Sen. Reid, the Illinois Republican National Assembly (ILRNHA) believes it is time you say less. Americans of Hispanic descent are willing and capable to speak for themselves. We hope you are listening, Sen. Reid, because this is why we are Republicans:

The Republican Party is the party of strong national defense, one of the only jobs constitutionally charged to the federal government. The ILRNHA believes in supporting and upholding the Constitution as it is currently written.

The Republican Party is for common sense health care reforms. The ILRNHA supports this, and believes common sense measures are the way to promote and protect the health care needs of every American adult and child.

The Republican Party is for energy independence. The ILRNHA agrees with freeing ourselves from foreign sources of energy because it poses a threat to our national economy and safety, as well as the continued prosperity of the United States.

The Republican Party stands for a world-class system of primary and secondary education. The ILRNHA believes in highly prioritizing education because it will ensure future generations with responsible leadership and prosperity.

Most importantly, the Republican Party unwaveringly believes in the power and opportunity of the American free market economy. The ILRNHA stands firmly for this principle because it is the free market that has provided every immigrant, regardless of origin, a renewed sense of hope, and an ability to improve his or her life and posterity.

With all due respect, Senator Reid, it is time you understand that Hispanic people are not only diverse in their origins, but also in their beliefs. We are not beholden to the Democrat Party or liberal ideology. We are not Republicans because we are Hispanic; we are Hispanic and believe in the principles of the Republican Party. Republican principles are where we put our hope; and as for the change, you can keep it.

***Statement written by Ric Gruber, Vice-President RNHA of DuPage County

Dear Sen. Harry Reid:

You say you would like to know "how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican." Allow me to be of assistance. Below are “10 Ways Anyone of Hispanic Heritage Could Be a Republican.”

Uno: A Hispanic could believe that this country offers more opportunities to work hard and provide for his or her family than any other place on earth, in any other time in history. And that economic empowerment, not dependence on government, is a key component of freedom.

Dos: A Hispanic could find it unjust to have to hand over a third or a half of his or her income in taxes to a wasteful government simply because he or she achieved the American Dream.

Tres: A Hispanic could believe that education vouchers and school choice offer the best opportunity for his or her children to be properly educated.

Cuatro: A Hispanic could believe that putting the demands of the teachers unions over the needs of the students is upside-down and lacks compassion.

Cinco: A Hispanic could believe that marriage consists of one man married to one woman. And that family should be the bedrock of society.

Seis: A Hispanic could believe that life begins at conception and that destruction of unborn children is murder.

Siete: A Hispanic could believe that the best ways to help the less fortunate are through private giving and providing increased opportunities to be educated and to work.

Ocho: A Hispanic could believe that gun control bans make them less safe and have been ineffective, ala Chicago and Washington, D.C.

Nueve: A Hispanic could believe that having secure borders is essential to immigration reform.

Diez: A Hispanic could believe that President Obama and the Democrats are destroying the economic free enterprise system that attracted many Hispanics to America in favor of a quasi-socialist economic model of wealth redistribution that many Hispanics immigrants left behind.

Does that help at all? Still confused? Perhaps this means you believe Hispanics have such limited intellects that all we care about are amnesty and handouts, which of course are two things that Democrats “excel” at.

I understand how this can be hard to imagine for people like you. You are obviously blinded by your own racial assumptions and stereotypes (When a Republican is like this, you call them “racist”). You obviously see Hispanics as caricatures or as a desperate, lazy class of people needing rescue from White Men in Big Government like you.

Otherwise, why on earth would it be so hard to imagine “why anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican”?

Believe it or not, Sen. Reid, the Hispanic citizens of this country have come here like any other immigrant class—ready to learn, ready to provide, ready to become Americans. Not to be enslaved and entrapped by a government that thinks we are less capable than our fellow Anglo citizens.

If you’re still confused, Sen. Reid, you should understand that we Hispanics do have our own thoughts, our own beliefs, our own individual values. Just like any other ethnic group, as a matter of fact!

We don’t all cook our beans the same way, and we don’t all vote the same way. Because even if we all look alike to you, Sen. Reid, on the inside we are actually quite different—with whole different brains, hearts, and souls at work within us. Each cranking out different views and convictions.

Hispanics are a wonderfully diverse and dynamic group of people, but I’ll venture a guess on something we probably can all agree on: we don’t need YOU, yet another White Man, to speak for us. Contrary to what you might imagine, most of us speak (even English!) just fine.

I hope this has been helpful.

