme was the redefinition of immigration from a lawful procedure controlled by the government to a lifestyle choice appropriately made by the billions of poor people on earth to relocate at will to any country they want.
HOLDER: Creating a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in this country is absolutely essential. The way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented by creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and to move out of the shadows transcends the issue of immigration status. This is a matter of civil and human rights. It’s about who we are as a nation, and it goes to the core of our treasured American principle of equal opportunity.
I happened to click over to C-SPAN on Tuesday, and was fascinated by what Congressman Steve Pearce (R-NM) had to say about a problem currently making many Republicans insane — how to appeal to the treasured hispanic voter.
He is a Republican representative for a district that is 52 percent hispanic and 34 percent Republican. He credits his electoral success with regular personal contact with as many of his constituents as can be reached, whatever their cultural or political leanings.
But the important thing is that he does the work that members of Congress are supposed to do — meet with constituents to talk about their concerns.
Pearce drives around 100,000 miles a year to visit his physically large district, which is around 70,000 square miles, larger than the state of Florida. He goes to around 20 events a weekend and more during recesses. It’s not a magic formula, just hard work.
Last year, he encouraged Mitt Romney to visit more with hispanics to show interest in their concerns, but the Presidential candidate couldn’t be persuaded.
Pearce says that an amnesty won’t win any hispanic votes for Republicans. But his method of taking the conservative message in person to sometimes challenging audiences has proved to be a winner. Too bad Reince Preibus isn’t listening to such good advice.
Washington Journal invited Pearce to appear on the program because of a WSJ article from a few days ago discussing his work habits among the voters.
LAS CRUCES, N.M.—Rep. Steve Pearce is the rarest of Republican Party officeholders, a very conservative Anglo who keeps winning elections from a predominantly Latino electorate.
As the national GOP seeks to improve its dismal standing with Hispanic voters, the 65-year-old former oil man has some advice.
“You just have to show up, all the time, everywhere,” he said, during a recent barnstorm tour of his district, which sprawls across the southern half of this border state. “Most Republicans don’t bother. I do. I bother.”
Mr. Pearce has watched the national GOP struggle to understand why its low-tax, pro-business, family-values message hasn’t resonated with Latinos: Mitt Romney got the lowest share of the Hispanic vote of any GOP presidential candidate since 1996.
Many conservatives have since concluded that if the party can get immigration off the table, Hispanics will give the GOP a new look.
Mr. Pearce agrees, but he contends that changes in policy platforms aren’t enough to reverse the party’s decline among voters like those in his district. Republicans must spend time in Latino neighborhoods with the respectful attentiveness of a small-town mayor.
“We have to sell ourselves,” he said. It will take hard work, he added, because the majority of Hispanics are “spring-loaded” to favor the Democrats and their more expansive view of government. Continue reading this article
Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of issues related to culture and mass immigration. We believe this constitutes a "fair use" of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information, see: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html. In order to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond "fair use", you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.