Thread: CPAC Betrays America on Immigration by Tom Tancredo

add - The opinions expressed are entirely those of the author.

BORDER BATTLELINES
TOM TANCREDO

CPAC betrays America on immigration

Posted: February 20, 2010
1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

It's that time of year again. Pundits, pollsters and lobbyists are gathering in the nation's capital to tell conservative activists how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC, is meeting in Washington, D.C., this weekend to hear well-known political leaders like Dick Cheney and Newt Gingrich talk about prospects for electoral victories in 2010. This is an annual event dating back to 1974, and I have been there as a speaker myself a few times. But CPAC 2010 is different.

This year, the Beltway leaders of conservatism are racing hard to catch up with a parade they did not launch and cannot control. Across America, grass-roots patriots and anti-Obama protests have changed the political landscape in ways conservatism's entrenched Beltway Politburo did not anticipate.

The small Beltway Politburo that runs CPAC is worried. They are witnessing a growing conservative populism that owes its strength to ordinary people who have "had enough," not to policy wonks and lobbyists who must work at the margins of political compromise. The new citizen activists take their moral bearing from the Constitution, not from pollsters and focus groups.

Concerned about the flow of illegal aliens over our border? Don't miss Tom Tancredo's book, "In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security"

Thus, it was predictable that conservatism's leading beltway Mafioso chose the week of CPAC to release the newly minted Mount Vernon Statement, a consensus document aimed at updating the landmark Sharon Statement of 1960. The justly famous Sharon Statement, midwifed by William F. Buckley Jr., was an eloquent synthesis of principles and policy imperatives, similar in tone to Barry Goldwater's 1959 classic, "Conscience of a Conservative." In contrast, the Mount Vernon Statement calls for a reaffirmation of America's founding principles, but it is largely silent about policy solutions to our most pressing problems.

There is also a telling irony in the political circumstances that gave rise to the two manifestos 50 years apart. The 1960 manifesto was bold and fresh, but the 2010 manifesto is timid and deliberately ambiguous on some key issues. Why is that? Has political success dulled conservatism's cutting edge, or is the Mount Vernon Statement a failed attempt to find consensus where there is none?

On both domestic policy and national security, the 1960 Sharon Statement threw down the gauntlet. It was vigorously anti-communist when "détente" was all the rage. In its unapologetic stridency, it foretold the rise of Ronald Reagan, a leader who was unafraid to articulate both sound principles and radical policies.

Now, 50 years later, conservatism can draw 4,000 activists to Washington, D.C., in the middle of winter to celebrate successes and debate policy strategies. But instead of building on the consensus that already exists on key issues, the Beltway Politburo strives to demonstrate their superior cleverness by undermining the grass-roots consensus. On two key issues, CPAC offered detours and blind alleys, not leadership.

At CPAC, activists come together to talk, debate, argue, plot and "build new coalitions." They celebrate famous victories and analyze painful defeats. But in 2010, there is a new urgency at CPAC. America is in peril as serious as any time in our history. By almost any measure, the nation is in worse shape than 50 years ago when modern conservatism was born. The question that haunts the halls of CPAC 2010 is: Are conservatism's new leaders up to this challenge.

The greatest threat in 1960 was international – how to deal with the threat of Soviet communism and the "missile gap" – and anti-communism was the unifying force among conservatives. Today, by contrast, the question of how to respond to the threat from radical Islam got barely a mention in CPAC forums. Indeed, as columnist Michelle Malkin has pointed out, some of CPAC's leaders have voiced support for Obama's insane policy of treating captured terrorists like ordinary criminals with full Miranda rights. This may be popular on K Street, but it does not sit well on Main Street.

The best example of how CPAC 2010 has failed the conservative movement is CPAC's attempt to redefine (sabotage would be a more accurate term) the potent issues of illegal immigration and border security. Whereas grass-roots conservatives and millions of 912 patriots – along with 80 percent of the American people – understand the need for border security as a precondition for immigration reform, CPAC board member Grover Norquist is busy launching a new project in support of the Obama administration's plan to grant another amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens. Neither border control nor immigration enforcement was included as a topic for any of the CPAC general sessions.

It is exceedingly odd that at the very moment everyone else is declaring the Democrats' amnesty plan dead in the water, CPAC leader Grover Norquist and a handful of Republican lobbyists are conspiring to resuscitate it. It's as though the pilots of an airplane headed to Houston decided instead to take the aircraft to Havana. But instead of a hijacking, conservatism's Beltway Politburo calls it a strategic partnership with Latino activists.