Best--

Rafael Rivadeneira 

Event Details:

Keynote Speaker will be Gubernatorial Candidate Bill Brady.

Tickets are $25 per person or $40 per couple.
Appetizers included. Cash Bar.

Governor sponsor - $2,000 includes 10 tickets
Senate sponsor - $1,000 includes 5 tickets
Friend of the RNHA - $500 includes 2 tickets

Please make checks payable to: RNHA of IL

RNHA of IL
c/o Rafael Rivadeneira
1415 W. 22nd St., Tower Floor
Oak Brook, IL 60523

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed,” Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers. The Final Opinion of the Supreme Courts’ 2007 term, District of Columbia v. Heller, breathed a breath of life into the body of the Second Amendment and to that sentiment of Hamilton’s. Justice Scalia wrote for the 5-4 majority, stating without equivocation that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense, unconnected with militia service. However, questions remained regarding what regulations were then permissible, and whether or not the Second Amendment applies against state and local governments?

One answer to these questions came on June 28th, 2010 and shall be recognized by the ILRNHA as a great day for states’ rights, the Constitution, and for the American people. By a vote of 5-4, the Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago held that the Second Amendment right to individual gun ownership, which was recently recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, should be incorporated upon the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The right to bear arms was stated by the majority as “fundamental” to the American “scheme of ordered liberty,” and “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

The ILRNHA must align its position with the majority on the Court, due to the historical background, academic scholarship, and the lack of persuasiveness of opposing arguments of the Second Amendment. The rights enumerated in the Constitution are neither to be infringed by the prevailing political tides nor by the intellectually en vogue. The Bill of Rights, here more specifically the Second Amendment, is a commitment to the protection of our unalienable rights, and that our government may not do to us what governments have done to their citizens in the past. We are proud to live in a country where the government is unambiguously denied the ability to disarm its citizens, regardless of the States’ justifications.

In the words of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story of the John Marshall Court, “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

***Statement written by Ric Gruber, Vice-President RNHA of DuPage County

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Therefore, it’s self-evident that it was time the state of Arizona drew the line.  State Senator Russell Pearce summed it up stating, “[t]he public wants something done.  They’re tired of it…They’ve seen the ineptness and the malfeasance on the part of the [federal] government, and they’re frustrated.”

By the numbers: According to the Associated Press Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants making it the largest gateway for illegal immigrants into the United States.  Additionally, Border Patrol agents over the last three years have made 990,000 arrests of illegals crossing the border into Arizona, an average of 900 a day that totals 45 percent of all arrests of illegals along U.S. borders.  Furthermore, authorities will often find safe houses and vehicles packed like the VW Bug on college campuses in the 70’s (perhaps this is why those on the left have no desire to stop it).

Moreover, federal agents have seized 1.2 million pounds of marijuana last year in Arizona.  Federal prosecutors have declined to press charges against marijuana smugglers caught with less than 500 pounds in Arizona because these busts have become so common.  Most important to the health and safety of the state is the risk of kidnappings.  The city of Phoenix has become the kidnapping capital of the United States with drug and human trafficking as a pre-text to extortion.  Estimates show kidnappings in Phoenix to be as high as one a day in recent years, some resulting in torture and death.  Based on the circumstances the debate over SB 1070 cannot reasonably be based upon whether or not Arizona should have passed such a law, but rather do they have the power to do so?

Although the left wants to characterize the law Governor Jan Brewer passed as anti-immigration, it is not.  It is anti-illegal immigration.  However, constitutional challenges have arisen and will continue to bombard SB 1070 with claims of violations of the 14th amendment, supremacy and federal preemption.  But, many of these challenges have come before the proposed amendments under HB 2162.  On its face HB 2162 resolves most potential constitutional challenges, but leaves room for debate over preemption issues.

Attorney General John Ashcroft’s chief adviser on immigration law and border security from 2001 to 2003, Kris Kobach wrote in The New York Times on April 29th 2010 that Arizona had to draw the line and the arguments we are hearing against SB 1070 either misrepresent the text or are inaccurate.  Given recent statements by President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano, White House Chief propagandist Robert Gibbs, and many others who haven’t read the law, it’s hard to give an accurate opinion and perhaps this article will help.  Before addressing preemption issues there are several other claims to be addressed: it is unfair to demand that aliens carry their documents, the term “reasonable suspicion” will allow police to act inappropriately, and the law will result in racial profiling.

