The GOP & The Hispanic Vote 

If you read only one item in today's report, I hope this is it. 

The conventional wisdom among Beltway elites is that Mitt Romney lost the 2012 election in part because Barack Obama won a landslide among Hispanic voters. So, as the logic goes, the GOP must now surrender on immigration reform and border security in order to attract more Hispanic votes to remain competitive in future elections. 

That is one reason why many well-meaning conservatives in Congress are rushing headlong to embrace legislation that has liberals salivating. But is it really necessary? 

I know conservatives and Christians that are on all sides of the immigration reform debate. But if anyone has deluded themselves into accepting the view that we must accept amnesty, please read this analysis by Byron York. He demolishes the myths surrounding the role of the Hispanic vote in the 2012 election.

According to York's analysis, Romney would have needed 73% of the Hispanic vote last year in order to win the White House. The GOP's best showing ever was George W. Bush's 44% in 2004. Yet, a minor improvement of just four points among white voters would have been enough to defeat Obama.

Whether it is border security or values, the conservative message is not the problem. The GOP is learning all the wrong lessons from the 2012 elections and is suppressing its own base support. 

Boston Bombers Planned July 4th Jihad 

Just about every day we learn more about the Boston Marathon bombers' motivation. Here is the latest revelation: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev told the FBI that they had originally planned on becoming suicide bombers targeting Boston's popular July 4th celebrations along the Charles River. 

They clearly wanted to hurt America and they wanted to die martyrs' deaths, taking with them as many innocent men, women and children as they could. Clearly, that is not the mindset of your typical political protestor. 

So why did the Boston Marathon become their ultimate target? It was simply a matter of timing. According to Tsarnaev, they finished building their bombs ahead of schedule. 

But law enforcement officials are skeptical, according to the Washington Post, citing "the complexity of the bombs." Wait a minute! We were constantly told in the days following the attack that the bombs were "crude" and "unsophisticated." If the bombs were in fact complex devices, it suggests the brothers had help or that Tamerlan's trip to Russia was more than just a family reunion. 

But one official lamented, "Maybe we will never know. This is the story he is telling us." Why won't we know? Because he's not "telling us" anything anymore. 

The Post explains that Tsarnaev was questioned for 16 hours after his arrest without having been read his Miranda rights, which is legal under the "public safety exemption" if law enforcement is concerned about potential imminent threats. But "Officials have said that he has remained silent since he was arraigned and represented by lawyers." 

Investigating the Investigation? 

The Obama Administration's attempt to cover-up the truth of what happened during the Benghazi attacks may be unraveling. Fox News reported yesterday that the State Department's inspector general has launched an investigation of the State Department's own Benghazi investigation. 

That effort, known as the Accountability Review Board, was another "blue ribbon panel" led by Admiral Mike Mullen, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former U.N. Ambassador Thomas Pickering. So what exactly is the inspector general concerned about? As Fox reports, the board "failed to interview key witnesses who had asked to provide their accounts of the Benghazi attacks to the panel." 

The Obama Administration is clearly hiding something. The stonewalling must stop! This is just one more reason why Congress must form a select committee to get to the bottom of this scandal. 

Obama Picks "Billionaire Bankster" 

Barack Obama has spent much of his administration and his political campaigns exploiting class warfare, railing against the rich and mocking Mitt Romney for his offshore accounts. That is why more than a few eyebrows were raised yesterday by his choice of Penny Pritzker to be Commerce Secretary. 

Pritzker is a billionaire and a major funder of left-wing candidates and causes. She was the finance chairman of Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. But she also has a "history of controversial businesses practices," as the New York Post noted, including the "aggressive repackaging of subprime loans." She ran a bank that went bankrupt. And the IRS sued the Pritzker family for exploiting offshore tax havens, eventually seizing $9.5 million. 

Obama had considered Pritzker for Commerce Secretary after winning the 2008 election. But her background is so questionable that she withdrew her name from consideration. Now he is apparently prepared to fight for her. 

Obama Still Tilting At Windmills 

During his press conference this week, Barack Obama once again vowed to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Among the reasons he offered for wanting to shut it down, Obama said, "It is a recruitment tool for extremists."

The left is so used to being unserious when it comes to national security that it is virtually unable to think logically about the issue. My friend Cliff May at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and others have pointed out the contradictions of Obama's national security views. 

For example, Barack Obama has killed more radical Islamists with drone strikes than any president in our history. During last year's campaign, the White House intentionally leaked the news that Obama personally carries the list of potential targets he wants killed and personally orders the attacks, even when he knows it will result in civilian casualties. 

I support these drone attacks. I'd much rather use them than have more American soldiers risk losing their legs or lives to bombs fighting jihadists on the ground. But using the president's logic, if having detained prisoners at Gitmo is a recruiting tool, then certainly killing innocent civilians with drones must be too. 

But the inconsistency gets even bigger. The people still at Gitmo are the worst of the worst. The largest percentage of the inmates are Yemenis. We have not returned them because the Yemeni government refuses to assure us that they will not release them. Many Gitmo detainees have been released only to show up again on battlefields trying to kill our troops. 

Think about this: Obama is arguing that it would be acceptable from a human rights stand point to call in drone strikes that put innocent lives at risk, but it is somehow inhumane to capture the enemy, feed him three meals a day and give him copies of the Koran in Cuba. Only the left can make that argument with a straight face!