Thread: ALIPAC Withdraws Support for Lou Dobbs

ALIPAC Withdraws Support for Lou Dobbs

December 3, 2009

CONTACT: Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)
www.alipac.us WilliamG@alpac.us
Tel: (919) 787-6009 Toll Free: (866) 703-0864

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC is withdrawing support for Lou Dobbs after years, including the suspension of websites calling on Dobbs to run for President due to the perceived change in Mr. Dobbs's stances on immigration issues.

"While Mr. Dobbs claims his positions have not changed, however, that is not the perception of many of our mutual supporters," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "His recent comments on Telemundo and his national radio show supporting some kind of path to citizenship for illegal immigrants is inconsistent with positions of ALIPAC and the views of most American citizens."

A recent Pulse Opinion Research, LLC, September, 2009 poll found 78% of likely voters were opposed to legalizing the status of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. with only 19% supporting it. Eighty-eight percent of African-Americans were opposed to legalization. These findings are consistent with numerous other certified polls presented in ALIPAC's "Polls and Surveys" section at alipac.us

Dobbs created shock waves last week when news broke about his pro-Amnesty comments on Telemundo that appear to be a departure from his prior support for existing immigration laws. ALIPAC circulated the video of the entire Lou Dobbs interview on Telemundo to over 30,000 national supporters.

"Our internal polling shows that over 70% of our supporters are upset with Mr. Dobbs's comments on Telemundo is support of legalizing illegal aliens. ALIPAC opposes any path to citizenship form of Amnesty for illegal aliens currently in the US," said Gheen. "Therefore we are dropping our support for Lou Dobbs and suspending the fan sites we have created."

ALIPAC was the first national organization to call on Dobbs to consider a run for President of the United States. Gheen discussed these issues with Dobbs on his national radio show on Monday, Nov. 30.

ALIPAC is suspending the operations of two Dobbs fan websites. The Facebook "Draft Lou Dobbs for President or US Senate" and the fan site www.LouDobbsForPresident.org will suspend operations and have a notice of ALIPAC's discontinued support placed upon them. The site www.LouDobbsForPresident.org was launched back in early 2008 and has generated pledges of over $660,000 in contributions if Lou Dobbs were to run for office.

"We've received so many demands from prior Dobbs supporters to remove their pledges of support that we have to suspend all operations on the Dobbs fan sites," said Gheen. "Lou Dobbs has deeply offended his base of supporters and ALIPAC is going to remain loyal to those Americans who support our existing immigration laws instead of Amnesty disguised as reform."

###

It is sad that it has to come to this. But there is no other choice for us. Lou Dobbs has changed his position.

I have wiped a tear from my eye and moved on.

There will always be those who fall by the way side in this fight, however if we CONTINUE to stand united we will remain UNSTOPPABLE!!!!

Keep up the GREAT work William!! Thank you!!!

It is such a breath of fresh air to see/hear someone stand firm on his positions!!!

added to the homepage


http://www.alipac.us/article4744.html

Sometime you gotta do what you gotta do, unfortunately.
We need to get more new people involved to counterbalance
their perceived victory.

I'm so sad about Lou. He's the reason I joined this movement. I never, ever, ever thought I'd see this day.

I immediately withdrew my support, both physically and monetarily. We may never find a presidential candidate to stand strong enough against illegals to suit us, but with groups such as ALIPAC & NumbersUSA we can keep the pressure on congress until we build grassroots consensus on deportation. I personally feel deportation efforts would be an excellent use of the stimulus funds.......

Well, I guess if Lou has political asperations, and the way things are now, he probably flip-flopped to increase his chances of winning a position. But this country wasn't founded or built on flip-flopping. It was founded and built by people who stood their ground. Accept for a couple instances.

Remember Jay's Treaty? Right after the War for Independence.

Jay Treaty
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Jay Treaty, also known as Jay's Treaty, The British Treaty and the Treaty of London of 1794,[1] was a treaty between the United States and Great Britain which averted war[2], solved many issues left over from the American Revolution[3], and opened ten years of largely peaceful trade in the midst of the French Revolutionary Wars.[4]It was hotly contested by Jeffersonians but was ratified by Congress and became a central issue in the formation of the First Party System. The treaty was signed in November 1794, but was not proclaimed to be in effect until February 29, 1796.


The terms were designed primarily by Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton with strong support from President George Washington and chief negotiator John Jay. The treaty increased trade and averted war, which pleased both sides. Jay obtained the primary American requirements: British withdrawal from the posts that they occupied in the Northwest Territory of the United States, which they had promised to abandon in 1783. Wartime debts and the US-Canada boundary were sent to arbitration — one of the first major uses of arbitration in diplomatic history. The Americans were also granted some rights to trade with British possessions in India and the Caribbean in exchange for American limits on the export of cotton.

The treaty averted possible war but immediately became one of the central issues in domestic American politics, with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison leading the opposition. They feared that closer economic ties with Britain would strengthen the Federalists. The treaty encouraged trade between the two nations for a decade, but it broke down after 1803. The main parts of the treaty expired after 10 years. Efforts to agree on a replacement treaty failed in 1806; the U.S. rejected the Monroe-Pinkney Treaty as tensions escalated to the War of 1812.[5]

Contents [hide]
1 Issues
2 Treaty terms
2.1 Native American rights
3 Approval and dissent
4 Evaluations
5 Notes
6 See also
7 References
8 External links


[edit] Issues
From the British perspective, the war with France made it imperative to improve relations with the U.S. to keep the U.S. from falling into the French orbit. From the American viewpoint, the most pressing foreign policy issues were normalizing trade relations with Britain, America's leading trading partner, and resolving issues left over from the American Revolution. As one observer explained, the British government was "well disposed to America… They have made their arrangements upon a plan that comprehends the neutrality of the United States, and are anxious that it should be preserved."[6]