Since 1940 it has been a federal crime (a misdemeanor), for aliens to fail to keep registration documents with them.  The Arizona law merely adds a state penalty to what was already a federal crime.  Having been fortunate in my own life to travel I know that this is not an unreasonable request.  Every nation I have been to required similar documentation.  With respect to the term “reasonable suspicion”, SB 1070 did not invent this as a legal concept.  There is ample precedent listing the factors that satisfy the reasonable suspicion requirements and when several are combined the courts used a totality of the circumstances test.  Furthermore, the law will not result in the type of rampant racial profiling the left is screaming about.

If racial profiling is proven, section 2 provides that a law enforcement official “may not solely consider race, color, or national origin” in making any stops or determining immigration status (all 4th amendment protections against profiling continue to apply).  However, HB 2162 would remove the term “solely” from the provision, and defers judgments on immigration status and removal back to the Federal authorities as soon as practicable when they suspect a person is an illegal.  The underlying problem with the law appears to be that those on the left have a general distrust of law enforcement officials.

Most importantly, does SB 1070 violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution?  Claims are being made that it may in at least two ways.  The first is that Title 8 U.S.C. governs the treatments of aliens and Congress enacted Title 8 pursuant its plenary powers under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.  Under Article I, Section 8, Congress has the power to “establish a uniform rule of Naturalization…throughout the United States.”  Here, there is a federal scheme, arguably reflecting Congress’s desire to completely occupy the field of immigration and naturalization, which it historically has done.  If preemption isn’t found based on those facts, it is also argued that SB 1070 may fall under conflict preemption because 8 U.S.C. 1252c provides a place for state and local authorities.

The complexity of the legal debate arises from the intersection of state and national legislatures.  State and local governments have general police powers, the responsibility for the health and safety within their borders, including but not limited to criminal law, employment law, and welfare.  Conversely, immigration law has evolved from foreign policy and now is a part of the aforementioned national legislative and regulatory scheme.  As a result of immigration laws beginning to infuse with the spheres of power reserved to state and local governments, we must begin to recognize an expansion of state and local control over immigration and characterize immigration as a domestic issue.  Consequently, state and local governments will have more power than they have had traditionally, but they will have concurrent power with the federal government.

Therefore, this debate will end with differing results depending upon how the courts perceive immigration as a foreign policy issue, thus narrowing local regulation, or as state and local governments acting within their traditional spheres of power.  Professor Juliet Stumpf of Lewis & Clark Law School refers to this as the criminalization of immigration law, or crimmigration.  In a 2008 North Carolina Law Review, Professor Stumpf stated, “[t]he rise of crimmigration law has transformed immigration law from something the federal government is uniquely positioned to control – foreign policy – to something states are experts in – law enforcement.”  With only 6,000 federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents (ICE), their job is insurmountable in comparison to a country containing between 12 and 20 million illegal immigrants.

By contrast, the New York Police Department currently has 35 thousand employees and believes it is greatly understaffed to deal with 8 million total residents in a much more compact area.  As a result illegal immigrants are willing to take their chances, with these odds why not?  According to an article in the Washington Examiner on May 5th, 2010, Heather MacDonald claims that if Arizona law were followed by many other states, there would be approximately 650,000 state and local police officers in the U.S. who would vastly disrupt the status quo.  Additionally, MacDonald believes that Arizona’s law is hated because of its’ potential effectiveness.

Although President Obama authorized 1,200 national guard troops to be sent to the border a few weeks ago, which is a good start, laws like SB 1070 are necessary if only to get Washington to finally enforce the laws already on the books.  I tend to agree with MacDonald and believe the reason this law is so opposed is that it just might work.  Before all is said and done we may see a Corona Summit in Arizona.

In light of the Illinois Legislature’s recent vote on a resolution to condemn Arizona’s immigration law, the Republican National Hispanic Assembly of Illinois (ILRNHA) released the following statement:

The ILRNHA bears a responsibility to the residents of Illinois and all U.S. citizens to accurately communicate the purpose and vision of the ILRNHA. As our mission statement proclaims, our goal is to build a membership organization to foster the principles of the Republican Party in the Hispanic community; to provide Americans of Hispanic heritage with a forum to play an influential role in local, state and national Party activities; to increase the number of Republican elected officials; and to create and maintain a network of Hispanic Republican leaders.

Recently, it is apparent that some have forgotten the meaning of these common goals. The ILRNHA pledges its unequivocal support for the Arizona State Legislatures’ decision to act upon what Congress has legislated, but the federal government has failed to enforce. The ILRNHA is an organization of Hispanics of diverse backgrounds and opinions. However, in a time of such great division, we as an organization stand to represent the motto on OUR nations seal - E Pluribus Unum : Out Of Many, One; regardless of whether or not we stand alone among other Hispanic organizations.

