election

OFIR VP calls on citizens to help stop "emergency clause" abuse

OFIR Vice President Richard LaMountain, in a recent letter in the Beaverton Valley Times, urges citizens to sign an initiative petition that would put a measure on the ballot to end the overuse and downright abuse of the "emergency clause". 

Used most frequently to stop citizen's from overturning, via a citizen's veto referendum, legislation they feel is harmful to the state, the "emergency clause" has now become the norm in ramming through controversial legislation.

Learn more at:   nofakeemergencies.com


  Read more about OFIR VP calls on citizens to help stop "emergency clause" abuse

EXCLUSIVE — ANN COULTER WARNS ‘END OF AMERICA’ IF MARCO RUBIO IS NOMINEE

In an exclusive statement to Breitbart News ahead of the New Hampshire primary, conservative columnist and eleven-time New York Times bestselling author Ann Coulter warned that if the donor-class gets its way and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is the Republican nominee, it will be the “end of America.”

“THE END OF AMERICA,” Coulter wrote when asked what she thought a Rubio nominee would mean for the future of the open borders movement.

“Rubio is [John] McCain is sheep’s clothing,” Coulter explained. “He’s the Manchurian candidate. At least with McCain, conservatives knew we were getting an open borders zealot and just made the calculation that he could win. Rubio has half the conservative movement thinking he’s Reagan. I’ve never seen anything like it. He’s McCain without the war record or experience.”

In a 15-page memo documenting Rubio’s “betrayal” of conservatives, living legend and grassroots heroine Phyllis Schlafly seemed to echo Coulter’s assertion. Schlafly’s memo states:

There is no single major distinguishing policy difference between Marco Rubio, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) or Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) . They have the same trade policy, immigration policy and foreign policy. But on immigration most especially — the issue in which all four have invested the most — there is no daylight separating them. The difference, then, is one of persona, not policy. And in the arena of immigration, this translates into a vital difference. The biggest change from McCain-Kennedy, which could not get out of the Senate, and the Gang of Eight — which was nursed along by conservative pundits despite being to the left of Kennedy’s bill — was the presence of Rubio. Rubio created the conditions necessary to produce a considerably more open borders bill: conservatives who were invested in the Rubio Brand provided no early pushback but accepted Kennedy’s old talking points, and Rubio gave red state Democrats the political space necessary to support it. This is how it got 68 votes in the Senate. The stakes of course are raised considerably if Rubio is President or Vice President. Rubio would have a much, much better chance than Obama of getting an open borders bill through Congress… there is likely no person in the United States of America in a better position to enact mass immigration legislation than a President Rubio… Rubio is the candidate of open borders, Obamatrade and mass immigration, making one last attempt to pull off one big con.

In her memo, Schlafly documented Rubio’s history of successfully deceiving conservatives. Schlalfy notes that Rubio, without any seeming compunction, “repeatedly lied” to conservative media and opinion makers who trusted him: “His deceptions about his immigration bill rivaled and exceeded Obama’s claims about disastrous Obamacare.”

Schlafly’s memo continues:

The seminal moment of the media tour occurred early, on Rush Limbaugh’s show. He [Rubio] declared: “If there is not language in this bill that guarantees that nothing else will happen unless these enforcement mechanisms are in place, I won’t support it.” Of course, we know there wasn’t any such language but he voted for it anyway. But this promise — and many others — and the calculated neutralization of conservative media, helped Schumer get 68 votes. But conservatives trusted Rubio. Limbaugh declared: ‘you are meeting everybody honestly.’

Rubio told [Sean] Hannity, on his media tour that: “I don’t think any of that [amnesty] begins until we certify that the border security progress has been real. That a workplace enforcement mechanism is in place. That we are tracking visitors to our country, especially when they exit.” This prompted Hannity to reply: “It’s probably the most thoughtful bill that I have heard heretofore.” At this point, it looked like the biggest mass immigration plan in history would breeze through Congress — all without Rubio saying a word about what was really in the heart of the bill: the largest immigration expansion in American history. To this day, Rubio will not answer if asked about how many green cards his bill gave out.”

Like Coulter, Schlafly has previously warned that if immigration is not stopped: We’re not going to be America anymore.”

