Tag Archives: Latinos Ready to Vote

Fake Conservative From Texas Exposed!

Lawyers 1

By Isabel Matos

“Opening Arguments”

Members of the Jury of Voters and Readers of this Blog:

In our last session, you were presented with a preview of Linda Vega’s actions at the Republican Convention in Texas last summer, and other publicly displayed posts on her wall and website, which included what we shall consider the opening arguments for this case: 12 reasons for exposing the so-called Republican.

“On the Stand”

Today you will see The Real Linda Vega Interview conducted on January 2nd, 2014, with an interpretation of the story she tells in her own words.  It is up to you to decide whether she intends to deceive unsuspecting voters or not based on the information provided, and/or determine if further activism is needed to expose Ms. Vega if she has indeed, beyond a reasonable doubt, registered to be a Republican so that she can push an agenda that is not Republican.

Interjected between her replies are additions, corrections and more accurate interpretations of the information she provides. Texts and images that appear in the clip, and posts made by Ms. Vega in longer threads with dialogues were are all pertinent to the case, but were trimmed because of a time constraint of 15:30 on the clip, so be sure to use the pause feature to extend reading time as needed.

“What you will have seen in The Real Linda Vega Interview”

Introduction. Linda Vega is a Texas native. She was raised by the Rio Grande Valley. She attended the University of Texas in Austin, and got a law degree from George Washington Law School. She “came back” to Texas to run for Senate in 2014.  She says she sees a lot of gridlock in Washington and not a lot of problem-solving, says the deficit is growing and laws are being passed that are infringing on our liberties and breaking into the cause of flux of prosperity in Texas.

Experience.  Linda Vega says that being an attorney by trade helps her get through the gridlock and the rush of lobbyists that will be rushing to her door because she has “extensive training in talking to people”. In 2005 she started an organization called Latinos Ready To Vote where they “go out the community to talk to people about conservative values” which is sometimes difficult as many people do not understand conservative values until they are properly explained.

In problem solving, she brags, a dialogue is set with people to reach a point where you “both agree or disagree but respectfully to solve the problem at hand”.

When asked if there are too many lawyers in Washington, she agrees there probably are, but that in order to enact or write a law, you have to understand the realm of language and the realm of how a law is passed, and in hind sight, how these laws affect the constitution.  She says that many people do not know enough about the law and need to understand these things better.

When asked about the Government Shutdown and Mitch McConnell leading the Senate, Linda replies that the shutdown hurt our economy but it was an eye opener. She does not always agree with McConnell’s p.h.i.l.o.s.o.p.h.y. (Neither do we, but we are so much more passionately as real conservatives!)

When asked if the Affordable Health Care Act, Benghazi and Fast and Furious were impeachable offenses, she explains that there is a problem with using the term impeachment because it has been overused and usurped, adding that the president has a circle of people around him saying that what he is doing cannot be proven.  If those instances can be proven, she would agree to it.  Absolutely! She refers to Benghazi as a disaster that should have never happened and would support an Independent Council investigating Benghazi and Fast and Furious. Absolutely.

Amnesty. Amnesty is the centerpiece of Linda Vega’s argument in favor of legalizing illegals and her livelihood for that matter; however, she cannot honestly say she knows what it is.  “If you look it up in the dictionary, it says something about forgiveness. What is there to forgive?!” (With an issue as consequential to our country as Immigration Reform you would think someone as knowledgeable and resourceful as one of the 100 top attorneys in Texas would be, would know what is meant by the term we know as amnesty, right?)

Linda Vega insists she does not advocate for amnesty “under any circumstance”. According to her, if we really are TRUE to the Immigration problem that we have, we have to find solutions, “not propose ridiculous laws that are not going to solve the problems but allow them to escalate in another decade into a bigger problem, which is what we have done for the last 20 years.”

Laws are Emotional. Voting is Emotional. Linda writes that Obama got into power because people truly vote with emotion.  She WARNS that “Texans will feel the backlash that these ‘macho men’ are trying to sell and there will be no one to blame but these loudmouthed Latino haters”.  You will see how she herself intimidates as she falsely accuses others of using hate as a solution. Conservatism is about caring and having manners, but she is the one who seems to be projecting her own hate unto those she is trying to dupe. Even IF she speaks softly, with style and a smile, she is aggressive.

Do away with U.S. LAWS!  Linda Vega argues that wanting the laws that we have in place enforced doesn’t work because the laws in the INA conflict with each other. They are making undocumented people felons, and allowing undocumented people to stay in this country as felons is not a good law. It’s America’s fault (!!) that these laws are creating the problem (she never using the term “illegal” immigration or immigrant in her discourse, just “undocumented”).  Again, we have to DO AWAY with the laws if we are serious about Immigration policy.  She supported the S744 bill last year which she didn’t mention in the interview but we have the letter and video of here and here when I first heard about what she was trying to get away with here.