Moreover, we are a nation founded upon the rule of law. In the words of President Dwight D. Eisenhower (R), "The clearest way to show what the rule of law means to us in everyday life is to recall what has happened when there is no rule of law." To support the actions of the millions who have avoided the system, however flawed it may be, would be to support lawlessness, and this is not something for which the ILRNHA will support.

Furthermore, In 1919 Theodore Roosevelt eloquently synthesized the same beliefs we are here to espouse today with our support of SB1070 when he said, "In the first place we should insist that the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equity with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming an American and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

No message could be more clear, no message could be more worthy of repetition at this moment in our nations history.

***Statement written by Ric Gruber, Vice-President RNHA of DuPage County

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL4) calls this bill a “civil rights catastrophe that Republicans in Arizona are unleashing on immigrants and Latinos in the state.” (Never mind, that according to Rasmussen, 51% of Arizona Democrats and 69% of Independents supported this bill.) On National Public Radio Rep. Gutierrez said that we should boycott vacationing in Arizona: “Why would you want to contribute to a group of people that clearly are engaged in a discriminatory act?” I certainly wouldn’t, but I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. The people of Arizona haven’t committed the crimes. They aren’t being “discriminatory.” They’re simply asking their authorities to make Arizona less hospitable and accommodating to undocumented immigrants. They just want an end to the madness.

Then, in the Huffington Post, Rep. Gutierrez slams the Obama administration for deporting more than 1,000 people/day—at a faster rate than the Bush administration ever did—and for doing nothing about immigration reform. He slams Arizona for inviting racial profiling. He slams the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for a recent raid on a human smuggling ring.

And then he wraps it all up with: “Let's be clear, I support targeted enforcement against smuggling rings exploiting our broken immigration system and preying on vulnerable immigrants, but the timing of this show of force could not have been more destructive.”

Huh? What’s clear about this? Actually, what’s clear about any of your positions, Congressman? You don’t want deportation. You don’t want Arizona to fine illegal immigrants. And you don’t want ICE to do its job.

Many of us want to know, Rep. Gutierrez: If you aren’t willing to fine illegal immigrants, what are you willing to do to enforce our immigration laws? Should illegal immigration carry any consequences? Are there any other laws you think we should also ignore?

I wish he would just come out and say he wants open borders. Then he could come totally clean and admit he favors amnesty not because he’s so kind and compassionate but because he sees these immigrants as potential voting blocks, as more people to become dependent on his power. But I’m guessing we won’t hear that bit.

But what we will hear is that Rep. Gutierrez was one of the speakers at a rally Monday night aimed at Governor Pat Quinn. He wants the governor to hire more Latinos because they make up the largest ethnic population in Illinois. A higher official population of Latinos would mean he’d be able to demand larger quotas—and have more “reward” jobs to pass out for political favors. It’s how this all works.

What makes Rep. Gutierrez comments so insulting and ridiculous is that Arizona has a real problem with soaring illegal immigration amid economic crisis. From 2000 to 2008, the state’s illegal immigrant population has increased 70%, according to Department of Homeland Security statistics. He’s clearly more interested in putting the rights of illegal immigrants over those of the people of the country he’s promised to serve. He’s clearly more interested in his own benefit than the overall good of the country.

For this and many other reasons, I think the people of Arizona have waited for too long—for the promises of the federal government to secure our borders and “fix” immigration. While we’re busy debating and discussing and doing nothing about the illegal immigration problem in this country, the safety of the people of Arizona is in jeopardy and their livelihood is being taken away.

This is not to say I don’t understand the concerns with this bill. I am Latino, and I understand full well the reality of racial profiling; I know that speaking Spanish garners shifty looks from the public. I understand that racism plays a very real role in the immigration debate in this country (e.g., do you ever hear anyone complain about the illegal Canadians, Irish, Polish, Lithuanian, etc. working in all sorts of industries across the U.S.? Me neither. Though they are here!).

But fears of appearing racist shouldn’t prevent us from going after actual law-breakers in this country. What Arizona has proposed is that any immigrant found without documentation (something the Federal government already requires—but doesn’t enforce—of immigrants) is charged with a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a fine of up to $2500. They’re not being deported. Families are not being broken up. This is not a cruel, heartless bill. It’s one step toward getting control of an out-of-control system.