If we don’t stop immigration—this torrent of immigrants coming in—we’re not going to be America anymore because most of the people coming in have no experience with limited government. They don’t know what that is. They look to the government to solve all of their problems, and as soon as we have a high majority of people who think that, it’s going to be a different country.

To this day, Rubio continues to support giving citizenship to illegal immigrants, substantially expanding visa issuances for foreign guest workers, increasing refugee resettlement, and surging immigration beyond all known historical precedent. Read more about EXCLUSIVE — ANN COULTER WARNS ‘END OF AMERICA’ IF MARCO RUBIO IS NOMINEE

Oregon Freedom Rally - Saturday, February 6

Alert date: 
January 25, 2016
Alert body: 

If you are interested in seeing Michelle Malkin, Dinesh De'Souza, Todd Starnes and Rep. Greg Walden and hearing what they have to say about the upcoming elections, then you won't want to miss the Oregon Freedom Rally at the Oregon Convention Center, Saturday, February 6 from noon - 3:00pm.

Register on line and get more information here.

OFIR will be hosting a table at the event.  Please stop by and say HELLO!

 

Are Cruz and Rubio natural born citizens? How do we decide who is eligible to be President?

We've been down this road before - eight years ago.  And, here we go again...

What criteria defines eligibility to be President?  Does one need to be born on American soil to parents that are both American citizens?  What about being born to one parent that's an American citizen, but not born in the US?  Or, what about being born to parents that are not American citizens, but being born in the US?

As our country is flooded with more immigrants every year, coming here both legally and illegally, it's past time to define, once and for all, who is eligible to hold our country's highest office. 

The framers of our Constitution had very specific reasons for including in the requirement to be President, that the candidate be "natural born".

Scholars from across the country have weighed in on the motive and intent of "natural born". 

Read more about how your favorite candidate may be disqualified from the Presidential race. Read more about Are Cruz and Rubio natural born citizens? How do we decide who is eligible to be President?

IRLI Files Motions to Intervene and Dismiss in Illegal Alien Lawsuit Seeking Driving Privileges

(Washington, D.C.) – On Wednesday, January 13, 2016, the Immigration Reform Law Institute (“IRLI”), along with Jill Gibson of the Gibson Law Firm, LLC, filed on behalf of their client Oregonians for Immigration Reform (“OFIR”) a motion to intervene in an Oregon federal court lawsuit brought by five admitted illegal aliens and two illegal alien special interest groups (collectively “plaintiffs”). At the same time, IRLI and Ms. Gibson filed on OFIR’s behalf a motion to dismiss the lawsuit as lacking merit. The lawsuit seeks to force the State of Oregon to grant driving privileges to illegal aliens.

Specifically, the suit seeks to overturn as unconstitutional the outcome of the November 2014 general election in Oregon, when, through the Oregon Constitution’s referendum veto process, Oregon voters overwhelmingly rejected (by 66%) a bill passed by the legislature and signed by the governor that would have extended eligibility for driving privileges to unlawfully present persons (OFIR was the driving force behind the referendum veto who collected the requisite number of signatures to get the issue placed on the ballot.). Conspicuously absent from the plaintiffs’ complaint is any mention of the alleged fundamental right denied them. Certainly it is not the right to a driver’s license or interstate travel as every court to address this issue has held that illegal aliens hold no such rights.

States actually have a number of legitimate public purposes that are rationally served by laws that restrict driving privileges to persons lawfully present in the U.S. For instance, states have a legitimate interest in limiting their finite resources to citizens and legal aliens and in not allowing their government machinery to be a facilitator for the concealment of illegal aliens. States also have a legitimate concern that persons subject to immediate or subsequent deportation will not be financially responsible for property damage or personal injury due to automobile accidents. Finally, states have a legitimate interest in promoting national security. Granting driving privileges to illegal aliens harms national security because, unlike legal aliens, illegal aliens have not undergone background checks or face-to-face interviews to determine whether they pose a national security threat.

Dale L. Wilcox, IRLI’s Executive Director commented, “This is a ridiculous case with no merit and is a waste of the court’s time and precious resources. The audacity of trespassers on our sovereign soil to demand taxpayer-funded benefits, like a driver’s license or card, just boggles the mind.” Wilcox continued, “Illegal aliens do not have a right to driving privileges, nor do they have a right to travel freely in the U.S. as federal law makes their very presence in the U.S. unlawful. In short, this case is about sour grapes as the overwhelming majority of Oregonians have spoken and rejected taxpayer-funded giveaways to those who have no legal right to be here.”

