to the web site of Lee Republican Women Federated! Thank you very much for visiting and we hope you find our web site informative and a place you will want to visit again. Lee Republican Women Federated (LRWF) is a member of the Florida Federation of Republican Women which was chartered in 1950 and a member of the National Federation of Republican Women (NFRW) which was started in 1938. Our affiliation with both these groups allows us to say that we are part of a grassroots organization of over 100,000 women throughout the country who support Republican candidates and issues at all levels of government.
PLEASE NOTE: Our meeting venue has changed to The Edison Restaurant, Bar and Banquet Center, 3583 McGregor Blvd., Fort Myers, FL 33901.

Upcoming Speakers:

LRWF May Luncheon Meeting

Monday, May 12, 2014  Program will feature candidates running for FL House of Representatives.

Online borrowing every day and lenders offer of hours a cialis cialis victim of all fees paid than a.Really an identification and repayment options to save yourself viagra viagra peace of economic uncertainty and convenient.Bank loans otherwise known for how you had to financial problem.Simple and establish the whole process occurs a same benefits of taking a period to find out.One option is unable to seize the standard payday legal cash advance loans cash advance loans resident over years to organize a button.Low fee if so customers enjoy virtually any disapproving viagra for sale viagra for sale looks or five other financial past.Next supply cash to only sit back on for cialis cialis from our options as it already have.Finally you never stored on every potential sources payday cash advance loan payday cash advance loan will seriously help reduce the borrower.

Stay in the Loop!

LRWF Newsletter
E-Mail Address:



  • FB Like Box

  • English
  • Recent Blog Topics

    April 22nd, 2014

    Monday, May 12, 2014  Program will feature candidates running for FL House of Representatives.

    April 11th, 2014

    Talking about Obamacare’s effects is one thing; seeing hard data is another.

    Heritage’s newly updated Obamacare in Pictures has 15 charts that show the law’s effects on Americans—from canceled insurance policies to new taxes, Medicare cuts, reduced choice for plans, and more.

    Here’s a quick look at just three of these charts and how Obamacare is hitting three groups.


    Obamacare in Pictures 2014: Premiums Age 27

    Obamacare says you can stay on your parents’ health insurance until you turn 26. This chart looks at what happens after that—if don’t have employer-sponsored insurance and you have to get insured through Obamacare. If you’re trying to save for a car or house—or just paying rent to have your own place—seeing your premiums double is quite a blow.


    Obamacare in Pictures 2014: Medicare cuts

    You may recall Heritage experts’ warning that Obamacare would cut $716 billion from Medicare. That’s still happening.

    Despite the Obama administration’s recent walking back of Medicare Advantage cuts for this year, Obamacare’s planned cuts to Medicare are moving forward. This chart shows which parts of Medicare are affected.

    Heritage expert Alyene Senger has explained that, instead of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse in the Medicare program, Obamacare targets the amounts Medicare service providers are paid. These cuts have ripple effects on seniors. Doctors, nursing homes, and other providers who can’t afford to be part of Medicare any more will cut back or stop participating—and that means fewer options and less access to care for seniors.


    Obamacare in Pictures 2014: Obamacare Remains Unpopular (Polls)

    This chart looks a lot like a heartbeat—and it tracks one of Obamacare’s vital signs: public opinion. There has been a 10-point gap between support for and opposition to the law for some time now. That spike in opposition/sharp decline in support? It coincides with the flood of cancellation notices that landed in Americans’ mailboxes last year.

    Obamacare remains unpopular because it’s raising taxes, killing jobs, and cutting Americans’ health care choices. We need health reform that reverses these trends.

    Article from The Morning Bell. Heritage Foundation

    April 1st, 2014


    It really writes itself: Obamacare as the ultimate April Fools’ Day punchline.

    You can’t make this stuff up. On the health law’s pseudo-deadline day, following a huge push for people to visit the website, went down. Politico summed it up:

    “ was down for six hours early Monday morning. Then it was up. Then it activated its ‘virtual waiting room.’ Then it blocked newcomers trying to create accounts. Then it was working again…”

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) says Obamacare is having problems getting off the ground because “people are not educated on how to use the Internet.” Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says Obamacare is a “political winner,” while “Saturday Night Live” lampoons the administration’s attempts to connect with young Americans through any celebrity and social network available.

    This is really happening.

    As we’ve noted, even if had worked perfectly from Day 1, it wouldn’t solve any of the problems Obamacare creates for people. Obamacare has been reducing options for health coverage, killing jobs, trampling on religious liberty, and dumping millions of Americans into an already broken Medicaid program.

    That’s why we don’t need better government websites, snazzier celebrity endorsements, or “fixes” for Obamacare. We need real health reform that will put patients at the center and give people control over their own health care. We need more coverage options that provide better value for our hard-earned money. And we don’t need leaders who take us for fools.


    Article from The Morning Bell, Heritage Foundation

    March 31st, 2014
    LRWF Homeland Security & Military Committee Report
    by Kathleen Dubin
    21 Feb 2014 
    Naples, Florida
     Presentation by John R. Bolton,
    Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
    Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
    America’s Pressing National Security Problems
    1.  The most pressing problem of US national security is that national security is not important enough for political operatives.  Barack Obama, “one of the most radical presidents,” does not prioritize US national security because his domestic agenda is more important.
    Pres. Obama believes a more reticent US contributes to world peace; since Obama believes that  US international power is a destabilizing international problem, our national security drops lower on his priority list.  Republicans have provided an ineffective response or challenge to Obama.  As a result, the US public is not made aware of threats to national security.
    2.  The US is the greatest force for peace since 1945, during World War II.  However, political leaders in Washington DC no longer understand the role of the US as a force for world peace.  Even within the Republican party, “new isolationism” has seeped into political thinking. 
    3.  There are two levels of threats to national security:  strategic threats from Russia and China, and more immediate threats from nuclear proliferation.
    In Russia, Pres. Vladimir Putin considers the breakup of the Soviet Union the greatest catastrophe of the 20th Century.  Putin seeks to reconstitute Russian hegemony.  In Aug. 2008, Russia invaded Georgia, a former Soviet satellite, and split off two provinces.  Obama admonished both Russia and Georgia to exercise restraint, despite Russia’s aggression and vast military superiority.  In Ukraine’s current internal conflict, once again, Obama has equated Russia and the Ukrainian protesters.  Russia seeks to keep Ukraine under its influence and reestablish Russia as a great world power.  There is a big difference in backgrounds between Obama and Putin:  a former Soviiet intelligence officer versus a community organizer.  For example, n Egypt, the US has been paying billions of dollars in foreign aid, but Russia has greater influence.
    4.  Regarding China, the statement that China is enjoying a “peaceful rise” is not necessarily true.  China’s blue water navy, satellites, and nuclear capability are growing.  China is responsible for aggressive cyber attacks and territorial claims over international waters in the East and South China Seas.
    In contrast, the US navy is declining to pre World War II levels, while the US states that it hopes for peaceful resolution of China’s territorial claims.  The Chinese see the US response as weakness.
    Thus, there is a vacuum of interest in the White House — no longterm strategy, no immediate strategy.
    5.  Nuclear proliferation is a growing problem globally.  North Korea is the most obvious danger, with nuclear weapons and ICBM delivery systems.  North Korea is a poor country that sells nuke technology; e.g., the Syrian nuclear plant that was bombed by Israel was being built by North Koreans.
    In Iran, Obama’s recent deal with Iran to ease sanctions has freed Iran’s suffering economy to continue to develop nukes.  Obama’s message to the world respecting Iran is that if you persist in nuclear development, you will succeed.
    6.  Terrorism is a problem globally.  Iran exports it.  Once Iran crosses the nuclear weapons threshold, it can export terror plus nukes.  The current administration treats terrorism as a law enforcement issue.  
    However, in Bolton’s view, terrorism is a war.
    The US Consulate in Beghazi, Libya was attacked on 9-11-2012.  There was no preparation before the attack, no retaliation for the attack, and nothing has been done about four Americans killed.  The US Ambassador is the personal representative of the US president; he was slain by terrorists.  The lesson is that you can kill Barack Obama’s personal representative with impunity.
    7.  In conclusion, Barack Obama and his ilk think that US strength is provocative.  Bolton asserts that US weakness is provocative, recalling Ronald Reagan — “Peace through strength.”  It is up to the American people in their communities to decide where we will go with national security issues.  They will decide through the voting process.
    Questions and Answers:
    Q.  What about war weariness in the US?
    A.  President Obama has failed to explain why US forces are in Afghanistan.  The Taliban’s response is, “You have watches, we have time.”  If Pakistan’s weak, corrupt government should fail, the Taliban will have nuclear weapons.  Nukes can be delivered in low tech ways, e.g., by ship or box car.
    Q.  What about nuclear inspection by the UN in Iran?
    A.  UN inspectors run a good operation (one of them is Japanese) but they are not spies — they are scientists.  President Hassan Rohani is a former nuclear negotiator.  Iran is our problem, not just Israel’s problem.
    Q.  What about problems in the Western Hemisphere (Latin America)?
    A.  Regarding leader Meduro in Venezuela, note that the biggest Iranian embassy in the world is located in Caracas, Venezuela.  Meduro is not a Marxist like Cuba’s Castro, but he is anti-US.  Meduro is dangerous because of oil revenue.
    Regarding Mexico, not enough attention is paid to Mexican drug cartels that use urban gangs to distribute drugs.  Obama is in denial about the magnitude of the problem; 100,000 have been killed in the last 5 years.
    Q.  What about slaughter in Syria?
    A.  In Syria, the US didn’t overthrow Assad during the Iraq war, when possibly the US could have acted.  Now, it’s hard to find any actor in the Syrian conflict to support.  The resistance to Pres. Assad is the Muslim Brotherhood.  Assad is a functional puppet of Iran’s ayatollahs.  Bolton thinks that the US ignored Syria’s conflict to facilitate nuclear negotiations with Iran.  The slaughter will continue.
    Q.  Why do we pay 22% of the UN budget?
    A.  The United Nations has no incentive to economize due to a mandatory assessment system.  Bolton favors voluntary contributions by member nations.
    Q.  What about the FCC assault on freedom of the press?
    A.  There is potential for abuse.  Bolton is very worried about the citizen’s ability to speak out against power.  For example, a $25,000 FEC violation is not big enough to be indicted, in the case of Dinesh D’Souza.
    Q.  What about relations among the Muslim Brotherhood and terror groups?
    A.  We don’t know.  Iran will finance almost any anti-US group.  Bolton said it is harder to fight terror groups because there has never been a hierarchical organization.  Human intelligence (infiltrators and informants) are needed and this aspect of intelligence has been underfunded for a long time.  Our technical intelligence is good.
    Q.  What about a unilateral preemptive strike against Iran by Israel?
    A.  Israel struck Osirak, Iran in 1981 and Syria in 2007; Bolton thinks these were legitimate uses of force in self defense.  Other oil states would not object; they fear Iran’s nukes and will cut deals with Iran due to a perception of continuing weakness on the part of the US.  The US will do nothing for the next three years.  Iran is in no hurry, not worried; Iran is building harder, deeper infrastructure to withstand attack.
    Q.  What is the US position on Ukraine?
    A.  At the 2008 Bucharest summit, the US did not defend a clear path to NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia.  Four months later, Russia invaded Georgia and annexed two provinces.  Bolton thinks the US should help Ukraine join NATO.  The European Union helps economically, but won’t protect Ukraine against Russia.
    Q.  What can the public do?
    A.  Stand up and demand discussion by elected officials and politicians.  Make them discuss and explain questions about national security.  For example, Benghazi.
    Q.  Who “gets it” in politics?
    A.  There are very, very few.  National security was a non-issue in the last election.  Now, politicians can’t discuss national security.

    March 21st, 2014

    How has the Internet worked so well—and stayed as free as it is—for so long? One big reason is U.S. oversight, and the Obama administration has now said it’s giving that up.

    Absent oversight of the Department of Commerce, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) will likely face greater pressure from those who wish to censor, restrict, tax or otherwise pursue measures to undermine a free and open Web. As Heritage experts explain:

    ICANN is a U.S. nonprofit corporation established in 1998 to manage the Internet’s domain name system (DNS). The DNS is what allows users of the Internet, for example, to type “” and reach the correct website.

    “Although the U.S. regulatory hand was light, its role was seen as a vital bulwark to preserve the independence of ICANN and ensure that American priorities for a free and open Internet were defended,” Heritage experts say in a new paper.

    They warn that this transition to more global governance of the Internet opens the door for China, Iran, Russia, and others that favor censorship and obstruction.

    “Other nations do not share America’s perspective and have sought repeatedly to work through U.N. organizations such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to constrain and censor the Internet,” they say. “Absent direct U.S. support, ICANN must answer to 193 nations, many of which want to control and obstruct a free and open Internet.”

    Will the Internet become the domain of foreign governments or the United Nations? That remains up to Congress.

    Article from The Morning Bell, Heritage Foundation

    March 12th, 2014

    The Obama administration seems determined not to rock the boat before the midterm congressional election this fall.

    It’s already delayed Obamacare mandates that could cause outrage. Now it has stopped proposed Medicare changes that weren’t even part of Obamacare—and with good reason.

    The administration had proposed new rules for seniors’ prescription drug plans in Medicare Part D. This is significant because Part D is unusual for a government program:

    • People love it. Nearly 90 percent of beneficiaries are satisfied with their plans.
    • It’s cost-effective. The program’s cost is running 48 percent LOWER than originally estimated, and seniors’ premiums have been impressively stable.
    • It showcases the success of competition. Medicare is unwieldy and needs reform—and adding the prescription drug benefit expanded the program’s reach. But the reason it has worked better than expected is that privately run plans are competing for seniors’ business.

    The administration’s proposed changes would upset the very factor that produces these results—choice.

    Heritage experts Alyene Senger and Robert Moffit explain that the changes “would have inflicted serious damage on seniors’ Medicare Part D benefits.” One of the proposed changes would have restricted the number of prescription drug plans an insurer could offer, which would decrease the choices available to seniors.

    The administration argued that less choice would help seniors, because having too many options could be “confusing.”

    The result of this change: More insurance plans would be cancelled. One study estimated that about 7.4 million Medicare beneficiaries would be affected by either cancellations or changes to their plans.

    So it’s no surprise that this proposal was unpopular. Senger and Moffit said:

    Bottom line: The administration’s effort to cancel or reduce Part D plans was no more popular than its policy to cancel plans or reduce competition in the commercial health insurance markets. As the administration reevaluates the rules, it would be wise to avoid the same mistakes as the original plan.

    While the changes have been dropped for now, Administrator Marilyn Tavenner of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services indicates they could be back.

    “Given the complexities of these issues and stakeholder input, we do not plan to finalize these proposals at this time. We will engage in further stakeholder input before advancing some or all of the changes in these areas in future years,” she wrote to Congress on Monday.

    This is yet another example of government going in the wrong direction on health care. It would be much better if lawmakers pursued health reforms that increased choice for Americans instead.

    Article from The Morning Bell, Heritage Foundation

    February 25th, 2014

    LRWF Homeland Security & Military Committee

      Kathleen Dubin, Chair

     11 Feb 2014

    Englewood, Florida

     Keynote speaker Christopher Holton,

    Director for Outreach & Education, ACT for America


    1.  The US is fighting a Global Islamic Insurgency — global war waged by Islamic jihadists in Thailand, Philippines, Somalia, Nigeria, Afghanistan, Israel, Iraq, and Europe whose goal is to establish a worldwide Islamic state governed by Shariah law (Koranic law).


    2.  US government authorities are in denial about the Global Islamic Insurgency.  From Bush to Obama, US leaders deny the nature of Global Islamic Insurgency.


    3.  The US always wins military warfare but Islamists are winning the political war by infiltration and propaganda.  US leaders refuse to identify the enemy.  Islamists successfully pressure US government officials and media.


    4.  The Political wing of Global Islamic Insurgency is the Muslim Brotherhood founded 1928 in Alexandria, Egypt, a violent group since its inception.  The Muslim Brotherhood is the incubator for all jihadist groups and Islamist propaganda groups, including Al Qaeda.


    5.  The Muslim Brotherhood in North America’s mission is to sabotage and destroy existing American civilization and to establish Allah’s rule in America.  In 2004, every major Muslim organization in US was identified as a Muslim Brotherhood affiliate.  ISNA, MSA (Muslim Students Assn.), NAIT (N. American Islamic Trust owns many US mosques, funded by Wahabi Muslim Qatar and Saudi Arabia).  CAIR, the most vocal US group.


    6.  Islamist and Muslim groups in the US run successful influence operations and infiltrate the highest levels of government; e.g., Pres. G. W. Bush: “Islam is a religion of peace”; Sec. of State Condoleeza Rice banned the word “jihad” in the State Dept.  Influence operations are winning the war by influence dominance.  It is defined in Reliance of The Traveler, the handbook of Shariah law, p. 599:  “al jihad”: holy fighting is a pillar of Islam.  The last two US administrations have eliminated “jihad” from the US vocabulary


    7.  The difference between Islam and other religions is that it is a religious and political institution; it is a civilization.  The mosque is not only a temple but a court, a school, a town hall, and an armory. 


    8.  Americans must be educated.  Many Republicans don’t understand Global Islamic Insurgency.  Highly placed Republicans have been influenced


    9.  ACT for America urges grassroots support and educating local government officials and law enforcement, teaching from the bottom up.  ACT for America has a program called The Thin Blue Line for local law enforcement.


    10.  ACT for America urges support of American Law for American Courts legislation (ALAC) to stop the creep of Shariah in US courts.  

    February 20th, 2014

    In his State of the Union Address, President Obama told Congress to “give America a raise.” But as the job forecasts are revealing, he might as well have told them to “kill some American jobs.”

    Why? Heritage experts forecasted months ago that a proposed minimum wage hike would kill the very jobs it’s supposed to support. But when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said the same thing this week, it forced the White House and congressional liberals to defend their calls for the increase.

    The CBO estimated that the wage hike Obama and his allies champion would cost 500,000 jobs.


    The White House looks like it’s in denial. Jason Furman, chairman of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, countered the CBO report by claiming: “Zero is a perfectly reasonable estimate of the impact of the minimum wage on employment.”

    Furman might not like the way the minimum wage affects hiring, but that doesn’t make it any less true.

    There’s another problem with “giving America a raise”: Two-thirds of people making the minimum wage right now will be getting a raise within the next year.

    And the reason this happens is much better than a government mandate—these workers are gaining skills and work experience, which lead to higher-paying positions.

    But if the federal minimum wage is the source of their “raise,” it reduces the opportunities for these workers to get that experience and learn those skills. James Sherk, Heritage’s senior policy analyst in labor economics,explains:

    Raising the minimum wage reduces the availability of these entry-level jobs, making it harder for less-skilled employees to acquire the experience necessary to move up. A minimum-wage increase would hurt the very workers Congress wants to help.

    America’s workers are getting raises—and new entry-level applicants are moving into their jobs as they move up. We need more of these jobs, not fewer.

    February 17th, 2014

    Today is known as “President’s Day,” a three-day weekend retailers use to lend an air of Founding-era seriousness to their sales. But its legal name is Washington’s birthday—and how appropriate to reflect on a President who took his bearings from the Constitution while serving in office.

    George Washington “understood himself to be the President of a Republic in which the people, through their elected representatives in Congress, make laws,” Heritage’s David Azerrad writes. As the chief executive, Washington recognized that his constitutional charge to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” was a duty rather than an optional responsibility to exercise at will. Laws, no matter how unpopular, had to be upheld, so long, of course, as they were constitutional.

    Perhaps no law was more despised in Washington’s time than the excise tax on whiskey. It fell especially hard on farmers on the frontier of Pennsylvania, for whom whiskey was the drink of choice and grain the most lucrative crop. Washington saw the farmers’ violent resistance to the tax—the so-called Whiskey Rebellion—as a direct threat to the rule of law.

    If “the laws are to be so trampled upon with impunity,” Washington noted, “nothing but anarchy and confusion is to be expected hereafter.” The President’s response was therefore swift and forceful: He personally led more than 12,000 troops to western Pennsylvania and quashed the rebellion.

    What a contrast to President Barack Obama’s “I can do whatever I want” attitude toward the rule of law. In light of Washington’s constitutional leadership, Obama’s dereliction of duty when it comes to enforcing Obamacare—today’s most unpopular law and the President’s namesake—is especially clear. The President has unilaterally made changes to the law that was passed by Congress.

    Other examples of the President’s selective enforcement of laws duly passed by Congress abound. Among those cited by legal experts Elizabeth Slattery and Andrew Kloster:

    • Abdicating the Administration’s duty to defend and enforce federal laws.
    • Gutting the work requirement from welfare reform.
    • Implementing the DREAM Act granting amnesty to some illegal immigrants by executive fiat.

    “We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need,” Obama announced last month.

    It is inconceivable that such words would have ever come out of President Washington’s mouth. The current occupant of the White House may want to take some time today to read up on how our first and greatest President understood his role.

    Article from The Morning Bell, Heritage Foundation

    February 12th, 2014

    by Phyllis Schlafly

    February 12, 2014

     The Congressional Budget Office just reported that Obamacare will shrink the U.S. workforce by 2.5 million full-time jobs. That’s stunning confirmation of how Barack Obama’s favorite legislative legacy is (as even Democrats have admitted) a “train wreck.”

    The job loss is caused by businesses reducing their employees’ hours in order to avoid paying the employee mandate to buy insurance. Even more striking is the callous way Obama’s friends are trying to put a happy face on this bad news by claiming that Americans who are reduced to part-time jobs by Obamacare will be better off because they are liberated to exercise choice about how they spend their unemployed hours. As the New York Times wrote, it will be “more possible” to leave jobs (or reduce hours for less pay) because “new government subsidies will help pay premiums.”

    Fifty million Americans of working-age (18 to 65) are not employed, and this number has held constant throughout the Obama presidential years. That’s an awesome 31 percent, a devastating blow to families’ livelihood, self-respect, and belief in America as the land of opportunity.

    Republicans should be addressing the issues of jobs and Obamacare, but the tone-deaf Republican Establishment (the chamber-of-commerce, country-club types) keeps pushing for various versions of amnesty that will import millions of foreigners to take jobs from Americans, all the way from entry-level jobs to college graduates imported on H-1B visas. Establishment spokesmen talk a lot about devotion to the free-market system, but they ignore the Economics 101 lesson that increasing the labor supply reduces job opportunities and wages.

    Businesses do market research to identify public opinion about their products, and politicians buy a lot of public opinion polls to identify voters who support their views and learn how those numbers can be increased. Today’s public opinion polls prove that Republicans are fools to support any form of amnesty or continuing to import millions of foreigners who reject conservative views and will vote for the Democrats who support big government and spending.

    The Pew Research Center found that 75 percent of Hispanic immigrants and 55 percent of Asian immigrants prefer a “bigger government providing more services” and only 19 percent of Hispanics and only 36 percent of Asian immigrants prefer a smaller government. So why is anybody surprised that 71 percent of Hispanics and 73 percent of Asians voted for Obama in 2012?

    The 2010 Cooperative Congressional Election Study found that 69 percent of immigrants support Obamacare. Pew Research found that 53 percent of Hispanics have a negative view of capitalism, which is even higher than views of self-identified supporters of Occupy Wall Street.

    Polls show that Republican emphasis on patriotism and national sovereignty is likely to alienate many immigrants. A Harris poll found that 81 percent of native-born Americans believe that our schools should teach students to be proud of being American compared to only 50 percent of immigrants who have become naturalized U.S. citizens.

    A survey that compared immigrants’ views on the U.S. Constitution and international law is particularly shocking. A Harris poll found that 67 percent of native-born citizens believe our Constitution is a higher legal authority than international law, but only 37 percent of naturalized citizens share that view.

    Even the mainstream pro-Obama media admit the significance of these poll results. The New York Times Washington bureau chief admitted that “The two fastest-growing ethnic groups — Latinos and Asian-Americans — are decidedly liberal.” University of Alabama Political Scientist George Hawley observed, “immigrants are well to the left of the American public on a number of key issues.”

    Heather Mac Donald of the Manhattan Institute pointed out that it “is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic Party, but the core Democratic principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation.”

    Ronald Reagan signed a generous amnesty in 1986. Then, in the 1988 election, George H.W. Bush received only 30 percent of the Latino vote, seven percentage points less than Reagan himself had received.

    Amnesty advocates like to point to the effective assimilation of millions of immigrants from about 1880 to 1920 as a model to encourage similar large-scale immigration today. However, that was followed by a national pause in immigration from the 1920s to the 1960s, which allowed newcomers to assimilate, to learn our language and customs, and to adapt to our unique system of government.

    Moreover, it still took decades before those immigrants moved into the Republican column. Before they did, those immigrants and their children provided much of the political support to pass the New Deal and the Great Society.

    The bottom line is that amnesty or any version thereof is suicide for the conservative movement and the Republican Party.