While President Obama once campaigned on transparency and bi-partisan cooperation, he and Nancy Pelosi have shown us that not only is it politics as usual with them—but on a bigger, more jaded and oppositional level than we’ve ever seen.

Instead of working with Republicans to work on a deal that could’ve resulted in something the over-taxed and weary American people supported, and instead of bringing a bill that would unite the country, Obama used totalitarian tactics to ram through a bill that has bi-partisan opposition, that we can’t pay for, that no one understands and that grows the government in baffling ways. We needed health-care reform. But the cost of this reform is something none of us should have to pay.

Here are a few of the biggest costs of our new health care:

--Four NEW government agencies will be created to oversee it

--$569 Billion dollars in job-killing tax hikes

--$1.2 Trillion in new government spending

--16,500 new IRS workers to enforce all the new taxes and penalties

--$200 Billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage, hurting millions of seniors

--An increase to federal deficits by $59 Billion over the next ten years when the cost of the “doc fix” legislation is added back into the bill

--Raiding Medicare and Social Security to grow the size of government and pay for a new entitlement

--Government mandates on what insurance you can have

Throughout this year-long debate, the American people supported common-sense health- care reforms aimed at lowering health-care costs. This bill lacks common sense. The health-care plan that passed last night does not allow individuals to buy health care across state lines, it does not allow small businesses to pool together to purchase plans at lower costs, and it does not deter junk lawsuits from being brought forth.

Our president and members of Congress failed to hear the voices of the majority of the American people. Perhaps they’ll hear us clearer in November.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

http://wiseforum.wycc.org/professors/professors-2009-season-2/

To see the show, scroll down to Episode 19 - Sotomayor: Supreme Court Controversy, Air Date, June 14, 2009

http://wiseforum.wycc.org/professors/professors-2009-season-2/

To see the show, scroll down to Episode 15 - Grading the President - Air Date, May 17, 2009

by Adam Guillette

On the surface, Florida Gov. Charlie Crist appears to be the rising star in the Sunshine State. Mr. Crist won a landslide election, maintains high approval ratings and was considered as a potential vice presidential choice by Republican nominee John McCain. In addition, he was even ranked the most "fiscally conservative governor in the country" by the Cato Institute - beating out even South Carolina’s budget hawk Gov. Mark Sanford.

Many Florida conservatives, however, have a very different hero - Marco Rubio. Considered by grass-roots activists to be the "Cuban Newt Gingrich," Mr. Rubio is an idea-man who focuses on free-market solutions to current problems. As a state representative, Mr. Rubio held "Idea Raisers" around Florida where citizens could offer suggestions to make state government more efficient and effective. He took the best of these and published them in a book titled, "100 Innovative Ideas for Florida’s Future."

Many of the ideas dealt with education and school choice, and nearly all were exceptionally conservative. One of the more revolutionary proposals was a Florida version of the fair tax to replace all property taxes with a sales tax increase.

Mr. Crist ran for governor promising to make property taxes, "Drop like a rock," but property taxes have increased for many Floridians. Mr. Rubio wants to end them entirely!

In 2007, Mr. Rubio was elected Florida’s speaker of the House. Leading a strong conservative House majority, he battled a moderate Republican Senate president as well as Mr. Crist. To prepare for this challenge, he surrounded himself with former Jeb Bush advisers.

While Mr. Crist hosted global warming "summits" proposing big-government solutions to a debatable problem, Mr. Rubio wrote op-eds in the Miami Herald advocating free-market solutions to environmental concerns. While he was speaker, all but one of his "100 ideas" passed the House. Ultimately, 57 were signed into law, a remarkable batting average.

While House speaker, Mr. Rubio also backed a Florida version of the taxpayer bill of rights. This proposal would have tied state and local government spending increases to inflation and population growth. Any increases beyond the cap would have required voter approval. Excess revenues would have been credited to the taxpayers. Conservatives were thrilled. Yet, the moderates were terrified.

The Florida TABOR was debated by a special panel empowered to take any legislation and place it directly on the ballot as a proposed amendment to the state constitution. The panel meets only once every 20 years and has 25 members appointed by Mr. Crist, Senate President Ken Pruitt and Mr. Rubio, all Republicans. Many of Mr. Rubio’s appointees had close ties to still-popular Jeb Bush, and they all voted for the proposal. Some made passionate, eloquent arguments in favor of limited government and fiscal responsibility.

In contrast, one of Mr. Crist’s appointees openly advocated creating a state income tax. Seven of Mr. Crist’s 11 appointees voted against the spending cap. In the end, the proposal failed by one vote.