A copy of both motions as filed can be seen here:

http://Irli.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/stamped-motion-to-intervene.pdf

http://Irli.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/stamped-motion-to-dismiss.pdf

For additional information, contact:

Dale L. Wilcox
202-232-5590
dwilcox@irli.org Read more about IRLI Files Motions to Intervene and Dismiss in Illegal Alien Lawsuit Seeking Driving Privileges

Shape Immigration System for Years to Come

"The state? I am the state!" — The Sun King, Louis XIV of France

"A traitor is everyone who does not agree with me." — George III of England

"I've got a pen, and I've got a phone." — Barack Obama

I will leave it to others better at punditry to offer the definitive remarks on President Obama's final state of the union speech. I found it to be an unappetizing blend of feel-good, defensiveness, and preacher-like hectoring on living up to our better natures — as defined by him.

Immigration figured prominently: "fix[ing] the broken immigration system" was mentioned right off the bat as one the items yet to be accomplished during his presidency. It also formed a consistent subtext in remarks about immigrants, inclusiveness, not blaming aliens for depressed wages, etc. But there was nothing in the way of detail for anyone trying to follow the direction these efforts to "fix" the system might take.

This may well be because the president has learned the peril of telegraphing his moves in advance, most particularly when they involve the invidious, imperial, and constitutionally dubious business of using "executive action" to achieve what he cannot bully Congress into doing.

But the clues are there.

When interviewed for a cloying article published in New York Magazine, recently appointed Attorney General Loretta Lynch commented that "My goal is to position the department [of Justice] where it will carry on in all of these issues long after myself and my team have moved on."

One suspects that it is not just Lynch, and not just the Department of Justice (DOJ) where this effort is taking place to embed into the organs of government, on a long-term basis, left-leaning progressive policies. How, exactly, might the president and his cabinet accomplish this?

There are two ways, and the first has become well known: using "executive action" to stretch the power of the presidency into arenas constitutionally preserved to other branches of government to achieve what they wish. Even if we were to assume that the next president promptly begins the process of rescinding these actions, there have been so many, and they have been so far-reaching, that it will take years to undo the damage, if indeed it can be undone. The federal bureaucracy is like a battleship; formidable, but slow to change direction precisely because of its awesome size and complexity.

Which brings us to the second way the president and his cabinet can push their agenda long after vacating their chairs. It is well known that presidents, all presidents, regardless of party, eagerly cram the federal judiciary with appointees who share their views, at the district and appellate court levels and — the crown jewel — even the Supreme Court when vacancies appear, which happens rarely because federal judges and justices are given lifetime appointments. While there are only nine Supreme Court justices, there are hundreds of district and appellate court judges, so vacancies appear regularly.

Less well known is how to manipulate the federal bureaucracy, which is so large and so all-pervasive in virtually every sector of society that it has been referred to by some as "the secret state." Others have observed that because of the extraordinary growth of government, our democratic republic has transformed itself into an "administrative state," in which power has accreted into the hands of powerful agencies responsible primarily to the executive branch. The Obama White House has excelled in understanding and manipulating this dynamic.

By taking control over key positions (and by this I do not mean the political appointees themselves, who come and go with each administration), an administration can influence events years into the future. Consider, for instance, DOJ, since we began this discussion with the Lynch interview. In the immigration context, a key component of DOJ is the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). EOIR is composed of both the immigration courts and the appellate tribunal, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Every immigration judge or BIA member is appointed by the attorney general, and they are for all intents and purposes permanently tenured. It would take egregious acts of malfeasance to remove them.

These are the officials who literally define the course of immigration hearings throughout the entire nation. Place into those positions enough individuals who view immigration through the liberal filter of the Obama administration and you have skewed the direction of immigration enforcement for decades to come. Add significant new immigration judge or BIA positions into the mix, approved by Congress due to court workloads and backlogs, and you have even further shaped the future into a funnel of your choosing.

