Wednesday, June 30, 2010


Friends of ALIPAC,

We have just learned that President Obama plans to make a speech tomorrow to push his Amnesty agenda. We had hoped that ALIPAC's effort to push US Senator Lindsay Graham away from the negotiating table would buy us enough time to get through the elections without a huge battle over Amnesty legislation.

We are not sure what exactly is happening. Some of our advisers think that the recent death of US Senator Robert Byrd, who consistently opposed any form of Comprehensive Immigration Amnesty, may have emboldened Obama and the Amnesty backers. There are also strong rumors that Obama will try to give millions of illegals amnesty via some kind of executive order!

Another motivation for Obama's pep speech tomorrow may be that over 20 states now have legislators planning versions of Arizona's SB 1070 and the illegal aliens are leaving Arizona in droves! Many are heading home to Mexico, many are headed to your state. Amnesty backers fear that a mass exodus of illegal aliens from the US would destroy their push for Amnesty and permanent open borders in America.

We will be ready to respond to Obama tomorrow, but today we must immediately launch our second funds drive for 2010.

We hope that many of you will respond quickly and strongly to this call for funds, as we must raise a minimum of $30,000 by August 15. We hope that you will respond quickly so our efforts can stay focused on stopping Amnesty and launching our broader candidate operations to help us sweep the Congress in November.

We will send you more information soon, about some of the projects that we want to attempt with our limited funding this year, in future emails.

Please watch the funds drive progress bar at the top of each email during this drive and at the top of the ALIPAC website to help us make sure we reach our minimum operations budget needs.

To donate now via our SECURE online donations page, please visit this link....

If you prefer to make a contribution by mail, please fill out the "Donate by Mail" form at that link and send your personal check to,

PO Box 30966
Raleigh, NC 27622

While donations of $25, $50, and $100 are needed to help us quickly reach our funds drive goals, we hope many of you will consider much larger donations. The maximum individual donation per year to ALIPAC is $5,000.

We hope those of you who have already donated in 2010 would consider a new donation and we are going to make a very special effort during this funds drive to get a higher percentage of our supporters to become financial backers of our operations.

Please feel free to contact me by email or phone, if I can answer any question or be of any assistance to you.


William Gheen
Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee (ALIPAC)
Post Office Box 30966, Raleigh, NC 27622-0966
Tel: (919) 787-6009 Toll Free: (866) 703-0864
FEC ID: C00405878

PS: Please take a few minutes to make your donation now if possible via this link....



These banksters have long illegally opened bank accounts for illegals! It’s not news, nor that both are generous LA RAZA DONORS!

Both made out like BANK ROBBERS handing out mortgages to illegals with stolen identities and fraudulent docs. The banksters knew that with Obama the legals would be sent the bills for that racket as well!


U.S. banks' role in Mexican drug trade

Michael Smith, Bloomberg News
Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Just before sunset on April 10, 2006, a DC-9 jet landed at the international airport in the port city of Ciudad del Carmen, 500 miles east of Mexico City. As soldiers on the ground approached the plane, the crew tried to shoo them away, saying there was a dangerous oil leak. So the troops grew suspicious and searched the jet.
They found 128 black suitcases, packed with 5.7 tons of cocaine, valued at $100 million. The stash was supposed to have been delivered from Caracas to drug traffickers in Toluca, near Mexico City, prosecutors later found. Law enforcement officials also discovered something else.
The smugglers had bought the DC-9 with laundered funds they transferred through two of the biggest banks in the United States: Wachovia Corp. and Bank of America Corp.
This was no isolated incident. Wachovia, it turns out, had made a habit of helping move money for Mexican drug smugglers. San Francisco's Wells Fargo & Co., which bought Wachovia in 2008, has admitted in court that its unit failed to monitor and report suspected money laundering by narcotics traffickers - including the cash used to buy four planes that shipped a total of 22 tons of cocaine.
The admission came in an agreement that Wachovia struck with federal prosecutors in March, and it sheds light on the largely undocumented role of U.S. banks in contributing to the violent drug trade that has convulsed Mexico for the past four years.
Wachovia admitted it didn't do enough to spot illicit funds in handling $378.4 billion for Mexican currency exchange houses from 2004 to 2007. That's the largest violation of the Bank Secrecy Act, an anti-money-laundering law, in U.S. history - a sum equal to one-third of Mexico's current gross domestic product.
"Wachovia's blatant disregard for our banking laws gave international cocaine cartels a virtual carte blanche to finance their operations," said Jeffrey Sloman, the federal prosecutor who handled the case.
Since 2006, more than 22,000 people have been killed in drug-related battles that have raged mostly along the 2,000-mile border that Mexico shares with the United States.
Among the dead are police, soldiers, journalists and ordinary citizens. In Ciudad Juarez, just across the border from El Paso, Texas, 700 people had been killed this year as of mid-June.
Mexican President Felipe Calderon vowed to crush the drug cartels when he took office in December 2006, and he's since deployed 45,000 troops to fight the cartels. They've had little success.
The United States has pledged Mexico $1.1 billion in the past two years to aid in the fight against narcotics cartels.
"It's the banks laundering money for the cartels that finances the tragedy," said Martin Woods, director of Wachovia's anti-money-laundering unit in London from 2006 to 2009.
Woods says he quit the bank in disgust after executives ignored his documentation that drug dealers were funneling money through Wachovia's branch network.
"If you don't see the correlation between the money laundering by banks and the 22,000 people killed in Mexico, you're missing the point," he said.
Wells Fargo's effort
Wells Fargo regrets that some of Wachovia's anti-money-laundering efforts fell short, spokeswoman Mary Eshet says. Wells Fargo has invested $42 million in the last three years to improve its anti-money-laundering program and has been working with regulators, she says.
Wachovia is just one of the U.S. and European banks that have been used for laundering. For two decades, Latin American drug traffickers have gone to U.S. banks to cleanse their dirty cash, says Paul Campo, head of the Drug Enforcement Administration's financial crimes unit.
American Express Bank International paid fines in 1994 and 2007 after admitting it had failed to spot and report drug dealers laundering money through its accounts. Drug traffickers used accounts at Bank of America in Oklahoma City to buy three planes that carried 10 tons of cocaine, according to Mexican court filings.
Federal agents caught people who work for Mexican cartels depositing illicit funds in Bank of America accounts in Atlanta, Chicago and Brownsville, Texas, from 2002 to 2009. Mexican drug dealers used shell companies to open accounts at HSBC Holdings Plc, Europe's biggest bank by assets, an investigation by the Mexican Finance Ministry found.
Those two banks weren't accused of wrongdoing. Bank of America spokeswoman Shirley Norton and HSBC spokesman Roy Caple say laws bar them from discussing specific clients. They say their banks strictly follow the government rules.
Money changers
A Mexican judge on Jan. 22 accused the owners of six centros cambiarios, or money changers, in Culiacan and Tijuana of laundering drug funds through their accounts at the Mexican units of Banco Santander SA, Citigroup Inc. and HSBC, according to court documents filed in the case.
The money changers are in jail while being tried. Citigroup, HSBC and Santander, the largest Spanish bank by assets, weren't accused of any wrongdoing.
The three banks say Mexican law bars them from commenting on the case, adding that they each carefully enforce anti-laundering programs.

U.S. arrests 2,000 in Mexican drug trafficking probe
Associated Press
8:23 AM PDT, June 10, 2010
Law enforcement agencies have arrested more than 2,000 people in a 22-month investigation targeting Mexican drug trafficking organizations in the United States.

The probe, called Project Deliverance, focused on the transportation of methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin and marijuana along the Southwest border.

Over 400 of the 2,000 arrests were made Wednesday. Atty. Gen. Eric Holder is scheduled to hold a news conference on the operation Thursday.

The Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI and Immigration and Customs Enforcement worked on the effort with state and local law enforcement agencies.
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Monday, November 12, 2007

Mortgage giants Wells Fargo and Countrywide Financial are accused of slapping dubious fees on homeowners struggling to save their homes. With fewer new mortgages being written, these
companies appear to be leaning on these lucrative fees to stay profitable—with devastating consequences for homeowners. We’ll have that report


Speaking of violations of our laws: Bank of America goes too far by giving credit cards to illegal aliens! This endangers everyone in this country. All they care about is profit. If you bank with them, stop it and tell them why. The word is boycott. I guarantee you will have an effect. Bank of America selling out Americans safety, etc. This is an open invitation to fraud and TERRORISTS. Why are US citizens held to a higher standard than illegal aliens? TELEPHONE RALLY Bank of America is offering credit cards to customers without a social security card (illegal aliens). *Read at end of this mail. CALL: CORPORATE AFFAIRS Bank of America; 415.717.0195 CALL: TOLL FREE NUMBER - when phone is answered pres "O" for operator - you may have to hold California 1.800.622.8731 ALL OTHER STATES 1.800.432-1000 EMAIL FORM: BANK of AMERICA

Write a postcard/letter Bank of America CEO Kenneth D. Lewis Chairman, CEO and President Bank of America Corporate Center 100 North Tryon Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28255


Bank of America offering credit cards to illegal immigrants NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Bank of America (BAC : BAC Last: BAC) is offering credit cards to customers without Social Security numbers in an effort to pursue illegal immigrants and grow its business, the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday. While checking accounts and mortgages have been offered in the past, it's been difficult for undocumented workers to get major credit cards and therby develop a credit history. The bank has been quietly testing the program to provide credit cards to customers who hold a checking account for three months without an overdraft. Last week, the bank rolled out the program in 51 branches in Los Angeles , with plans on the books for national expansion later this year. Bank of America charges a higher interest rate and an upfront fee for the cards. We now have a list up at that shows which banks do and do not accept the matricula. We want people to visit the boycott site, cut up cards, cancel accounts, move mortgages, sign the online petition, and call their member of Congress asking them to back Price and Blackburn 's call for Congressional hearings into BOA. For more info: What YOU can do for a better future for your country: YOU can make a difference, really! The United States is a fragile Republic. A republican form of government is not a spectator sport. It means you must jump in, roll up you sleeves and take personal and collective action. Of course, there are other options; you could let a dictator take over and do everything for you, but that path would give you Cuba , China , North Korea and other unsavory examples. Get smart. To stop this invasion locally and nationally: join for free and you can join and For readers of this column, I present you with an opportunity: If you appreciate the gravity of what this nation faces by adding 100 million people in 33 years, please write me with ideas and/or producers on television who might interview me. I need phone numbers, emails and addresses of TV/radio and newsprint leaders across the country. I will speak on behalf of all Americans and expose to the general public what this nation faces if we continue on this overpopulation path.

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Drug cartels fund a tenth of Mexico's economy... AS OBAMA LEAVES US UNDEFENDED!

Mexico vote goes ahead despite slain candidate

CIUDAD VICTORIA, Mexico (AP) — Drug cartels fund a tenth of Mexico's economy.

They have infiltrated many local and state police forces and staged assaults on army bases. Now they're violently inserting themselves into politics, killing the leading candidate for governor of a northern state only days before Sunday's elections in 12 states.
The assassination of Rodolfo Torre in the border state of Tamaulipas on Monday capped the deadliest month yet in President Felipe Calderon's military-led offensive against drug traffickers. Carefully planned attacks — including an ambush that killed 12 federal police officers — have served as chilling reminders that Mexico's drug cartels can get to anyone, anywhere, armed with sophisticated weaponry and billions of dollars to pay off informants.
Mexican officials said Sunday's voting would go forward as planned, including in Tamaulipas, where Torre's replacement as candidate of the Institutional Revolutionary Party had not even been named.
But even as Calderon's government urged citizens to stand up to the cartels by turning out to vote, Mexicans increasingly see the cartels — not Calderon — as having the upper hand.
"Organized crime has voted," the national newspaper Reforma wrote in a front-page editorial Tuesday. "What's the point of having elections when a de-facto power is imposing its will over the will of citizens?"
Throughout Mexico, the cartels have had a strong impact on this year's campaigning. The mayor of Cancun, who was running for governor of Quintana Roo state, was arrested last month on charges of protecting two cartels. In Sinaloa and other states, assailants have lobbed grenades at party offices. And rumors abound about candidates who just might be on the take from one or another of the powerful drug organizations.
The assault on Torre's campaign caravan was typical of a cartel hit. Gunmen intercepted his convoy as it headed to the airport, indicating they knew exactly when he would be passing by. The body of the candidate and four others in the caravan lay strewn on the street, suggesting they had tried to flee.
Mexicans took the hit to be part of a feud between the Gulf cartel and a gang of hit men who split from it known as the Zetas, who have been battling in Tamaulipas this year.
The Zetas have grown into a formidable drug trafficking organization in their own right, with operations reaching deep into Central America, and the Gulf and Sinaloa cartels have teamed up to fight their new, common enemy.
The Zetas, former members of a military intelligence battalion sent to fight the cartels, joined forces with the Gulf cartel in the 1990s and increasingly began controlling life in Tamaulipas. In addition to drug smuggling, they began extorting money from businesses such as restaurants, car dealerships and junkyards. They kidnapped people for ransom and charged "fees" to migrant smugglers and other drug traffickers.
More recently, gunmen believed to be from the Zetas have staged bold attacks on security forces in Tamaulipas, setting up roadblocks and assaulting army garrisons, armed with grenades and semi-automatic weapons.
Now, they may be trying to determine who runs the state.
Torre was the second candidate killed in Tamaulipas in the run-up to Sunday's elections: Jose Guajardo Varela was gunned down in May after ignoring warnings to drop out of the race for mayor of Valle Hermoso. Several parties have complained they can't find anyone to run for office in some Tamaulipas towns because it's too dangerous.
"The freedom that we had three, four or five years ago in Tamaulipas and in Mexico is gone," said Gustavo Cardenas, a former Tamaulipas senator who promised his family he would not run for office this year to avoid becoming a target. "This is only the beginning. This is the product of great corruption, of great impunity."
Many took the attack on Torre as proof of long-standing allegations that his party, known as the PRI, has protected the Gulf cartel in Tamaulipas.
"Their candidate is Tamaulipas was assassinated because of its complicity," said Adriana Davila, a candidate for governor of central Tlaxcala state running for Calderon's National Action Party.
But Mexico's interior minister, Fernando Gomez Mont, called Torre an honest man with no hint of corruption in his past.
And some PRI activists in Tamaulipas said that might be what got him killed.
Mauricio Cerda, who runs a PRI-aligned citizens' political organization in Ciudad Victoria, sees Torre's killing as a message to current Gov. Eugenio Hernandez, who has angered drug cartels by appealing for more federal troops and police in the state.
"It was a strong message for the governor: 'Don't rock the boat,'" he said.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.








June 28, 2010

Wrong Track DistressBy BOB HERBERT

It’s getting harder and harder for most Americans, looking honestly at the state of the nation, to see the glass as half full. And that’s why the public opinion polls contain nothing but bad news for Barack Obama and the Democrats.

The oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, the war in Afghanistan and, above all, the continuing epidemic of joblessness have pushed the nation into a funk. All the crowing in the world about the administration’s legislative accomplishments — last year’s stimulus package, this year’s health care reform, etc. — is not enough to lift the gloom.

Mr. Obama and the Democrats have wasted the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity handed to them in the 2008 election. They did not focus on jobs, jobs, jobs as their primary mission, and they did not call on Americans to join in a bold national effort (which would have required a great deal of shared sacrifice) to solve a wide range of very serious problems, from our over-reliance on fossil fuels to the sorry state of public education to the need to rebuild the nation’s rotting infrastructure.

All of that could have been pulled together under the umbrella of job creation — short-term and long-term. In the immediate aftermath of Mr. Obama’s historic victory, and with the trauma of the economic collapse still upon us, it would have been very difficult for Republicans on Capitol Hill to stand in the way of a rebuild-America campaign aimed at putting millions of men and women back to work.

Mr. Obama had campaigned on the mantra of change, and that would have been the kind of change that working people could have gotten behind. But it never happened. Job creation was the trump card in the hand held by Mr. Obama and the Democrats, but they never played it. And now we’re paying a fearful price.

Fifteen million Americans are unemployed, according to the official count, which wildly understates the reality. Assuming no future economic setbacks and job creation at a rate of 200,000 or so a month, it would take more than a decade to get us back to where we were when the Great Recession began in December 2007. But we’re nowhere near that kind of sustained job growth. Last month, a measly 41,000 private-sector jobs were created.

We are in deep, deep gumbo.

The Obama administration feels it should get a great deal of credit for its economic stimulus efforts, its health care initiative, its financial reform legislation, its vastly increased aid to education and so forth. And maybe if we were grading papers, there would be a fair number of decent marks to be handed out.

But Americans struggling in a down economy are worried about the survival of their families. Destitution is beckoning for those whose unemployment benefits are running out, and that crowd of long-term jobless men and women is expanding rapidly.

There is a widespread feeling that only the rich and well-placed can count on Washington’s help, and that toxic sentiment is spreading like the oil stain in the gulf, with ominous implications for President Obama and his party. It’s in this atmosphere that support for the president and his agenda is sinking like a stone.

Employment is the No. 1 issue for most ordinary Americans. Their anxiety on this front only grows as they watch teachers, firefighters and police officers lining up to walk the unemployment plank as state and local governments wrestle with horrendous budget deficits.

And what do these worried Americans see the Obama administration doing? It’s doubling down on the war in Afghanistan, trying somehow to build a nation from scratch in the chaos of a combat zone.

By nearly 2 to 1, respondents to the most recent New York Times/CBS News poll believed the United States is on the wrong track. Despite the yelping and destructive machinations of the deficit hawks, employment and the economy are by far the public’s biggest concern. Mr. Obama is paying dearly for his tin ear on this topic. Fifty-four percent of respondents believed he does not have a clear plan for creating jobs. Only 45 percent approved of his overall handling of the economy, compared with 48 percent who disapproved.

It’s not too late for the president to turn things around, but there is no indication that he has any plan or strategy for doing it. And the political environment right now, with confidence in the administration waning and budgetary fears unnecessarily heightened by the deficit hawks, is not good.

It would take an extraordinary exercise in leadership to rally the country behind a full-bore jobs-creation campaign — nothing short of large-scale nation-building on the home front. Maybe that’s impossible in the current environment. But that’s what the country needs.

Wall St Owned Obama Sells Us Out To BP -

Obama and Cameron pledge to defend BP profits
By Hiram Lee
29 June 2010
US President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron met this weekend during the G20 summit in Canada to discuss the ongoing crisis in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of the BP oil spill. The goal of the meeting, however, was not to coordinate cleanup and recovery efforts, but to once again give a US and UK government guarantee of the profits of BP.

A statement on the meeting released by Cameron’s office on Sunday reports that Obama and Cameron “agreed that BP should meet its obligations to cap the leak, clean up the damage and meet legitimate compensation claims. They also agreed that it was to both countries’ advantage for BP to remain a strong and stable company.”

The reference to “legitimate claims” was intended as a clear signal that the governments of the two companies would not press for full restitution of those impacted by the disaster. BP has used the same term repeatedly, even as it has delayed or denied claims. The language deliberately places the onus on the individual or business affected by the disaster to prove that their claim is in fact “legitimate.”

The US government’s commitment to limiting the liability of BP was underscored by comments from Kenneth Feinberg, the administrator of the $20 billion compensation fund, who will be tasked with mediating claims. During a town hall meeting in Larose, Louisiana on June 25, Feinberg declared, “There is absolutely no sense at all driving BP into bankruptcy. That would be a disaster.”

As for the statement that BP will remain “strong and stable,” put simply this means that the company should return adequate profits to its investors. The message sent to BP shareholders was received loud and clear. Reports of the meeting’s conclusions led to a rise of 3.99 percent in BP’s shares, which had fallen to a 14-year record low on Friday.

The meeting during the G20 summit was only the latest in a series of statements from both Cameron and Obama pledging their commitment to BP profits. Cameron warned earlier in the week, during an interview with CBC, that it was “in all our long-term interests that there is some clarity, some finality, to all of this, so that we don’t at the same time see the destruction of a company that is important for all our interests.”

Cameron sought to reassure critics of BP as well as company shareholders by claiming that the company had the best interests of the public at heart, saying “BP wants to cap the oil, it wants to clean up the oil, it wants to pay compensation to fishermen and hotel owners and people who have suffered and it should do that.” In fact, the interests of BP are in direct conflict with both a serious clean up and containment response, and adequate compensation for those whose lives have been devastated.

The prime minister added, “I believe it can and I believe it should and I believe it is in both Britain and America’s interests that BP remains a strong and stable company.”

As for the Obama administration, its response has been, from the beginning, to defend BP, the oil industry, and the expansion of deep-sea oil drilling.

While any just and rational response to the Deepwater Horizon disaster would necessarily include the criminal investigation and prosecution of BP executives, along with the seizure of the company’s assets for the purpose of funding an emergency response to the oil spill, the response of the Obama administration has been to minimize and cover up the size of the disaster, to protect BP from financial liabilities and to defuse public anger towards the oil giant.

As the Deepwater Horizon spill began, the Obama administration not only did not make any arrests, but instead left BP in charge of cleanup and containment efforts, insisting falsely that the oil company was the only body with the technology and expertise to bring an end to the spill. Obama also left unchallenged BP’s assertions that scientific data collected on site by the corporation was proprietary information that did not have to be made public. There can be no doubt that granting these rights to BP contributed significantly to the worsening of the disaster.

As public anger grew, the administration made a brief and fleeting reference to a possible criminal probe, but this has since been dropped.

While Obama made public relations appearances in the media during previous weeks intended to portray the president as “angry and frustrated” over the spill and BP’s handling of it, he met privately with BP CEO Tony Hayward to work out measures for limiting BP’s financial liability. The creation of a $20 billion fund, to be paid out over four years, was designed to create as minimal impact as possible on the company’s cash flow. The selection of Feinberg, with the full approval of BP executives, was intended as another signal to Wall Street and the City of London that the company’s bottom line would be protected.

Should the company be proven criminally negligent in its actions leading up to the April 20 Deepwater Horizon disaster—and there is ample evidence to prove that it was—there would be no limit to the amount it would be forced to pay in compensation. The real cost of the spill could reach well beyond $1 trillion, far more than the company is worth.

The escrow fund was also an attempt to cover-up for the fact that the federal government has done nothing to mobilize social resources to respond to the disaster or to ensure proper compensation.

Meanwhile, the disaster caused by the oil giant continued to spread. A significant amount of oil has now washed ashore on the beaches of Mississippi. A thick oil sheen and tar balls made landfall on Sunday with at least seven of the state’s beaches affected. The further devastation of the fishing and tourism industries in the state, along with Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida, are virtually guaranteed.


Monday, June 28, 2010

NARCOMEX PRESIDENT BLAMES GANGS... Doesn't He Usually Blame the Gringos?

Mexican leader blames candidate's killing on gangs
26 mins ago

MEXICO CITY – Mexican President Felipe Calderon is blaming drug cartels for the assassination of a front-running gubernatorial candidate.

He warns drug gangs are trying to infiltrate the election process.

Calderon said the assassination Monday of Rodolfo Torre in northern Mexico shows "organized crime is a permanent threat" and called on Mexicans to "close ranks to confront it."

He said organized crime "is trying to interfere in the decisions of citizens and in election processes."

Torre was running for governor in the border state of Tamaulipas.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

MEXICO CITY (AP) — The front-running candidate for governor in the violence-wracked border state of Tamaulipas was assassinated Monday, the first killing of a Mexican gubernatorial candidate in recent memory.

Interior Secretary Fernando Gomez Mont suggested the killing of candidate Rodolfo Torre of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, was the work of warring drug cartels whose battles have caused hundreds of deaths in recent months in the Gulf coast state.

"These events reinforce the need to combat organized crime on all fronts," Gomez Mont told a news conference. He refused to take questions.

Gunmen ambushed Torre's vehicle as he headed to a campaign event near the state capital, Ciudad Victoria. At least four other people traveling with him were killed.

"We firmly demand a rapid investigation of these events ... and punishment for those responsible," PRI party leader Beatriz Paredes said in a statement. "Nothing is going to intimidate us."

Attacks and threats against candidates in the run-up to Sunday's elections have raised fears that drug cartels may be trying to buy off politicians, and kill or intimidate those they oppose.

Gomez-Mont said the killings "fill all of society with indignation," and pledged to "find those responsible for these detestable acts, and bring them to justice."

The other main party in Tamaulipas — President Felipe Calderon's National Action Party, or PAN — said it would suspend the remaining three days of campaigning by its own gubernatorial candidate. But PAN party leader Cesar Nava said he hoped the elections could go forward Sunday. Twelve states are holding elections for governors, mayors and local posts.

Tamaulipas is one of the main trafficking corridors for drugs heading to the U.S. market, and in recent months has been the scene of bloody shootouts between the Gulf cartel and its rival, the Zetas drug gang. The two former allies split several months ago, and have since been battling for turf.

Television footage from the scene of Monday's attack showed several vehicles and sheet-covered bodies along the side of the highway.

Torre is the highest-ranking election candidate killed in Mexico since presidential candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio, also from the PRI, was assassinated in 1994.

Seldom have candidates been hit as hard as they have in Tamaulipas this year.

In May, gunmen killed PAN candidate Jose Guajardo Varela, who had received warnings to drop his bid for the mayorship of Valle Hermoso, a town about 30 miles (50 kilometers) south of Brownsville, Texas.

Torre, 46, held a significant lead in polls as candidate for a coalition comprising the PRI and two smaller parties.

Campaigning on the slogan "So that you'll be better off," Torre was heading from Ciudad Victoria to the border city of Matamoros to accompany the PRI's mayoral candidates in the closing of their campaigns Monday.

Torre, a physician, had served as the state's health secretary from 2005 to 2009.

Supporters left dozens of messages offering their condolences on his Facebook page.

He was married and had three teenage children.



“The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work. Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market at the low-wage end.” Christian Science Monitor
House, Senate Democrats agree on pro-Wall Street bank “reform”
By Barry Grey
28 June 2010
The financial regulatory overhaul agreed to Friday by House and Senate conferees represents a total capitulation by the Obama administration and Congress to Wall Street.
The measure that was announced following a 20-hour negotiating session was even weaker than the largely token bills passed last December by the House of Representatives and by the Senate last month. It is expected to be voted on this week by the two congressional chambers.
Nearly 22 months after the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, precipitated by reckless speculation and profiteering on the part of the major US banks, abetted by outright swindling and fraud, the White House and Democratic-led Congress have put together a patchwork of half-measures that avoids any structural reform or serious restraint on the activities of the most powerful financial firms.
Obama hailed the agreement Friday before leaving for the G20 meeting in Toronto. “We are poised to pass the toughest financial reform since the ones we created in the aftermath of the Great Depression,” he said, adding, “No longer will we have companies that are ‘too big to fail’.…”
In his weekly radio address Saturday, Obama adopted the pose of populist opponent of Wall Street, declaring, “In recent months, they’ve spent millions of dollars and hired an army of lobbyists to stop reform dead in its tracks. But because we refused to back down, and kept fighting, we now stand on the verge of victory….
“Put simply, we’ll end the days of taxpayer-funded bailouts, and help make sure Main Street is never again held responsible for Wall Street’s mistakes.”
Obama knows better, as does Wall Street. Bank stocks soared across-the-board Friday, as news leaked that the merged House-Senate bill included provisions for which the banks and hedge funds had lobbied furiously—including changes that watered down to virtual irrelevance proposals for limiting the banks’ gambling on risky derivatives and betting depositors’ money for their own profit.
On a day when the Dow declined slightly, Standard & Poor’s financial sector index rose 2.7 percent. Some of the biggest banks saw their shares rise even higher, including Citigroup (4.23 percent), JPMorgan Chase (3.7 percent) and Goldman Sachs (3.47 percent). Bank of America surged 2.66 percent and Wells Fargo rose 1.45 percent.
The Financial Times on Saturday summed up the general feeling on Wall Street, quoting a banker who said, “We are all breathing a sigh of relief here. It could have been much worse and, on balance, we can live with this.” The newspaper went on to say, “investors bet the historic overhaul in financial rules would not have a significant impact on the industry’s structure and profitability.”
The New York Times, even as it called the bill “historic” and claimed that it would “vastly increase” government power over Wall Street, admitted that “Industry analysts predicted that banks would most likely adapt easily to the new regulatory framework and thrive.”
Newsweek magazine quoted a former US Treasury official who said, “We’ve consolidated the position of the five banks that were most central to the crisis.”
Obama’s analogy to the banking reforms instituted in the 1930s, which has been echoed almost universally by the mass media, is specious. Franklin D. Roosevelt instituted significant structural reforms, including the Glass-Steagall Act, which established a legal wall between deposit-taking commercial banks and investment banks and brokerage firms. These and other reform measures forced some of the biggest financial powers, including the House of Morgan, to break apart.
Roosevelt’s reforms did not challenge private ownership of the banks or the basic profit interests of the ruling class. Rather, they were designed to end the most destructive practices of the banks and save the capitalist system from the threat of social revolution. They did, however, impose significant changes.
There is nothing of the kind in the so-called “reform” promoted by the White House and approved by the House and Senate conference committee. None of the banks that played key roles in the financial meltdown and ensuing global recession will be broken up. Nor will Glass-Steagall, which was repealed under the Clinton administration in 1999 (when Obama economic adviser Lawrence Summers was treasury secretary) be reinstated.
The New York Times on Saturday quoted Charles Geisst, a professor of finance at Manhattan College and a Wall Street historian, who said of the comparison to the New Deal reforms, “It doesn’t go anywhere near. It doesn’t change institutional behavior like that did. This is business as usual, with some moderation.”
The only questionable part of this assessment is the reference to moderation.
The entire process by which the financial regulation bill has been drafted testifies to the domination of both parties and the political system as a whole by a financial aristocracy, consisting of Wall Street CEOs and traders, billionaire investors and speculators of various sorts. The banks have spent hundreds of millions of dollars and employed an army of lobbyists to bribe and pressure congressmen and senators.
The operation has been shameless and open. Much of the bill approved Friday was undoubtedly drafted by Wall Street lawyers and lobbyists in closed-door sessions with Democratic legislators.
The Times indicated as much. Describing the marathon conference committee session that spanned Thursday and early Friday, it wrote: “While the televised proceedings at times provided a remarkable window into the minutiae of legislating, many of the deals to complete the bill were cut outside the conference room, in private discussions between Democratic lawmakers and the Obama administration, with some of Washington’s most influential lobbyists trying to weigh in as best as they could.
“One major bank on Friday scrambled to figure out what happened to six words that to its surprise were apparently cut from an amendment on proprietary trading, potentially posing a threat to its business.”
A group of Democratic legislators from New York at the last minute threatened to withhold support for the bill unless provisions barring banks from directly trading in derivatives and speculating with their own funds on their own account were scaled back to allow these practices to largely continue. They made no bones of the fact that they were acting in behalf of Wall Street interests.
“We wanted to make sure we didn’t drive all the derivative business out of New York,” said Representative Gregory W. Meeks, a Democrat from Queens on the conference committee.
The measure has been dubbed the Dodd-Frank bill, after its main authors and congressional sponsors—Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (Democrat from Connecticut) and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (Democrat from Massachusetts). These two individuals exemplify the corrupt relationship between Wall Street and Congress.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Dodd’s single biggest campaign contributor over the course of his Senate career has been Citigroup, which has donated $427,694. His top five donors include three banks. The biggest source of campaign funds has been the securities and investment industry, which has plowed over $6 million into his coffers. Included in his top five industries are insurance, real estate and commercial banks.
The Center for Responsive Politics reports that Frank’s top contributor has been the American Bankers Association ($78,950). Ranked second is JPMorgan Chase ($74,500). His top five industries for campaign donations are real estate, securities and investment, insurance, lawyers/law firms and commercial banks.
It is hardly surprising that what has issued from such a process is a bill entirely compatible with the interests of the major banks and hedge funds. Its main elements include:
* A watered-down provision on derivatives trading that allows the banks to continue trading 90 percent of the instruments they are currently trading. The most risky derivatives, including credit default swaps, will have to be spun off into subsidiaries of the banks.
* A diluted version of the so-called Volcker Rule (named after the former Fed chairman and current Obama economic advisor). Initially, this provision would have banned commercial banks from investing in or owning hedge funds or private equity funds, and barred them from engaging in proprietary trading, i.e., speculating on their own account with their own funds (which includes the deposits of retail customers). As amended, banks can continue to own and manage hedge funds and private equity funds, and can invest up to 3 percent of their Tier One capital in such ventures, i.e., they can continue to engage in proprietary trading, within certain limits.
* A regulatory scheme for derivatives that excludes so-called “customized” credit default swaps—the most lucrative form of bank trading in derivatives—and employs clearinghouses that are largely owned and controlled by major Wall Street banks. The vast majority of derivatives trades—those by non-financial companies—are exempt from regulation.
* A Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve Board to oversee banking practices in regard to credit cards, mortgage loans, student loans and other forms of consumer credit. The bill exempts from the bureau’s authority all banks with less than $10 billion in assets—some 98 percent of all banks in the US. It also exempts car dealerships. There is nothing to prevent banks from recouping lost revenues resulting from new consumer regulations by imposing other charges. Moreover, a panel of top financial regulators headed by the treasury secretary will have the power to overrule any regulations proposed by the bureau. And it is expected that no new rules will take effect for some seven years.
* A “resolution authority,” whereby regulators, headed by the Treasury, will have the power, without a vote by Congress, to use taxpayer funds to seize and wind down a major financial firm whose failure threatens a systemic crisis. The conference committee bill omitted a provision in the House bill—fiercely opposed by the banks—that would have imposed an up-front levy on the big banks to establish a fund for potential use in a financial firm’s “resolution.” This essentially institutionalizes a mechanism for future bank bailouts. No one on Wall Street and few in Washington take seriously Obama’s claim that this provision will prevent future bank rescues at public expense.
For the most part, these provisions are spelled out in vague terms in the bill. The actual drafting of rules and regulations and setting of critical limits—such as prescribed capital and liquidity reserves—is left to the regulatory bodies. This means that the banks’ lobbying (and bribing) efforts will intensify, but under even more favorable conditions, since this phase of the “reform” will be carried out with even less media scrutiny.
As the Wall Street Journal noted Saturday: “There are more than 200 items in the bill where final details will be left up to regulators. ‘The bottom line here is that this saga will continue,’ said Timothy Ryan, chief executive of the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association.”
The banks are already mobilizing their corps of lawyers to devise ways to evade whatever rules are eventually decreed. “Wall Street has always been very skilled at getting around rules, and this law will be no different,” Frank Partnoy, a professor of law at the University of San Diego and a former trader at Morgan Stanley, told the New York Times.





“The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work. Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market at the low-wage end.” Christian Science Monitor

And who will pay the price for this triumph of orthodoxy? The answer is, tens of millions of unemployed workers, many of whom will go jobless for years, and some of whom will never work again.

June 27, 2010
The Third Depression
Recessions are common; depressions are rare. As far as I can tell, there were only two eras in economic history that were widely described as “depressions” at the time: the years of deflation and instability that followed the Panic of 1873 and the years of mass unemployment that followed the financial crisis of 1929-31.
Neither the Long Depression of the 19th century nor the Great Depression of the 20th was an era of nonstop decline — on the contrary, both included periods when the economy grew. But these episodes of improvement were never enough to undo the damage from the initial slump, and were followed by relapses.
We are now, I fear, in the early stages of a third depression. It will probably look more like the Long Depression than the much more severe Great Depression. But the cost — to the world economy and, above all, to the millions of lives blighted by the absence of jobs — will nonetheless be immense.
And this third depression will be primarily a failure of policy. Around the world — most recently at last weekend’s deeply discouraging G-20 meeting — governments are obsessing about inflation when the real threat is deflation, preaching the need for belt-tightening when the real problem is inadequate spending.
In 2008 and 2009, it seemed as if we might have learned from history. Unlike their predecessors, who raised interest rates in the face of financial crisis, the current leaders of the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank slashed rates and moved to support credit markets. Unlike governments of the past, which tried to balance budgets in the face of a plunging economy, today’s governments allowed deficits to rise. And better policies helped the world avoid complete collapse: the recession brought on by the financial crisis arguably ended last summer.
But future historians will tell us that this wasn’t the end of the third depression, just as the business upturn that began in 1933 wasn’t the end of the Great Depression. After all, unemployment — especially long-term unemployment — remains at levels that would have been considered catastrophic not long ago, and shows no sign of coming down rapidly. And both the United States and Europe are well on their way toward Japan-style deflationary traps.
In the face of this grim picture, you might have expected policy makers to realize that they haven’t yet done enough to promote recovery. But no: over the last few months there has been a stunning resurgence of hard-money and balanced-budget orthodoxy.
As far as rhetoric is concerned, the revival of the old-time religion is most evident in Europe, where officials seem to be getting their talking points from the collected speeches of Herbert Hoover, up to and including the claim that raising taxes and cutting spending will actually expand the economy, by improving business confidence. As a practical matter, however, America isn’t doing much better. The Fed seems aware of the deflationary risks — but what it proposes to do about these risks is, well, nothing. The Obama administration understands the dangers of premature fiscal austerity — but because Republicans and conservative Democrats in Congress won’t authorize additional aid to state governments, that austerity is coming anyway, in the form of budget cuts at the state and local levels.
Why the wrong turn in policy? The hard-liners often invoke the troubles facing Greece and other nations around the edges of Europe to justify their actions. And it’s true that bond investors have turned on governments with intractable deficits. But there is no evidence that short-run fiscal austerity in the face of a depressed economy reassures investors. On the contrary: Greece has agreed to harsh austerity, only to find its risk spreads growing ever wider; Ireland has imposed savage cuts in public spending, only to be treated by the markets as a worse risk than Spain, which has been far more reluctant to take the hard-liners’ medicine.
It’s almost as if the financial markets understand what policy makers seemingly don’t: that while long-term fiscal responsibility is important, slashing spending in the midst of a depression, which deepens that depression and paves the way for deflation, is actually self-defeating.
So I don’t think this is really about Greece, or indeed about any realistic appreciation of the tradeoffs between deficits and jobs. It is, instead, the victory of an orthodoxy that has little to do with rational analysis, whose main tenet is that imposing suffering on other people is how you show leadership in tough times.
And who will pay the price for this triumph of orthodoxy? The answer is, tens of millions of unemployed workers, many of whom will go jobless for years, and some of whom will never work again.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Obama & Mexican Gangs Invade Arizona - THEN WE GET THE BILLS FOR THEIR CRIME WAVE

So, we have Mexican gangs virtually controlling parts of the United States and making threats against American law enforcement officials, but does it stop there? Of course not. Mexico is also SUING Arizona over its new illegal immigration law.

Our country is being occupied!!!! That sentence alone should be a ringing call for action! Laws are being broken. People in Arizona are being killed and threatened. Arizona takes action, and what does Obama do? Does he send troops in to wipe out the gangs? No, he's going to sue Arizona! What's wrong

What ever happened to 'American' soil?
By Bobby Eberle June 23, 2010 7:13 AM

I might be a little slow here, but isn't America a sovereign nation? Doesn't it have borders and land and citizens? Didn't Americans fight battles and wars and negotiate land deals to establish this country and set up a federal government to protect the sovereign nation? Ok, I'm just asking, because now we have Mexican drug gangs camped out on American soil, and Barack Obama is doing nothing about it! Isn't protecting the country THE fundamental function of the president and those in Washington?
Before we get into some details, check out this headline from Mexican Gangs Maintain Permanent Lookout Bases in Hills of Arizona. Did you read it? Ok... rest five seconds and read it again. This is completely insane!
Mexican drug cartels have set up shop on American soil, maintaining lookout bases in strategic locations in the hills of southern Arizona from which their scouts can monitor every move made by law enforcement officials, federal agents tell Fox News.

The scouts are supplied by drivers who bring them food, water, batteries for radios -- all the items they need to stay in the wilderness for a long time.

"To say that this area is out of control is an understatement," said an agent who patrols the area and asked not to be named. "We (federal border agents), as well as the Pima County Sheriff Office and the Bureau of Land Management, can attest to that."
Not only are the drug and illegal alien traffickers setting up bases on American soil, they are also issuing threats. As Joshua Rhett Miller reports, "Police officers in a small Arizona border city are on heightened alert following a tip that a Mexican drug cartel will put them in its crosshairs if they conduct off-duty busts."
The threat stems from a marijuana seizure made this month by two off-duty police officers riding on horseback in an unincorporated area east of Nogales, a city of roughly 20,000, Police Chief Jeffrey Kirkham told

"The word was that these particular officers would be targeted if they were ever in that area again and were not on duty and intercepted any drug trafficking," Kirkham said. "It said they should look the other way."
So, we have Mexican gangs virtually controlling parts of the United States and making threats against American law enforcement officials, but does it stop there? Of course not. Mexico is also SUING Arizona over its new illegal immigration law.
Mexico on Tuesday asked a federal court in Arizona to declare the state's new immigration law unconstitutional, arguing that the country's own interests and its citizens' rights are at stake.

Lawyers for Mexico on Tuesday submitted a legal brief in support of one of five lawsuits challenging the law. The law will take effect July 29 unless implementation is blocked by a court.
Arizona's new law known as SB-1070 "requires police investigating another incident or crime to ask people about their immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally. It also makes being in Arizona illegally a misdemeanor, and it prohibits seeking day-labor work along the state's streets." This law, as many of you know, is basically a restatement of federal law... a federal law that the federal government does not enforce. In addition, this law is much more lax than Mexican immigration law. However, that point seems to be missed in Mexico's lawsuit.
And the list grows... Mexican gangs controlling parts of the U.S. and making threats against American cops. In addition, Mexico is suing Arizona to make sure that the illegal alien "business" keeps right on flowing. Does it stop there? Unfortunately, yes, because there is NO action being taken by Obama and his team!
Just watch any interview with a Democrat "strategist" regarding what's going on in Arizona, and they will pull out their "comprehensive immigration reform" talking points. Just like Obama is doing with the Gulf oil spill, they are taking a situation that needs immediate action and turning it into a call for some left-wing legislation. Our country is being occupied!!!! That sentence alone should be a ringing call for action! Laws are being broken. People in Arizona are being killed and threatened. Arizona takes action, and what does Obama do? Does he send troops in to wipe out the gangs? No, he's going to sue Arizona! What's wrong

Read more:


Lou Dobbs Tonight
And there are some 800,000 gang members in this country: That’s more than the combined number of troops in our Army and Marine Corps. These gangs have become one of the principle ways to import and distribute drugs in the United States. Congressman David Reichert joins Lou to tell us why those gangs are growing larger and stronger, and why he’s introduced legislation to eliminate the top three international drug gangs.
Lou Dobbs Tonight
CNN -- July 27 Pilgrim: Well presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama voiced support for yesterday's court ruling that struck down Hazleton's illegal immigration law. Senator Obama called the federal court ruling a victory for all Americans. The senator said comprehensive reform is needed so local communities do not continue to take matters into their own hands. Senator Obama was a supporter of the Senate's failed immigration bill, which would have given amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney took a strong stand against chain migration today....
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Monday, February 11, 2008
In California, League of United Latin American Citizens has adopted a resolution to declare "California Del Norte" a sanctuary zone for immigrants. The declaration urges the Mexican government to invoke its rights under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo "to seek third nation neutral arbitration of ....disputes concerning immigration laws and their enforcement." We’ll have the story.
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Plus, outrage after President Obama prepares to push ahead with his plan for so-called comprehensive immigration reform. Pres. Obama is fulfilling a campaign promise to give legal status to millions of illegal aliens as he panders to the pro-amnesty, open borders lobby. Tonight we will have complete coverage.
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Monday, February 16, 2009
Construction of the 670 miles of border fence mandated by the Bush administration is almost complete. The Border Patrol says the new fencing, more agents and new technology have reduced illegal alien apprehensions. But fence opponents are trying to stop the last few miles from being finished.


Lou Dobbs Tonight
Friday, October 16, 2009
E-Verify- the single most successful federal program aimed at keeping illegal immigrants out of the workforce- is once again threatened. This time, E-Verify was stripped from a Senate Amendment behind closed doors and without explanation. Instead of becoming a permanent program E-verify has been reduced to only three years. Critics are calling this a stall tactic and an attempt at killing an employment enforcement system. We will have a full report tonight.
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
New attempts to put comprehensive immigration reform back on the front burner. Congressman Luis Gutierrez -- the chair of the Democratic Caucus Immigration Task Force -- is unveiling new legislation that would call for amnesty for the up to 20 million illegal immigrants in this country.
Congressman Gutierrez will join me tonight
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
The Obama administration could be weakening a successful joint federal and local program aimed at keeping illegal immigrants off our streets. "287 G" gives local police the training and authority to enforce federal immigration law. Supporters of the program believe the ministration wants to limit the program to criminal illegal immigrants already in custody -- limiting the investigative authority of police.
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Monday, September 28, 2009
And T.J. BONNER, president of the National Border Patrol Council, will weigh in on the federal government’s decision to pull nearly 400 agents from the U.S.-Mexican border.
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Federal contractors now must use E-verify to check the status of their employees on federal projects. The rule which goes into effect today will affect almost 169,000 contractors and some 3.8 million workers. The E-verify program has an accuracy rating of 99.6% but has been repeatedly challenged by the U.S. Chamber of Congress. We will have a full report tonight.
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Immigration experts are appearing on Capitol Hill today to release the results of a study showing the cost of illegal immigration on the criminal justices system in the 24 U.S. counties bordering Mexico–more $1 billion in less than a decade.
Lou Dobbs Tonight

Thursday, May 28, 2009
Plus drug cartel violence is spreading across our border with Mexico further into the United States. Mexican drug cartels are increasingly being linked to crimes in this country. Joining Lou tonight, from our border with Mexico is the new “border czar” Alan Bersin, the Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for International Affairs and Special Representative for Border Affairs.

Lou Dobbs Tonight
Monday, February 16, 2009
Plus, even open border advocates agree that the most effective way of fighting illegal immigration is to crack down on the employment of illegal aliens. Yet, those same groups are opposed to E-Verify, which has an initial accuracy rate of 99.6% making it one the most accurate programs ever. E-Verify was stripped from the stimulus bill but who stripped it out and who is opposed to verifying employment status is still not clear.

Lou Dobbs Tonight
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
In Colorado, over 1,300 illegal aliens are being investigated for applying for improper tax refunds. The ACLU has written a letter to the judge threatening to sue if the judge convenes a grand jury to investigate the case. We will have all the latest developments of the case as well as the ACLU’s bullying in pursuit of their amnesty agenda.
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
And WILLIAM GHEEN, the president of Americans for Legal Immigration, breaks down his push for E-Verify—and why the Obama administration is wrong to delay its implementation when it comes to federal contractors

Lou Dobbs Tonight
Monday, June 16, 2008
Tonight, we’ll have all the latest on the devastating floods in the Midwest and all the day’s news from the campaign trail. The massive corporate mouthpiece the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is holding a “North American Forum” to lay out its “shared vision” for the United States, Canada and Mexico – which is to say a borderless, pro-business super-state in which U.S. sovereignty will be dissolved. Undercover investigators have found incredibly lax security and enforcement at U.S. border crossings, according to a new report by the Government Accountability Office. This report comes on the heels of a separate report by U.C. San Diego that shows tougher border security efforts aren’t deterring illegal entries to the United States.





"The Latino community is a foundation for the American dream going forward," she said.
Fiorina town hall reaches out to Latinos
The Republican launches a Spanish-language website, but her support for Arizona's anti-illegal immigrant law could pose a challenge.
By Shane Goldmacher, Los Angeles Times
June 27, 2010
Reporting from Sacramento

Reaching out to a key voting bloc, Republican Senate nominee Carly Fiorina held a Latino-themed town hall Saturday afternoon in Sacramento, heaping praise on California's Latino community for representing "the best of who this nation is."

"Bienvenidos," Fiorina beamed to the crowd of less than 20, who were nearly matched in size by her staff in a downtown Mexican eatery.

The event, paired with Fiorina's launch of a new Spanish-language website, Amigos de Carly, is part of an ethnic outreach tour for the former Hewlett-Packard chief executive in her bid to unseat incumbent Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer. Last weekend, Fiorina took a spin through a predominantly African American Juneteenth festival in South Los Angeles. The moves represent a sharp shift in rhetorical emphasis, though not policy positions, after a GOP primary in which Fiorina hewed to the political right.

On Saturday, she laced her stump speech with anecdotes that recount her ascent from secretary to chief executive – "the American dream," as she put it — with new references. "The Latino community is a foundation for the American dream going forward," she said.

Fiorina's direct appeal to Latinos follows in the footsteps of her GOP counterpart in the governor's race, former EBay chief Meg Whitman, who began advertising on Spanish-language TV stations during the World Cup. Most political analysts believe that any statewide Republican must garner a substantial chunk, perhaps one-third, of the Latino vote to win in November.

"The Latino community is big, and therefore it's important," Fiorina said.

But Fiorina faces one barrier Whitman does not: her support for the new anti-illegal immigrant law in Arizona. She made no mention of it during the town hall, but told reporters afterward, "I do support the law, and I think it was a tragedy the law was necessary."

Riverside County Dist. Atty. Rod Pacheco, the chairman of Fiorina's Latino-outreach efforts who attended the town hall, seemed to acknowledge that the Arizona law could be an albatross. But, he said, "it's better to be firm on your position, know where you stand than be wishy-washy."

Boxer called the law "divisive" in Los Angeles on Friday. "In the Latino community there is tremendous opposition to it," she said.

State Sen. Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles), a leading Latino legislator, said the GOP overtures to Latino voters demonstrated their power. "What a dramatic change from the time period of Proposition 187, when you could simply openly attack the Latino community and there wouldn't be a political consequence to that," he said, referring to the 1994 initiative that sought to cut public services to illegal immigrants.

Cedillo, a liberal, said Latinos tend to be socially conservative and distrustful of government and, therefore, are "poised to be Republicans." But with Republicans' anti-immigrant rhetoric in the recent primary, he said, they "may have dug themselves in a hole that's too difficult to dig out of."

One issue Fiorina is seeking to exploit among Latinos is the fallout from environmental restrictions. Water deliveries have been severely cut to Central Valley farmlands by the federal Endangered Species Act, which protects the Delta smelt, a small fish. Fiorina wants to carve out an exemption to the landmark environmental law to increase the water flow; Boxer does not.

"Tens of thousands of Latinos lost their jobs," Fiorina said of the effect of the water cutbacks, one of several times she mentioned the issue. "Fish are not more important than families."

She pledged that working to overturn the limits would be the "first thing I will do," if elected.

The Fiorina event ended much the same way it began: in Spanish.

"Muchas gracias," she concluded, to applause.

MEXICO IN MELTDOWN - And Meltding Over Our Open & Undefended Borders


Mexican state security minister can't trust her own police

Minerva Bautista and her entourage were attacked by gunmen in Michoacan, turf of La Familia drug gang. The chief suspects are well known to her.
By Tracy Wilkinson, Los Angeles Times

June 27, 2010

Reporting from Morelia, Mexico

As dozens of gunmen fired more than 2,700 deafening rounds of ammunition, Minerva Bautista crouched on the floor of her heavily armored SUV, screaming into her radio for backup and thinking one thing: "I know help will come."

But when the minister of security for Michoacan state heard the rounds begin to penetrate her car's armor, sending pieces of metal into her back "like fiery sparks," her faith faltered. And when one of her badly injured bodyguards asked her to take care of his family, she lost hope.

"They didn't just want to kill us," she said later. "They wanted to destroy us."

A seemingly interminable 15 minutes after the attack began in a narrow highway pass that night in April, rescuers finally arrived.

It was one of the most brazen assaults on a top state official in President Felipe Calderon's nearly 4-year-old offensive against drug cartels. But there is an even darker side to the story, one that exposes a fundamental flaw in the war: So deep is drug-financed corruption, the lead suspects in the attack on Bautista are the very police she commands.

Four people were killed, but Bautista, 36, suffered only relatively minor wounds. At least as remarkable as her survival is the fact that she has returned to the top security job here in Calderon's home state, where a notorious drug gang called La Familia has penetrated most police and judicial bodies.

She no longer lives at home with her parents but in a safe house, and she moves around with a mini-army of soldiers as guards. Public knowledge of her schedule is kept deliberately vague; her once customary visits to city halls, neighborhoods, schools and prison yards now curtailed. And she has had to recalibrate how, and whom, to trust.

"Of course I am afraid … but I have an even greater conviction now to keep working," Bautista told The Times in her first post-attack interview with a non-Mexican publication.

"If I don't do it, another colleague will have to," she said. "It would be a very negative message to the people of Michoacan if authorities, faced with this situation, say, 'Let's get out of here.'"

Tall and thin, with her blond-highlighted hair pulled in a tight ponytail, Bautista wears lots of blue eye shadow, a sparkling crucifix and a denim shirt with the logo, "Michoacan is working." She steps gingerly but with precision, feeling the metal pieces of shrapnel still lodged in her back and one leg. She smiles and laughs easily, despite the tension engulfing her surroundings.

It's a long way from her days as a schoolteacher and school union activist. A third-generation native of Michoacan, she sank herself into politics, joining the leftist Democratic Revolution Party that has ruled the state for most of the last decade and eventually catching the eye of Gov. Leonel Godoy. Last year he plucked her from a mid-level position in the Public Security Ministry, where she had gravitated after leaving the classroom, and placed her in the top job.

Bautista says she wanted to represent Godoy's idea of a "new face" for public security, one that emphasized citizen participation, education and prevention programs over military might. But one way or another, she managed to cross La Familia.

As part of the investigation of the attempted assassination, more than 100 police officers have been interrogated and their weapons submitted to ballistics tests in a search for suspects, a search that has proved fruitless.

La Familia, known for producing methamphetamine and decapitating enemies, has undermined all attempts to crack down on cartels and restore law and order. Three senior members of the Security Ministry were killed last year, and Bautista's predecessor was arrested on drug-trafficking charges.

These are scenarios that, with one drug gang or another, have been repeated across Mexico. But in contrast with other parts of the country, Michoacan authorities have not conducted a major purge of local police forces, another sign of La Familia's sway.

Authorities suspect corrupt cops tipped gunmen loyal to La Familia to Bautista's movements and route that April night.

Her would-be killers chose well. The spot on the highway where they attacked is flanked by embankments that gave gunmen the advantage of height. They moved a stolen cargo truck across the highway to block her vehicle's escape.

The area is also a spot where cellular telephone and radio signals are spotty. That and the chaos of the moment delayed help. Initially she couldn't even raise anybody on her radio.

She acknowledges there was negligence, or worse. Police patrols that were supposed to be tending the area had not materialized.

"They planned it very well, and we failed in providing the vigilance necessary," she said. "It was an attack from which I wouldn't expect we would emerge alive. Only later did we realize fully the magnitude of the attack."

For the first 10 minutes, she was confident help would come. But as time under the relentless barrage of grenades and .50-caliber rounds dragged on, she prepared to die.

The state prosecutor's office later said more than 2,700 spent shells were collected from the scene and that about 350 ammo rounds hit Bautista's car. Three grenades also hit it but somehow failed to detonate.

The gunmen fled when they heard the shouts of arriving state police. The bloody aftermath of dust, smoke, agonized screams and destroyed vehicles included four dead: two civilian motorists, who happened to be on the road, and two of Bautista's entourage.

"This kind of thing makes you reflect, and one thought I had was … to quit. But it would have been a defeat," she said. "I used to be very trusting of everybody, and now I am extremely suspicious. I'm more observant of people, what they do, what they say, details I might not have noticed before."

Bautista is not married and has no children, which is why, until the attack, she continued to live with her parents, an arrangement typical in Mexico. Were she a mother, she said, her willingness to put her life on the line might be different. She hopes to marry soon — her boyfriend works in security in her department.

The assassination attempt essentially wiped out an entire shift of her regular protection. Guards previously seconded from the state police force have now been augmented by the better-trained, better-armed military.

The time and venue of the interview with The Times was changed twice and finally took place in a hotel. There, seating was chosen based on the ability to guard two access points. A contingent of soldiers surrounded the hotel. Other well-armed guards in body armor and attached to radios flanked the table where Bautista sat with a reporter and two aides.

It remains a matter of speculation as to exactly why she was targeted — whom she offended or betrayed and how, and who ordered her death. Bautista says she had not received threats, and consequently hadn't taken extraordinary security measures. She suggested that her work, including a number of changes in the leadership of public security departments, had "created discomfort" and may have led to the attempted assassination.

Other Michoacan sources said, however, that several e-mail messages were sent to Bautista this year purporting to be from La Familia and ordering her to step down. In Michoacan, that is the kind of warning that you ignore at your peril.

In the interview, Bautista downplayed the role of her police in the attack, saying that was one of several lines of investigation. But she also acknowledged that the culprits probably would never be arrested and prosecuted, and that would be a shame, she said.

"I hope there are eventually arrests because these are people prepared to do absolutely anything, acting completely in cold blood," she said. "As cases go unresolved, there is more impunity, and criminals, common ones and the ones in organized crime, know they can get away with it. Nothing happens to them."

Bautista supports a federal government plan to consolidate police forces and create a single police agency for each state, loyal to a single command. This would eliminate scores of easily corruptible municipal police forces and, in theory, enhance security.

But a lot of Bautista's plans for reforming state security are on hold now, and she's turning greater attention to technology, such as the use of 500 new surveillance cameras here in Morelia, a colonial city known for its picturesque architecture before it became the center of La Familia terror.

"I am very worried about the situation, and it makes me rethink what we are doing," Bautista said. "We saw how vulnerable we are."

Collateral Damage in Obama's War on Arizona By AUSTIN HILL

The bankster president came to office to service his bankster donors. They’ve done mighty good with their investment in Obama, as the banksters’ rape and pillage rolls on. Beyond banksters, Obama’s only concern is getting the illegals’ illegal votes. For that he can’t hispander enough! The man can’t open his mouth without taco crumbs falling out!

“Congressional Democrats are now in the painful process of discovering that Barack Obama’s agenda was never about them, never about “the party,” and never about the United States. They have been slavishly empowering a man who is committed to his own raw pursuit of power, and they are now finding themselves to be victims of his agenda.”