Mindful of significant upcoming budget shortfalls, Mr. Rubio worked hard to eliminate and consolidate state agencies to save money. At the time, this idea was considered extreme. Now that the budget fears have become reality, this suggestion has gained popularity throughout state government.

Mr. Crist gave up one of his most powerful tools as governor by declining to veto a single piece of legislation in last year’s budget. Perhaps the Cato Institute credits Mr. Crist as a fiscal conservative simply for compromising with Mr. Rubio and signing his budgets!

Having been term-limited out of the House, Mr. Rubio’s next goal is clear: The U.S. Senate.

Viewed by many as the heir-apparent to Jeb Bush, Mr. Rubio will be the candidate-of-choice for conservative Floridians. Mr. Rubio was even recently endorsed by Jeb Bush Jr., son of the former governor, as well as social-conservative-favorite Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor. Standing in his way is primary opponent Mr. Crist.

Fortunately, conservatives are beginning to realize they need more leaders like Mr. Rubio. No one can look at Mr. Crist and view him as the future of the party. He’s an "old white guy" and a populist. Mr. Rubio is a stark contrast - young, Hispanic and principled.

Mr. Rubio’s strong Reagan-Republican beliefs are only eclipsed by his ability to electrify a crowd and motivate the base. Handsome, sharply dressed and well spoken, Mr. Rubio earns standing ovations from conservatives and moderates with stories about the struggles of his ancestors in Cuba and his affection for America.

Mr. Crist might speak like a conservative, but Mr. Rubio behaves like one. If anyone questions his credentials, he need only to walk in Mr. Rubio’s office - where a picture of Marco Rubio and Newt Gingrich hangs by his desk.

Jeb Bush recently said that the party needs to stop looking back to Reagan and start looking toward the future. Marco Rubio is that future.

Adam Guillette is executive director of the Conservative Leadership Political Action Committee.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/05/some-sunshine-in-florida/

“On behalf of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly we wish to extend our congratulations to Judge Sonia Sotomayor on her historic nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States, making her the first Hispanic nominated to the court. We also applaud Judge Sotomayor’s many personal and professional accomplishments. Her compelling personal story of overcoming adversity to achieve success through hard work and education are to be celebrated.

“We look forward to a fair and thorough confirmation process; a courtesy some Democrats did not afford to some conservative Hispanic judicial nominees during the Bush administration, including Judge Miguel Estrada. She will face strict scrutiny from both Republicans and Democrats, as is appropriate. We will listen closely to her answers on questions regarding her experience, decisions, jurisprudence, judicial temperament and the role of the Supreme Court. If confirmed by the Senate, we would hope that Judge Sotomayor will keep faith with the Constitution of the United States and impartially interpret the law and that she will avoid judicial activism. Considering the relatively rare opportunities to fill vacancies on the Court, all Americans should carefully observe this process as its implications on our daily lives will be far-reaching and long-lasting.”

Frankly, I’m fed up with this conversation. We need to change it. I’m tired of asking my Democratic friends the same questions only to have them come up with excuse after excuse after excuse (most having to do with George Bush). I’m tired of not getting adequate answers to questions like these:

—Is denying parents the choice of where to send their kids to school when those families live in a failing school district showing compassion for the poor? Especially when we know what a huge factor education is in combating poverty?

—Is funneling tax dollars meant for the education of our children through layers of public school administrators who can make as much as $400,000 a year showing compassion for the poor?

—Is putting the interest of the teacher’s union ahead of those people who can best educate our children—not to mention the children themselves!—showing compassion for the poor?

—Is taking away workers money via pay roll taxes to fund social security with the promise that at best your money will receive a negative 1% rate of return showing compassion for the poor?

—Does increasing taxes and eliminating the deductibility of our charitable donations—as President Obama wants to do—help the poor? Does it feed hungry people or simply the egos of power-hungry public “servants” who need dependent people to keep them in office?

I could go on and on with examples of ways the Democrats claim to help the poor, but only deliver more waste. But the truth is more than pointing out the lunacy of the Democratic positions on “caring for the poor,” we as Republicans need to be pro-active in our talk about how we as a party of small government and individual liberties are about freedom and equality and equal access to the American Dream—for everyone. Everyone.

It is through the private—not public—sphere that the poor are helped best. Big government initiatives only exacerbate poverty and trap American people. We need to keep fighting for lower taxes for American families and businesses—to reward hard work as this country always has!