The same can be done at the Department of Homeland Security, again sidestepping the political appointees who come and go with regularity, and pushing down to the next one or two levels of the bureaucracy. By exercising philosophical and political litmus tests for those you choose to appoint as your head of asylum and refugee affairs (who will in turn select the officers who perform the function of approving and denying applicants for asylum), you have effected a near-permanent influence on how those adjudications will be performed. As recent events have shown us, there is a direct and sometimes adverse effect between the quality of those adjudications, and national security and public safety.

As we lurch through this last year of Barack Obama's presidency, some of the changes he effects may be invisible to the naked eye, but make no doubt that Lynch was being neither rhetorical nor hyperbolic in her remarks in asserting that they will be felt for generations to come.
  Read more about Shape Immigration System for Years to Come

Immigrant Youth Confronts Ted Cruz, Asks If He Would Deport Her — Camera Captures GOP Candidate’s Candid Answer

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz did not back down from his stance on immigration Wednesday night, after being confronted by a woman who asked if he would deport her, even though it was her parents who brought her to the United States illegally.

During an event in Storm Lake, Iowa, Wednesday night, Ofelia Valdez, 30, told Cruz that although she was brought to the country illegally by her parents as a teen, she was able to retain residency due to President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or “DREAM act.”

cruzdaca

Image credit: Youtube/screenshot

“As a DACA holder myself, I am worried about whoever comes next in the presidency and what’s gonna happen to people like us?” Valdez said, according to a video taken posted on YouTube by the Democratic National Committee. “I think of myself as a part of this community and, you know, first day in presidency you decide to deport, you know, people like myself — it’s just very difficult to process it.”

While Valdez’ question invoked many emotions, Cruz did not concede that immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. illegally, noting that deportation is a consequence of a “broken immigration system.”

“I would note, if you’re a DACA recipient it means that you were brought here illegally, and violating the laws has consequences,” Cruz told the woman. “And one of the problems with our broken immigration system is that it is creating human tragedies and there are human tragedies when people break the law.”

“Violating the laws has consequences”

The leading Iowa Republican went on to explain to the woman that, if he were to immigrate to a country illegally, he would most likely be deported — so America should be no different.

“If I illegally emigrate to England or Germany or France or China or Mexico, and they catch me, they will deport me,” he said. “That’s what every other country on Earth does, and there’s no reason that America’s laws should have less respect than the laws of every other country on Earth.”

“We should welcome people who come following the laws, but there are consequences for breaking the laws, and that is part of what makes America the nation that we are,” the Texas Republican added.

Cruz, over the last month, has been sharpening his rhetoric on immigration, in an effort to contrast himself and fellow Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio.

Democratic candidates, on the other hand, have been attempting to win over Hispanic voters by advocating for immigration reform that includes a pathway to citizenship for those illegals who are already in the U.S. Former President Bill Clinton, who is now campaigning for his wife Hillary, was even introduced by a “DREAMer” at an event on Thursday. Read more about Immigrant Youth Confronts Ted Cruz, Asks If He Would Deport Her — Camera Captures GOP Candidate’s Candid Answer

OFIR meeting - this Saturday!

Alert date: 
January 22, 2016
Alert body: 

Never before has the issue of immigration – both legal and illegal – been such an important topic in the Presidential election. And, never before has our country been in such jeopardy because of our lax immigration policies.

Join OFIR this Saturday - bring your ideas and we will have an open discussion about what we can and should be doing to take advantage of the momentum in the immigration debate.

We'll also bring you up to date on the status of OFIR's two citizen's initiatives that have been winding their way through the ballot title challenge process all the way to the Supreme Court.

And, for all of you that worked so hard to defeat driver cards for illegal aliens, and are following the lawsuit filed in Federal Court to overturn our big 66% win – we will have the latest news to report to you.

And, if that's not enough – it's time to elect NEW Executive Board officers!

2016 promises to be a watershed year and hopefully a turning point for U.S. and Oregon immigration policies. But, voters must step up.

If you have questions please call OFIR at (503) 435-0141 or send an email to ofir@oregonir.org.

Driving directions to Best Western Mill Creek Inn:
From I-5, take exit 253, which is the intersection of I-5 and State roads 22 and Business 99E. Go West on 22 (Mission St.) a short distance to Hawthorne Ave. (Costco will be on your right.) Turn R on Hawthorne Ave. to the first left, which is Ryan Drive. Turn left on Ryan Drive, by Denny’s Restaurant, and proceed to Mill Creek Inn just beyond.