Deportation.  Although she is vehemently against amnesty, Linda says that in order to deport the undocumented, one really has to think about the fact that mass deportations means we are growing the government, and asks how anyone can call themselves a conservative if they are for growing the government? “Being a conservative means limited government”, she states.

Solutions.  Linda Vega repeats that America needs to own up and admit that to have a good immigration policy that the laws have caused this problem. We have DO AWAY WITH THE LAWS! (repeated), shut down the quota system in two to three years, allow those who have applied and have been waiting for that visa to obtain that visa. She is for deporting those who have a violent criminal records or who are here in the United States to hurt the U.S.

“Closing Arguments”

Closing arguments and more detailed information will be provided in the next post to complete the case against the Fake Conservative from Texas. We are not hear to smear someone’s reputation, but to expose important information that can (and should) lead to activism concerning primary reform. Linda Vega is free to run for office, just not as a Republican, and that is the basis for this presentation.

If and when members of the jury of voters and constituents in Texas decide there is enough evidence that she is NOT a REAL CONSERVATIVE like she says she is, they must insist that changes be made either through better vetting (as easy as reading Facebook posts and related links) and more honesty from their representatives who know this dirty little secret is going on.

Citizens who have information must share it and become fearless activists who will challenge the wrong-doers and not allow the wrong-doers to intimidate them in doing so.  It is time to be outspoken and responsible for the sake of American citizens and legal immigrants being cheated in this process.  In that spirit, if I have to, I will expose anyone who does not cooperate with sharing the truth. That’s it. Thank you for reading.

I can't call him a Rino 1

For more information on Rhinos with an H, read essay here.


Note from the Editor:

Constructive criticism is welcome and you have the right to disagree with the contents of this article, but to solve the problem at hand you really must do so respectfully. Thank you.


Leave a comment

Filed under In The News, Politics

Linda Vega’s Activist Group “LRTV” Sends Open Letter: Texas Cannot Afford Two ‘NO’ Votes in Gang of 8 (S.744) Bill

By Isabel Matos

This is incredible.  You can just google this up. “Latinos Ready To Vote” sends an open letter to Senators Cornyn and Cruz, urging them to vote in FAVOR of the S.744 bill. That is the Gang of 8’s Senate bill we were all fighting vehemently against last June 2013. This woman seeking the Senate seat, Linda Vega, is indeed an Amnesty activist, make no mistake. And the worst type of Republican in our Party. A so-called one.

Latinos ready to Vote

Open Letter: Texas Cannot Afford two ‘NO’ votes in the U.S. Senate Bill on Immigration.

Posted on June 10, 2013 by admin

To the Honorable U.S. Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz: 

How our two Texas Senators vote on the Immigration Bill S.744 will determine what type of relationship the Texas Republican Party can foment within Latino Communities in Texas.  For the first time in twenty years, future elections in the state will be based on a generational vote related to this bill, which will have major implications.  All polls clearly indicate that 90%of Latino voters want an immigration reform that is fair, secures our border, and reflects our traditional values as a nation of immigrants, and as nation that cherishes Free Enterprise and limited government. Consequently, Texas Republicans have a lot to lose, or win, with this vote.

First, the Amendments proposed by Sen. Senator Cruz in the Senate judiciary to further enlarge government –tripling the size of border patrol, more drones, helicopters and militarization of the border–present serious Constitutional violations to homeowners, ranchers in South Texas; this Amendment could affect the property rights for many Texans  and all border communities who would have to relinquish land and properties to the Department of Homeland Security and the Obama Administration to build fences by tripling the size of the border patrol, the military and drones.  This not only interferes with our freedoms, it interferes with our Property Rights in Texas.  Land that has been in families through generations runs the risk of being confiscated, by Imminent Domain, by the federal government; which means that the size of Texas will minimize as will our Rights.

Second, the proposed Amendments by Sen. Cruz to militarize Texas-Mexico border may hamper further trade relations between Texas and Mexico, at a time when Mexico is becoming a middle-class nation and the Texas economy depends more on trade with Mexico.  For example, for the last five years Mexico has had a consistent 5% of GDP growth  while Texas has increased its exports to Mexico by 100% since 2004. Texas is now responsible for about 44 percent of U.S. exports to Mexico. Also, currently, 60% of all NAFTA trade –about $300 billion–comes through Texas, thereby creating jobs and industries entirely dependents on the Texas-Mexico trade relation and an effective management of the flow of goods across the border.   All of which will hampered by a tripling of the border patrol militarization of the border.

Third, our own estimations suggest that by 2016, the Voting Age Populating of Latinos in Texas will be about 6 million, while the number of Republican turnout will remain stagnant at only 4.5 million.  As a result, the survival of the Republican, and therefore the ability of the Republicans to win the White House, rests in capacity of TRP to attract new voters that ultimately will have to come from Latino communities. As a Result, a NO vote in the Senate on Immigration Bill S.744 can have larger generational implications that the RPT cannot afford.

Consequently, if Senators Cruz and Cornyn vote NO on this bill, it will be a serious setback for the Republican Party because in the next ten years 50% of the Texas Population will be of Mexican-American decent. This will be a generational vote, and therefore a NO vote will have major implications for the GOP in Texas for years to come. Hence, The Texas Republican Party (RPT) cannot afford two NO votes in the U.S. Senate because it will be difficult for Republican candidates to venture into Latino communities after our two Republican senators  have voted against a reasonable Immigration Bill.

We urge Sen. Cruz to follow the lead of Sen. Cornyn who has proposed a stronger border security Amendments to make sure that all the mechanisms in the Senate Bill S.744 have ’triggers’  to guarantee  that all the objectives of border security will be achieved before any aliens can apply for Permanent  Residency (green cards). But as he acknowledge, such ‘trigger’ should not hinder the flow of trade between Texas and Mexico, who is our third largest trade partner. In addition we urge Sen. Cruz to support Sen. Cornyn who added an amendment to take $1 billion to be used on the discretion of border communities where fencing is not needed and where technology will be more appropriate.

The outcry of Amnesty in the bill is a red herring for many who cannot fathom the economic detriment that voting No to this bill has on the economy of Texas.

You can find the information here:  http://latinosreadytovote.com/open-letter-texas-cannot-afford-two-no-votes-in-the-u-s-senate-bill-on-immigration/

Here are two responses that I am including to show what Texans (and Americans) actually think about this bill.

Dan Colgan on June 24, 2013 at 3:00 pm said:
  • If the Latino community wants respect and legitimacy as an election block they must come out against this bill not for it.   There is nothing in this bill that will seal the border and fix immigration in the least.  Every senator must vote against this bill.

Erich on June 11, 2013 at 3:01 am said:

Actually, Texas cannot afford any ‘YES’ votes on the Gang of Eight amnesty bill, which:

  •  1. Provides immediate legalization without securing the border
  • 2. Rewards criminal aliens, absconders and deportees and undermines law enforcement.
  • 3. Contains extremely dangerous national security loopholes.
  • 4. Facilitates fraud in our immigration system.
  • 5. Creates no real penalties for illegal immigrants and rewards them with entitlements.
  • 6. Delays for years the implementation of E-Verify
  • 7. Does not fix our legal immigration system
  • 8. Advanced through a process predicated on a deal struck before mark-up.
  • 9. Rewards those who have broken our laws by offering a special path to citizenship.

Additionally, the bill thoroughly guts interior enforcement of immigration laws, and like Obamacare, the Gang of Eight bill grants enormous power and discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security, who has a well-established policy of NOT enforcing immigration laws and of legalizing as many people as possible.

Besides, guest worker programs are not a good idea because they cast workers into a second-class citizen status and put their fate into their employers’ hands, creating an opportunity to exploit them. It also encourages employers to turn full-time jobs into temporary ones at reduced wages and diminished working conditions — something we’re already seeing as a result of Obamacare.

To see why guest worker programs are not a good idea, we need look no further than the example set by Germany, the fourth best economy in the world.  In response to a labor shortage prompted by economic recovery, Germany signed a series of bilateral recruitment agreements, first with Italy in 1955, then with Spain (1960), Greece (1960), Turkey (1961), Portugal (1964), and Yugoslavia (1968).  The core of these agreements included the recruitment of Gastarbeiter (guest workers), almost exclusively in the industrial sector, for jobs that required few qualifications.  Under the so-called rotation principle, mostly male migrants entered Germany for a period of one to two years and were then required to return home to make room for other guest workers.  This policy had a double rationale: preventing settlement and exposing to industrial work the largest possible number of workers from sending countries.

Guest workers, unlike ordinary immigrants, were admitted under special jobs programs, and at least under the original plans, had no prospects of becoming citizens or permanent residents. Germany, like other European countries, at first refused even to allow them to bring families, hoping to discourage them from trying to put down roots. Later, Germany granted work stays of up to five years, and permitted wives and children to come along.  Legal workers were followed by waves of family members and illegal immigrants.  Sound familiar?

For decades, there were no efforts to integrate the newcomers. They were entitled to social benefits, but not citizenship. Their children could attend schools, but little effort was made to give them language skills. Many of the first generation of workers bought houses or established small businesses, although usually confining themselves to immigrant enclaves. Their German-born children were registered as “foreigners.” They often spend years or even decades resolving their legal status.  And, while Germany (and many other European governments) failed to seriously pursue integration, many immigrants were equally unwilling to shed their own languages and national identities.  Sound familiar?

Many of the original guest workers are now retired, enjoying the comfortable pensions that are the pride of Europe. But their children and their grandchildren are trapped between two worlds, too Europeanized ever to return to the Middle East or North Africa, but lacking the language skills and education to forge ahead in their new countries.  The parents took jobs that Germans didn’t want — and most of that first generation did all right.  But the young people toay don’t even get the bad jobs.  How are they to climb the social ladder when they can’t even grab the bottom rung?

founder of Latinos Ready to Vote

I noticed the Letter does not have an author so I added this picture as an additional reminder of who the “administrator” might be.


Filed under In The News, Politics