What all this tells us is that it is not only the Republican Party that is suffering an identity crisis. So is conservatism.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=125647

Tom Tancredo is a former five-term congressman from Colorado and 2008 candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. He currently serves as chairman of the Rocky Mountain Foundation and co-chairman of TeamAmericaPac. Tancredo is the author of "In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security."

Originally Posted by Texas2step

TOM TANCREDO

Neither border control nor immigration enforcement was included as a topic for any of the CPAC general sessions.

I agree that Grover Norquist's pro-amnesty shilling is hurting conservatives, but I did find these sessions scheduled for CPAC. I did not attend, but these sessions (not sure if they were "general" sessions) may have discussed enforcement etc.:

Saving Freedom from Obama’s Immigration Plan
Marriott Ballroom
Sen. David Vitter (LA)
Linda Chavez, Center for Equal Opportunity (INVITED)
Robert Rector, The Heritage Foundation
Dino Teppara, Indian American Republican Council
Moderator: John Fund, Wall Street Journal

Immigration: The Defining Issue for the Republican Party
Wilson BC
Sponsored by American Council for Immigration Reform (1.5 hours)
Robert E. Rector, Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation
Mark Krikorian, Executive Director, Center for Immigration Studies
James G. Gimpel, Professor of Government, University of Maryland

Moderator: Michael McLaughlin, American Council for Immigration Reform
Open to all CPAC attendees

Thank you, Populist, for that information. Surely both Sen. David Vitter and Mark Krikorian represent the "gold standard' in intelligent, informed, and entirely non-racist opposition to increased legal and to all illegal immigration to the U.S.

It was just a few seconds I saw on Fox when they switched to the live camera at CPAC and some woman was talking about Hispanics being perpetually poor. Then they switched to a film clip of someone else. But it was around 1 p.m. today, and I did not even get the woman's name.
Will go see if I can find video, but it will probably take about 100 years to track that snippet down.

Republicans have always supported immigration controls, secure borders and enforcement of immigration laws. There will be no change. Any Republican candidate touting amnesty or forming alliances with "Latino activists" which is a code word for pro-illegal immigration activism and amnesty are not real Republicans and should be kicked to the curb.

Fox News is really cracking down on behalf of the Globalists too.

They have all these people advising the Tea Party supporters to "ditch the anti-immigration element" and make the big issue FREE MARKETS FREE MARKETS!

The GOP insider sellouts that work with the Democrats on the North American Community are trying to take over the Tea Parties and make them pro Amnesty and Pro NAFTA on crack!

W

Originally Posted by Texas2step

Thank you, Populist, for that information. Surely both Sen. David Vitt and Mark Krikorian represent the "gold standard' in intelligent, informed, and entirely non-racist opposition to increased legal and to all illegal immigration to the U.S.

You're welcome Texas2step.

Robert Rector likely stressed the very high cost of "comprehensive reform" amnesty, as he authored the Heritage Foundation study about how the 2007 amnesty bill would have cost American taxpayers a net of $2.6 trillion.

And I'm glad Professor Gimpel participated as well, as he likely stressed the negative political implications of amnesty and high immigration levels for the GOP. Here are some of his writings:

http://www.cis.org/taxonomy/term/93

Thank you Populist for a brief look at the program. I will read some of Professor Gimpel's commentary.

FOX Business hosts often mention the "anti-immigration" part of the Tea Party movement. I have heard it several times the past few days. Liz, a contributor to Neil Cavuto's show, has said this over and over again.

How naive not to take into account the billions of dollars in spending that the United States' tax payers spend on illegal immigration. How naive not to take into account the billions of dollars that leave the nation in remittances.

Psalm 139:14

If the tea party does not understand that they need to address one of the major underlying problems of higher taxes, like the mass of people coming into this country (legally and illegally) because it is a political hot potato, means to me that they may be caving to the powers that be.

Originally Posted by vortex

If the tea party does not understand that they need to address one of the major underlying problems of higher taxes, like the mass of people coming into this country (legally and illegally) because it is a political hot potato, means to me that they may be caving to the powers that be.

I have the gut feeling that many rank and file Tea Partiers understand the negative fiscal and tax implications of illegal immigration, even if much of their main beef is with Obama's (and Bush's) reckless overall spending.

Those high-immigration, pro-amnesty "conservatives" or Republicans trying to co-opt the Tea Party movement (e.g., Dick Armey), well, this is a different story.