From downtown Salem: Go east on Mission St. (State Rd. 22). Follow 22 just past the Airport and turn left on Hawthorne Ave. Then take the first left (almost an immediate left) into Ryan Drive; you will see the Inn directly ahead.

Why the U.S. should not take in Muslim immigrants

Islamic turmoil never fails to dominate the headlines, and the West is yet again split on how to deal with the polarizing issue of Islamic immigration. But liberals can no longer afford to be motivated by only political short-term goals expressed with the usual shouting, name-calling and emotion. This issue can really hurt liberal and progressive causes, as well as conservative causes.

Looking at the big picture of relocating populations, the first thing that comes to mind is that it should benefit and not hurt either the Muslim nations that are sending the immigrants out or Western nations that are absorbing the immigrants in.

If by absorbing large numbers of moderate Muslims from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan etc., are we really helping these nations to reform? The answer is no, and this is why.

Western governments are reassuring their alarmed citizens that they are vetting the Muslim immigrants and bringing in only the good and peace-loving Muslims, which is questionable...

But let us assume that Western governments this time will succeed in vetting Muslim immigrants. The important questions we should also ask ourselves are:

1- If we keep taking in the so-called “moderate Muslims” from the Middle East and leave the terrorists and bad guys, who will be left to fight ISIS, Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, Boko Haram or whatever the future name might be for the next Islamic terror group?...

2- Who will lead the badly needed reform movement in Islam in the heart of the Middle East if most or all moderates move to the West?

3- Are we giving the wrong message to the Muslim world and showing them that we are serious about calling for an Islamic reformation...

It is also good to ask, before we allow them in, if large numbers of Muslims immigrant will benefit the West?

That should not be difficult to answer, since we have 1400 years of history of Islamic conquest and immigration around the world. The one thing we must learn is that Muslims do not assimilate and are forbidden from doing that by Sharia. The political and social structure and culture of every country that absorbs large number of Muslims was challenged and changed....

I have no doubt that many immigrants to the US from the Middle East, of whom I am one, both Muslim and Christian, have assimilated and positively contributed to America.

But unfortunately, it is a fact that a good portion of Muslim immigrants to the West have jihadist goals...

The West must also ask itself: what is the West rescuing Muslim refugees from? The honest answer would be from Islam itself...

Political Islam is in control of the Muslim world today and is expanding. There are about 49 to 50 majority Muslim countries around the world taking about 1/3 of the habitable land on Earth....

Western leadership and media are sympathetic to rescuing Muslims, but are obviously ignoring the fears of their own citizens...

Last night, I was told by a Middle East source that ISIS is in fact encouraging and intentionally herding desperate refugees merged with ISIS infiltrators towards its Northwest borders...

What the West does not understand is that Muslim governments are dependent on and in need of getting rid of their ever-expanding population to the West...

What the West needs to know is that by constantly absorbing the moderate Muslim population that wants reform, the West is not doing the Islamic reformation movement a favor, but just the opposite; it is delaying any hope for a reformation when the West releases the pressure on Muslim governments by absorbing those who want change.

If the West is serious about helping bring about an Islamic reformation in the heart of Islam, it should do just the opposite of what its policy has been for the last decades. It should stop immigration from Muslim countries...

This post includes excerpts from the full article.

  Read more about Why the U.S. should not take in Muslim immigrants

Frosty Wooldridge explains how America is losing her ethos and why Trump is rising

America Losing Her Ethos: Why Trump Rises

By Frosty Wooldridge
December 15, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

With every third world immigrant entering the United States of America, our country loses its ethos. It loses its culture. It loses its language and it loses its religion. Ultimately, it loses its identity. It loses its way in the world. Final breakdown: sociological disintegration...

...Before that Immigration Reform Act, whether black, white or brown—Americans identified with being “Americans”...

Additionally, minority groups such as Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Indians will become major voting blocks to change the “character” of America into a multicultural polyglot of minorities...

Who drives this deformation of America? Every Congress since 1965 and every president [that] failed to secure America’s borders...

Read the complete article. Read more about Frosty Wooldridge explains how America is losing her ethos and why Trump is rising

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - election