NOTES FROM STEVE KING:
15 July, 2013
Dear Friend,
It appears some of my Republican colleagues in the House have drunk the Kool-Aid—they're determined to pass the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform – or what people outside the DC beltway more accurately call amnesty.
Friend, I want you to know I'm leading the charge against any and all forms of amnesty. But it's not easy. I'm being attacked from pro-amnesty radicals on the left—which is no surprise—but also some misguided folks within my own Party and I urgently need your help to fight back.
I'm fighting a two-pronged attack. I'm working as hard as I can to kill this pro-amnesty immigration bill in the House. And frankly it's an uphill battle. But while I'm fighting in Washington, DC to defeat this, the liberal left is attacking me at home.
I need to know today you have my back.
I need your immediate help today for three specific reasons:
1. The Senate legislation relies upon promises from the Executive Branch that will secure our borders. Since no administration in the past 40 years or more has effectively secured the border, it is reckless and foolish to believe border security will happen through the Obama administration when it has failed us time and time again.
2. Since I don't have the left's playbook in my possession, I can only predict their strategy based on previous actions. Last election cycle the radical left spent a combined total of $7 million against me with negative and dishonest ads. I can only assume they are mounting a similar attack.
3. Only about half of the House Republican Caucus understands this, but we are on suicide watch over the Republican Party. How House Republicans decide to move forward on illegal immigration will make or break the Party.
The reality is Congress does not have an obligation to the 11 million to 33 million people who are here illegally. We have an obligation to the 300+ million LEGAL Americans to enact legislation which preserves individual liberty, fosters economic prosperity, and keeps the homeland safe.
The bottom line is any legislation that legalizes the millions of people who are here illegally will result in citizenship and ultimately will destroy the Rule of Law. This is a matter of preserving the integrity of the Constitution and every law this Congress has passed in the past two centuries—and we must come out on top. We are either a sovereign nation with secure borders or we're not. I know what I believe and I am writing because I think you share my desire to preserve and protect our Republic.
I can't emphasize enough how critical your support is today. Everything we believe—everything America was founded upon—is on the line.
Thank you in advance for your support.
Sincerely,
Steve King
Member of Congress, Iowa
P.S. If the reasons I laid out above aren't enough to bring you to action to stop this comprehensive immigration disaster, consider this: The Senate's immigration plan would help elites who want cheap labor, Democratic power brokers, and those who hire illegal labor. To say it would hurt Republicans is an understatement! Two out of every three new citizens would be Democrats. Thanks—Steve
#####################
14 June, 2013
'It's not the card you want to play but it's an awfully good one to have in your hand," says Iowa representative Steve King about his plan to force a "special conference" for the House GOP to discuss immigration.
Under the rules of the House Republican caucus, any rank-and-file member can force such a closed-door session with 50 signatures. It happens to be the same procedure one would use to force an unscheduled leadership election. Even though that's not the only purpose for such a meeting, forcing Speaker John Boehner to convene one would be a bold move by King and his supporters.
King already has the necessary signatures to force the special conference and is hosting a meeting at his office tomorrow with allies to discuss whether, and when, to convene it.
"A lot of us who will defend the rule of law and took an oath to uphold the Constitution are watching this agenda be maneuvered around us. It's time we had a family discussion," he explains.
King, who recently decided against a Senate bid, stands apart in his passion for fighting the proposed immigration legislation.
At the recent closed-door debate hosted by the Republican Study Committee, Representative Raul Labrador asked for a show of hands.
"Who wants less legal immigration?" Labrador asked, according to the notes of a person who was in the room.
Of the roughly 100 conservative Republicans in the room, only King raised his hand.
Labrador then asked who wants "more legal and less illegal immigration?," and dozens of hands rose.
"I had people come up to me afterwards and say 'I agree with you 100 percent' . . . there are a lot of them that are afraid to step up and say so. And I knew that it was a maneuver that was, I'll say, designed to marginalize. I knew that before I raised my hand," King explains, "But I also knew if I didn't raise my hand, he would say 'it's unanimous. Nobody wants less legal immigration.'"
"I will tell you most of the people in that room do not know what the level of legal immigration is," King says; he wonders how can they have a well-informed opinion of the issue.
Since November 2012's disappointing election results came in, King has been fighting the conventional wisdom among D.C. Republicans that passing a comprehensive immigration bill is crucial to the GOP's political survival.
When President Obama came before House Republicans in March, King recalls, he told his political opponents, "You will never win another national election again until you pass comprehensive immigration reform. Republicans, I am trying to help you." The Iowan retorts, "I don't know how any Republicans can think it's a good idea to take that kind of political help from the president. He's not trying to help us."
In fact, King believes the bill will create a permanent Democratic majority, something he implored his colleagues to heed at the RSC meeting.
"What they are seeking to do is convert the Hispanic vote into a monolithic voting bloc, very similar to that of African Americans. They know how to do it, they succeeded with the African-American vote."
King is frank about the difficulties of going up against the charismatic Senator Marco Rubio, whose conservative credentials, heading into the immigration debate, were stellar.
"I don't want to be in a position where I'm personally critical of Marco Rubio. I think too much of him in all other categories," King says. "At the panel that was before the RSC last week, if that had been the four House Democrats and the four Senate Democrats advancing that bill, a whole lot of those people . . . would disagree completely with the same language they seem to be nodding their head at today."
Despite the disadvantages, King is making significant progress in organizing House conservatives against a bill. Case in point is the vote last week to stop the Department of Homeland Security from unilaterally granting citizenship to illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children.
King is clear that the special conference is not a bid to unseat Boehner. "It's not my plan or strategy to engage in any kind of maneuvering on leadership. I think it's pretty clear from my actions that I don't have a desire to go that way," he says.
But with Boehner reportedly looking to pass an immigration vehicle before the August recess, the impending "family discussion" may give him pause.
— Jonathan Strong is a political reporter at National Review Online.
15 July, 2013
Dear Friend,
It appears some of my Republican colleagues in the House have drunk the Kool-Aid—they're determined to pass the Senate's comprehensive immigration reform – or what people outside the DC beltway more accurately call amnesty.
Friend, I want you to know I'm leading the charge against any and all forms of amnesty. But it's not easy. I'm being attacked from pro-amnesty radicals on the left—which is no surprise—but also some misguided folks within my own Party and I urgently need your help to fight back.
I'm fighting a two-pronged attack. I'm working as hard as I can to kill this pro-amnesty immigration bill in the House. And frankly it's an uphill battle. But while I'm fighting in Washington, DC to defeat this, the liberal left is attacking me at home.
I need to know today you have my back.
I need your immediate help today for three specific reasons:
1. The Senate legislation relies upon promises from the Executive Branch that will secure our borders. Since no administration in the past 40 years or more has effectively secured the border, it is reckless and foolish to believe border security will happen through the Obama administration when it has failed us time and time again.
2. Since I don't have the left's playbook in my possession, I can only predict their strategy based on previous actions. Last election cycle the radical left spent a combined total of $7 million against me with negative and dishonest ads. I can only assume they are mounting a similar attack.
3. Only about half of the House Republican Caucus understands this, but we are on suicide watch over the Republican Party. How House Republicans decide to move forward on illegal immigration will make or break the Party.
The reality is Congress does not have an obligation to the 11 million to 33 million people who are here illegally. We have an obligation to the 300+ million LEGAL Americans to enact legislation which preserves individual liberty, fosters economic prosperity, and keeps the homeland safe.
The bottom line is any legislation that legalizes the millions of people who are here illegally will result in citizenship and ultimately will destroy the Rule of Law. This is a matter of preserving the integrity of the Constitution and every law this Congress has passed in the past two centuries—and we must come out on top. We are either a sovereign nation with secure borders or we're not. I know what I believe and I am writing because I think you share my desire to preserve and protect our Republic.
I can't emphasize enough how critical your support is today. Everything we believe—everything America was founded upon—is on the line.
Thank you in advance for your support.
Sincerely,
Steve King
Member of Congress, Iowa
P.S. If the reasons I laid out above aren't enough to bring you to action to stop this comprehensive immigration disaster, consider this: The Senate's immigration plan would help elites who want cheap labor, Democratic power brokers, and those who hire illegal labor. To say it would hurt Republicans is an understatement! Two out of every three new citizens would be Democrats. Thanks—Steve
#####################
14 June, 2013
'It's not the card you want to play but it's an awfully good one to have in your hand," says Iowa representative Steve King about his plan to force a "special conference" for the House GOP to discuss immigration.
Under the rules of the House Republican caucus, any rank-and-file member can force such a closed-door session with 50 signatures. It happens to be the same procedure one would use to force an unscheduled leadership election. Even though that's not the only purpose for such a meeting, forcing Speaker John Boehner to convene one would be a bold move by King and his supporters.
King already has the necessary signatures to force the special conference and is hosting a meeting at his office tomorrow with allies to discuss whether, and when, to convene it.
"A lot of us who will defend the rule of law and took an oath to uphold the Constitution are watching this agenda be maneuvered around us. It's time we had a family discussion," he explains.
King, who recently decided against a Senate bid, stands apart in his passion for fighting the proposed immigration legislation.
At the recent closed-door debate hosted by the Republican Study Committee, Representative Raul Labrador asked for a show of hands.
"Who wants less legal immigration?" Labrador asked, according to the notes of a person who was in the room.
Of the roughly 100 conservative Republicans in the room, only King raised his hand.
Labrador then asked who wants "more legal and less illegal immigration?," and dozens of hands rose.
"I had people come up to me afterwards and say 'I agree with you 100 percent' . . . there are a lot of them that are afraid to step up and say so. And I knew that it was a maneuver that was, I'll say, designed to marginalize. I knew that before I raised my hand," King explains, "But I also knew if I didn't raise my hand, he would say 'it's unanimous. Nobody wants less legal immigration.'"