We need to fight for great schools for our kids—not by bowing to teachers unions, but by standing up for the kids and their parents to get the education each of them (not simply the rich) deserves and needs to thrive.

We need to support and encourage the generosity of the American people who gladly and freely give out of their own pockets to support the many amazing non-profits who change lives—more than government ever could.

I am a Republican and I care about the poor. I know you do too. So let’s stop the Democratic discourse in its track and start showing our friends what caring for the poor really looks like.

By: Ben Smith; Politico.com

May 18, 2009

The Republican Party has scarcely begun to repair a wound that threatens to confine it to minority status: its 2006 collapse among Hispanic voters.

Driven by some Republicans’ sharp attacks on illegal immigration and — as many Hispanics perceived it, immigrants in general — Latino voters fled the GOP en masse in the midterm elections, then turned on John McCain, as well.

He got 31 percent of the Latino vote to the 44 percent that George W. Bush took in 2004, according to exit polls. And it was enough to put much of the West and Southwest out of reach for the Republican Party, to give Florida to the Democrats and to hand Barack Obama the presidency.

Now, as Obama moves to solidify his advantage, Republican leaders are sounding the alarm on what could be the party’s most pressing national challenge.

“It’s absolutely urgent. The demographics are there in black and white,” said former Rep. Henry Bonilla (R-Texas), a casualty of the Hispanic swing to the Democratic Party. “If we don’t figure out a way to open our party up to more Hispanic voters, nothing else we do will matter. Mathematically, we can’t get there from here.”

The math is, in fact, simple. Hispanic voters represented 7.4 percent of the electorate in 2008, up from 6 percent in 2004 and 5.4 percent in 2000. And growing Latino populations in the Midwest and the Carolinas stand to give Democrats an edge in a growing number of swing states.

There are stirrings of a Republican response. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has spoken with Hispanic leaders about creating a new organization to back Latino candidates. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has made minority outreach a priority at the RNC. And some Republicans see an opening if Obama continues to defer action on overhauling immigration.

But so far, there are few visible attempts to reverse the trend.

“They’re making no overt efforts to appeal to Hispanics again,” said University of Virginia political scientist Larry Sabato, whose new book cites the defection of Hispanics from the Republicans as a central cause of Obama’s victory. “They all know it’s a problem. They aren’t talking about it, because they fear the anti-immigration wing of their party.”

“They’re afraid to even mention the word �Hispanic,’” he said.

The Republican Party’s difficulty in clawing back to parity with Hispanic voters is illustrated most clearly in Florida, the heartland of Hispanic Republicanism, where its core is an aging, dwindling Cuban �migr� base.

There, the GOP’s brightest Hispanic star, Sen. Mel Martinez, is retiring after taking a beating from fellow Republicans during the bitter immigration battles of 2005 and 2006. And moderate Republicans are celebrating the potential of their party’s handpicked successor, Gov. Charlie Crist, to broaden Republicans’ appeal beyond its conservative base.

But choosing Crist has meant shoving aside former Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio, the party’s brightest young Hispanic star, and Rubio’s backers have cast the decision as another blow to the GOP’s relationship with Hispanics.

“On one hand, they talk about needing to rebuild bridges with the Hispanic community. But the only thing I’ve seen from them is that the Senate leadership is basically trying to kick Marco Rubio out of the Senate race in Florida. That, to me, sent a very wrong message to Hispanics,” said Ana Navarro, a prominent Miami Republican fundraiser who backs Rubio.

“The only potential new Republican candidate for federal office that we have that is Hispanic and young, they turn their backs on,” she said.

“This is one primary race that we don’t need,” said Danny Vargas, chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly.

A spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Brian Walsh, said that candidate recruitment for 2010 is still under way and noted that Martinez himself had endorsed Crist, in part for his moderate stance on immigration.

But Graham, who said he sympathized with the Senate Republican leadership’s decision to back a candidate with a good chance of winning, also raised concerns about the Florida decision.

“The key for our party is to have Hispanic candidates to carry our banner,” Graham said. “I don’t blame them for trying to make sure we don’t lose another seat in Florida. But at the same time, clearly Mr. Rubio is the type of person who would lead our party in Florida and the country to a new level.”

Graham said he’s considering forming a political action committee, or some other entity, aimed at recruiting strong Hispanic Republican candidates.

“If we can find electable Hispanic candidates, I want to do what I can to create a support system for them, financially and otherwise,” he said.

Steele also has emphasized broadening the Republican Party, elevating the RNC’s “coalitions” division internally.