In 1793–94, the British Navy captured hundreds of American neutral ships and the British in Canada were supporting Indian tribes fighting the U.S. in Ohio (territory the British gave the U.S. in 1783). Congress voted an embargo for two months. Hamilton and the Federalists favored Britain over France and sought to normalize relations. Hamilton designed the plan and Washington sent Chief Justice Jay to London to negotiate a comprehensive treaty. The American government had a number of issues it wanted dealt with:

Britain was still occupying a number of forts on U.S. territory in the Great Lakes region.
American merchants wanted compensation for 250 ships confiscated during 1793–94.
Southerners wanted compensation for the slaves the British had taken from them during the Revolution.
Merchants wanted the British West Indies reopened to American trade.
The boundary with Canada was too vague and needed delineation.
The British were believed to be aggravating Native-American attacks on settlers in the West.
[edit] Treaty terms
Both sides achieved many objectives. The British agreed to vacate the six western forts by June 1796 (which was done), and to compensate American ship owners (the British paid $10,345,200 by 1802).[7] In return, the United States gave most favored nation trading status to Britain, and acquiesced in British anti-French maritime policies. The United States guaranteed the payment of private prewar debts owed by Americans to British merchants that could not be collected in U.S. courts (the U.S. paid £600,000 in 1802). Two joint boundary commissions were set up to establish correctly the boundary line in the northeast (it agreed on the Saint Croix River) and in the northwest (this one never met).[8] Jay, a strong opponent of slavery, dropped the issue of compensation for slaves, which angered Southern slaveowners. Jay was unsuccessful in negotiating an end to the impressment of American sailors into the Royal Navy, which later became one of the key issues that led to the War of 1812.

[edit] Native American rights
Article III of the Jay Treaty declared the right of "Indians" ("Native Americans" in current parlance) as well as of US and Canadian citizens to trade and travel between the United States and Canada, which was then a territory of Great Britain.[9] American Consular Services in Canada states that as a result of the Jay Treaty "Native Indians born in Canada are therefore entitled to enter the United States for the purpose of employment, study, retirement, investing, and/or immigration".[10]

[edit] Approval and dissent
Washington submitted the treaty to the United States Senate for ratification in June 1795. The treaty was unpopular at first, and gave the Jeffersonians a platform to rally new supporters. As Paul Varg explains, "The Jay Treaty was a reasonable give-and-take compromise of the issues between the two countries. What rendered it so assailable was not the compromise spelled out between the two nations but the fact that it was not a compromise between the two political parties at home. Embodying the views of the Federalists, the treaty repudiated the foreign policy of the opposing party."[11] The Jeffersonians were opposed to Britain, preferring support for France in the French Revolutionary Wars, and arguing the treaty with France from 1778 was still in effect. They looked at Britain as the center of aristocracy and the main threat to America's republican values. Therefore they denounced Hamilton and Jay (and even Washington) as monarchists who betrayed American values. They organized public protests against Jay and his treaty; one of their rallying cries went: Damn John Jay! Damn everyone that won't damn John Jay! Damn every one that won't put lights in his window and sit up all night damning John Jay![12]

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison strongly opposed the Treaty — they favored France — thus setting up foreign policy as a major dispute between the new Federalist and Republican parties; it became a core issue of the First Party System. Furthermore they had a counterproposal designed to establish "a direct system of commercial hostility with Great Britain," even at the risk of war. The Jeffersonians raised public opinion to fever pitch by accusing the British of promoting Indian atrocities on the frontier.[13] The fierce debates over the Treaty in 1794–95, according to one historian, "transformed the Republican movement into a Republican party." To fight the treaty the Jeffersonians "established coordination in activity between leaders at the capital, and leaders, actives and popular followings in the states, counties and towns."[14] Jay's failure to obtain compensation for "lost" slaves galvanized the South into opposition.[15]

The Federalists fought back and Congress rejected the Jefferson-Madison counterproposals. Washington threw his enormous prestige behind the treaty, and Federalists rallied public opinion more effectively than the opponents.[16] Hamilton convinced President Washington it was the best treaty that could be expected. Washington, who insisted the U.S. must remain neutral in the European wars then raging, signed it and his prestige carried the day in Congress. The Federalists made a strong, systematic appeal to public opinion which rallied their own supporters and shifted the debate. Washington and Hamilton outmaneuvered Madison as opposition leader.[17] Hamilton, now out of the government, was the dominant figure who helped secure its approval by the needed 2/3 vote. The Senate passed a resolution in June, advising the president to amend the treaty by suspending the 12th article, which concerned trade between the U.S. and the West Indies. In mid-August, the Senate ratified the treaty 20-10, with the condition that the treaty contain specific language regarding the June 24 resolution. President Washington signed it in late August. The Treaty was proclaimed in effect on February 29, 1796 and in the series of close votes after another bitter fight the House funded the Treaty in April 1796.[18]

James Madison, then a member of the House of Representatives, argued that the treaty could not, under Constitutional law, take effect without approval of the House, since it regulated commerce and exercised legislative powers granted to Congress. The debate which followed was an early example of originalism, in which Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," ironically, lost.[19]

After defeat in Congress, the Jeffersonian Republicans fought and lost the 1796 presidential election on the issue.

When Jefferson became president in 1801 he did not repudiate the treaty, and instead kept the Federalist minister, Rufus King, in London to negotiate a successful resolution to outstanding issues regarding cash payments and boundaries. The amity broke down finally in 1805, as relations turned hostile, leading to the War of 1812. In 1815, the Jay treaty was replaced by the Treaty of Ghent.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Treaty

John Jay got in a lot of hot water over this. There were people hanging straw effigies of him and setting them on fire calling for him to be tried and hung as a trator.