"I will tell you most of the people in that room do not know what the level of legal immigration is," King says; he wonders how can they have a well-informed opinion of the issue.
Since November 2012's disappointing election results came in, King has been fighting the conventional wisdom among D.C. Republicans that passing a comprehensive immigration bill is crucial to the GOP's political survival.
When President Obama came before House Republicans in March, King recalls, he told his political opponents, "You will never win another national election again until you pass comprehensive immigration reform. Republicans, I am trying to help you." The Iowan retorts, "I don't know how any Republicans can think it's a good idea to take that kind of political help from the president. He's not trying to help us."
In fact, King believes the bill will create a permanent Democratic majority, something he implored his colleagues to heed at the RSC meeting.
"What they are seeking to do is convert the Hispanic vote into a monolithic voting bloc, very similar to that of African Americans. They know how to do it, they succeeded with the African-American vote."
King is frank about the difficulties of going up against the charismatic Senator Marco Rubio, whose conservative credentials, heading into the immigration debate, were stellar.
"I don't want to be in a position where I'm personally critical of Marco Rubio. I think too much of him in all other categories," King says. "At the panel that was before the RSC last week, if that had been the four House Democrats and the four Senate Democrats advancing that bill, a whole lot of those people . . . would disagree completely with the same language they seem to be nodding their head at today."
Despite the disadvantages, King is making significant progress in organizing House conservatives against a bill. Case in point is the vote last week to stop the Department of Homeland Security from unilaterally granting citizenship to illegal immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children.
King is clear that the special conference is not a bid to unseat Boehner. "It's not my plan or strategy to engage in any kind of maneuvering on leadership. I think it's pretty clear from my actions that I don't have a desire to go that way," he says.
But with Boehner reportedly looking to pass an immigration vehicle before the August recess, the impending "family discussion" may give him pause.
— Jonathan Strong is a political reporter at National Review Online.
Below are the letters received in response to a 27 August letter with the following text:
Dear ______________:
Congress will soon be in the process of voting on a continuing resolution for purposes of providing continued spending authority.
I urge you to vote for a resolution that fully funds all government operations at nominal levels but provides no funding for activities related to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Spending for this purpose is poorly supported by the american people. Any continuing resolution funding the ACA should be a separate bill, separately debated and voted on, so the people can be fully informed of the positions of all their elected US Senators and Representatives.
__________
NOTE: Identical letter text was sent to Sen. Grassley, Sen. Harkin, and Rep. King. Harkin has not responded as of 19 Nov.
Dear ______________:
Congress will soon be in the process of voting on a continuing resolution for purposes of providing continued spending authority.
I urge you to vote for a resolution that fully funds all government operations at nominal levels but provides no funding for activities related to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Spending for this purpose is poorly supported by the american people. Any continuing resolution funding the ACA should be a separate bill, separately debated and voted on, so the people can be fully informed of the positions of all their elected US Senators and Representatives.
__________
NOTE: Identical letter text was sent to Sen. Grassley, Sen. Harkin, and Rep. King. Harkin has not responded as of 19 Nov.
kingaca.pdf | |
File Size: | 172 kb |
File Type: |
grassleyacaltr1.pdf | |
File Size: | 166 kb |
File Type: |
grassleyacaltr2.pdf | |
File Size: | 91 kb |
File Type: |
Below are letters received from Harkin and Grassley in response to my email message as follows:
"I urge you to vote no on the comprehensive immigration bill coming up this afternoon."
[NOTE: This message was sent to the Senators on Monday 24 June before the vote on the critical Hoven-Corchoran amendment.]
Please compare and contrast these responses!
Harkin.pdf | |
File Size: | 84 kb |
File Type: |
Grassley.pdf | |
File Size: | 138 kb |
File Type: |
Below are letters received from Senators Harkin and Grassley in response to my inquiry about the weaponized drone program and the targeting of US citizens without due process. Read for yourself and compare.
Harkin.pdf | |
File Size: | 85 kb |
File Type: |
Grassley.pdf | |
File Size: | 134 kb |
File Type: |
Below are several letters from congress on topics as indicated in the titles:
Grassley_on_Obamacare.pdf | |
File Size: | 182 kb |
File Type: |
Grassley_on_ACA.pdf | |
File Size: | 96 kb |
File Type: |
Grassley_on_IRS_delays.pdf | |
File Size: | 150 kb |
File Type: |
McCain_on_Benghazi.pdf | |
File Size: | 62 kb |
File Type: |
Harkin_on_privacy.pdf | |
File Size: | 50 kb |
File Type: |
Wenstrup_on_Syria.pdf | |
File Size: | 103 kb |
File Type: |
Grassley_on_Syria.pdf | |
File Size: | 106 kb |
File Type: |
Below is a letter of 25 Jan 2013 from Rep. Braley (Iowa 1st Congressional District) to Clinton about the Benghazi attack. As you can see, Braley is pressing Clinton mercilessly for complete disclosure of everything about the attack.
Braley_Benghazi.pdf | |
File Size: | 354 kb |
File Type: |