“We are really trying to do a better job at meeting people in their lives where they are,” said RNC coalitions director Angela Sailor, who noted the Virginia governor’s race will be an early test of the outreach program. “We know we’ve got some mixed messages going on.”

The message, Hispanic Republicans say, is key, and the party faces several challenges.

First, it needs to do away with what polls suggest many Hispanics perceive as raw ethnic animus. A post-election survey of Latino voters by the National Association of Latino Elected Officials found that a mere 8 percent believe that the Republican Party has more concern for the Latino community than do the Democrats.

“You had some very high-profile Republicans that were almost anti-Hispanic, not anti-illegal-immigration,” said Frank Guerra, a Republican media consultant in Texas who worked for the campaigns of George W. Bush. “Republicans need to be much more welcoming, less incendiary and much more thoughtful.”

Beyond that, there’s some debate in Hispanic political circles about whether Hispanics can be won over again on an appeal to more conservative cultural and economic values — part of the Bush campaigns’ successful push — or whether the GOP needs a new message for that group, as well.

“The clear way to come back is the way we always have: We reach out, and we are there in the community,” said Lionel Sosa, a veteran Republican ad man. “We take the vote seriously. We make it a top priority. We know that our Republican, conservative values are in line with the Latino conservative values and that we are all about opportunity, about family and about making sure that the American free enterprise system opens up to take in all the Latino talent.”

Others are demanding a change.

“We can’t keep running ads of white-haired guys eating a taco next to a pi�ata,” said Florida fundraiser Navarro. “We need ads that have substance.”

Navarro pointed to immigration as a central issue on which Republicans must change their tone and could steal a step from Obama, who has not clearly signaled whether he’ll fulfill a campaign promise to press for immigration reform in his first year.

“It’s symbolic: Do you like us, or do you not?” Navarro said. “It presents a remarkable opportunity for Republicans to call Obama’s bluff and say, �OK, what do you have to offer on immigration?’”

Alex Castellanos, who was a consultant to Bush and to Mitt Romney, pointed to another potential wedge.

“We have a hell of an issue on equal opportunity in education and school choice with Hispanic voters, with black voters, with suburban voters, with soccer moms,” he said. “There are two beautiful kids in Washington whose parents chose the best school for them. Michelle and Barack Obama did the right thing — shouldn’t you have equal opportunity to choose the best school for your kids, too?”

The central source of alarm among Hispanic Republicans, however, is the lack of any coherent appeal to Latinos as the midterm, then presidential, elections approach.

“Things have got to be starting now; those conversations have got to be taking place right now,” Guerra said. “They can’t just swoop in and say a few magic words and put a few ads on the air.”

“This is a very dangerous period for the Republican Party because this population is growing so fast, it’s on such a trajectory,” he said. “So if they lose the next cycle, I don’t know how they turn it around in the cycle after that.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22586.html

The votes are in. Republicans want a beer that is smooth, yet complex. Sweet but not fruity. Well-rounded. Now, what to name it?

Attendees at the Cinco de Mayo Fiesta hosted by the Kane County Chapter of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly will get the honors of deciding the moniker for a new Republican beer. The event is from 5:30 to 8 p.m. Tuesday, May 5, at La Quinta de los Reyes restaurant, 36 E. New York St. in Aurora.

The quest for a Republican beer began with the Aurora Republican Women, at a beer and wine-tasting event that asked the question: What beer qualities best embody Republican values? Once the key characteristics were identified, Walter Payton’s Roundhouse brewmaster Mike Rybinski set to work concocting a brew. And RNHA members across Illinois went to work coming up with possible names.

To submit a name for consideration, e-mail Juan SiFuentes of the Kane County Chapter of the RNHA of Illinois at jmsj0122@aol.com by May 1, 2009.

Their suggestions will be announced at the Cinco de Mayo Fiesta, where attendees will vote for the best name.

Once a name is selected, Illinois Young Republicans will be asked to come up with a label design, as well as a slogan.

Walter Payton’s Roundhouse will debut the unique blend at an Aurora Republican Women/Kendall County Republican Women’s event in September, as well as enter it for competition at the Great American Brew Festival in Colorado.

http://wiseforum.wycc.org/professors/professors-2009-season-2/

To see the show, scroll down to Episode 12 - Stem Cell Research...Lifting the Ban - April 5,

• Juany Garza, Aurora Alderman
• Monica Silva, Township Trustee
• Juan SiFuentes, Regional Board of Education

We are very proud of the great and positive campaigns run by all our Republican candidates.