Collateral Damage in Obama's War on Arizona


It wasn’t all that long ago when they fawned over him.
But now, three congressional Democrats from Arizona are twisting in the wind, as their beloved party leader President Barack Obama continues to punish their cash-strapped state with a costly and unpopular law suit to prevent the implementation of Arizona’s new illegal immigration law. It’s Obama versus the people – with congressional Democrats caught in the middle.
But things were different on February 17, 2009.
The delegation standing on the tarmac was electrified with excitement, as Air Force One taxied to a stop at Phoenix, Arizona’s Sky Harbor Airport. The man who was the embodiment of all their dreams – the man who would give everyone a job, apologize to the world for President Bush, punish the “rich people” who “earned too much” over the previous eight years, give everyone in the U.S.” free” healthcare, make the world love America again, and ensure a Democrat majority in the Congress for years to come - President Barack Obama was visiting their state, and this was their very special moment in time.
And there was the congenial, grand-fatherly-looking Harry Mitchell, giddy with excitement as he stood with a camera strap draped over his neck, snapping photos by the second as the President stepped down from the aircraft. It was cute to see an older gentleman so caught-up in the victorious moment of a much younger man, like a dad on the sidelines at his son’s big game.
But Harry Mitchell is an elected member of the United States Congress. He represents hundreds of thousands of people in the House of Representatives, and those people expect more from him than mere cheerleading, more than merely being an adoring father-figure.
And today, Congressman Harry Mitchell appears to be on a path to electoral defeat, because of eighteen months of cheerleading and adoration of a President with a very self-serving agenda. Things have become so bad for Congressman Mitchell that he had to publicly chastise the “Dear Leader,” and suggest that President Obama might spend tax payers in some more productive fashion than suing Arizona. Worse still, Mr. Mitchell has had to – gasp!- publicly call for securing the U.S. / Mexico border , an idea that has been championed by Arizona Republicans for decades, and by Tea Partiers and Minutemen enthusiasts for at least the past six years.
In the southern Arizona city of Tucson, Congresswoman Gabriella Giffords is in a similar struggle. For her part, Giffords learned much earlier than Mitchell that her constituents were not as infatuated with President Obama as she was. After voting in favor of the President’s $800 billion so-called “economic stimulus bill,” Giffords was met with outcries of “government waste” and quickly issued press statements assuring constituents that she was in Washington to serve them, and not merely to “rubber stamp” the President’s agenda.
Yet Giffords is still being damaged by the President’s thrashing of Arizona, as well as the behavior of her fellow Southern Arizona Democrat, Congressman Raul Grijalva. While Giffords’ appears very vulnerable in her re-election bid, Grijalva’s seat is believed to be “safe,” so Grijalva has been encouraging the President to sue Arizona, while he encourages businesses around the world to boycott (note the caliber of congressional leadership that has emerged in the era of Obama – we’re talking here about a sitting U.S. Congressman who is openly encouraging people to economically damage his community).
In Central Arizona, Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick is also paying the price for playing “follow the leader.” Hopelessly enamored with President Obama’s every thought, Ms. Kirkpatrick was the first member of Congress to issue press releases claiming that she personally wanted to enroll in the proposed “Obamacare health plan,” rather than continue with the exclusive, more lavish health plan granted to members of Congress.

But today it’s a different, as Kirkpatrick has joined Mitchell and Giffords in chastising their community-organizer-in-chief. She has also adopted the long-standing cry of Republicans to “secure the border first,” telling the President that “the time for talk is over, and the time for action is here.”

So, what happened? What has changed in the past eighteen months to force these Obama partisans to now disagree with him? And how could these elected members of the United States Congress have so horribly miscalculated the true sentiments of their constituents?

Their biggest problem is that they – along with the majority of the Congress itself – made the horrible mistake of finding their hopes and aspirations in the embodiment of one man, one personality, one persona. As constitutionally and historically illiterate as many members of Congress may be, there are still millions of us who understand that the United States is a nation resting on the foundation of specific principles and ideals, and not on the whims and charm of any individual personality.
Congressional Democrats are now in the painful process of discovering that Barack Obama’s agenda was never about them, never about “the party,” and never about the United States. They have been slavishly empowering a man who is committed to his own raw pursuit of power, and they are now finding themselves to be victims of his agenda.


Three Presidents did it, yet we never hear about it

What did Hoover, Truman, and Eisenhower have in common?

Here is something that should be of great interest for you to pass around.
I didn't know of this until it was pointed out to me.

Back during The Great Depression, President Herbert Hoover ordered the
deportation of ALL illegal aliens in order to make jobs available to American
citizens that desperately needed work..

Harry Truman deported over two million Illegal's
after WWII to create jobs for returning veterans.

And then again in 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower deported 13 million
Mexican Nationals! The program was called 'Operation Wetback'.
It was one so WWII and Korean Veterans would have a better chance at jobs.
It took 2 Years, but they deported them!

Now... if they could deport the illegal's back then –
they could sure do it today.

lf you have doubts about the veracity of this information,
enter Operation Wetback into your favorite search engine and
confirm it for yourself.
Don't forget to pay your taxes...
12 million Illegal Aliens are depending on you

Obama Courts Latinos by Suing Arizona


-- We need a foolproof national biometric ID card so employers can tell who is legal and who is not.

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

Obama Courts Latinos by Suing Arizona


Why is President Obama suing to invalidate the Arizona law on illegal immigration? Why is he incurring the enmity of even his own Democratic congressmen from the Phoenix and Tucson areas by trying to kill a law that two-thirds of Arizona and a similar proportion of America as a whole supports?
The answer: It is a desperate, last-ditch attempt to rebuild his sagging popularity with America's Hispanic voters.
Furious at Obama for failing to keep his election-year promise to promote comprehensive immigration reform when he had a super-majority at his disposal, they are deserting the president and his party in droves. Unemployment, a sagging economy and their sharp disagreement with Obama over social issues don't help the president's cause any.
So Obama has seized on the Arizona immigration law as a symbolic target, hoping to accomplish in a lawsuit the political task of rebuilding his base.
Remember that in 2008, Obama won precisely the same share of the white vote that Sen. John Kerry won in 2004. There was a shift among whites, as the Obama won more young whites and lost more older ones, but the white vote ratios as a whole remained constant. His entire margin of victory was based on two factors:
a) The African-American vote rose from 11 percent of the total in 2004 to 14% in 2008 and virtually all voted for Obama; and
b) Latinos, who had backed Kerry by only 10 points, supported Obama by 50 points.
For Obama to have a shot at keeping Democrats in control of Congress, he must replicate the enthusiasm of 2008 among minorities. But his Hispanic flank is definitely weakened. Hence the lawsuit to shore it up.
The answer on immigration reform is to adopt a three-part program to dry up the jobs that attract illegal migrants in the first place. When there are no jobs, they will not come -- and those who are here will go back home without deportations or roundups.
We need to:

-- Strengthen penalties and enforcement of laws barring people and companies from hiring illegal immigrants. Those who do so should face prison time.

-- We need a foolproof national biometric ID card so employers can tell who is legal and who is not.

-- We should implement a broad guest-worker program to bring upscale and manual workers into the U.S. to fill our labor-force needs. They must get at least the minimum wage and have health benefits. But, when the job is over, they must go home.
Democrats won't embrace this program because the unions won't let them and because they want illegals to stay here and become Democratic voters. Republican agri-businesses won't go for it because they want to exploit illegal workers with low pay and bad work conditions.

But this is the solution. Trying to seal the border is good rhetoric but is a hopeless task. Drying up the jobs that bring illegal immigrants here is something we can and must do.


Senators Challenge Pres. Obama on Rumors of Amnesty Through Executive Actions
Updated Wednesday, June 23, 2010, 10:58 AM EDT - posted on NumbersUSA

DHS Sec. Janet Napolitano
Several Senators have learned of a possible plan by the Obama Administration that would provide a mass Amnesty for the nation's 11-18 million illegal aliens. Led by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), eight Senators addressed a letter to the President asking for answers to questions about a plan that would allow DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to provide an amnesty if they can't secure enough votes for a bill in the Senate.

(Send this FREE FAX to Pres. Obama expressing your Outrage at the Administration's plans to provide an amnesty for illegal aliens through Executive Order)

The letter that was sent to Pres. Obama earlier today asks the President for clarification on the use of deferred action or parole for illegal aliens. The executive actions are typically used in special cases and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but if 60 votes can't be secured in the Senate to pass a mass Amnesty, the Administration may use the discretionary actions as an alternative.

Here is the text of the letter signed by Sens. Grassley, Hatch (R-Utah), Vitter (R-La.), Bunning (R-Ky.), Chambliss (R-Ga.), Isakson (R-Ga.), Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Cochran (R-Miss.).

Dear President Obama:

We understand that there’s a push for your Administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States. We understand that the Administration may include aliens who have willfully overstayed their visas or filed for benefits knowing that they will not be eligible for a status for years to come. We understand that deferred action and parole are discretionary actions reserved for individual cases that present unusual, emergent or humanitarian circumstances. Deferred action and parole were not intended to be used to confer a status or offer protection to large groups of illegal aliens, even if the agency claims that they look at each case on a “case-by-case” basis.

While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States.

The Administration would be wise to abandon any plans for deferred action or parole for the illegal population. Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books.

We would appreciate receiving a commitment that the Administration has no plans to use either authority to change the current position of a large group of illegal aliens already in the United States, and ask that you respond to us about this matter as soon as




Have you noticed that Barack Obama really never has anything substantive to say about JOBS? After the rape and on going pillage of this nation by Obama's bankster donors, all he can do is hammer out their bonuses, never too big to fail, and no real regulation! When he's not busy on red carpet photo ops where he performs the role he was born for, Head of State, he's working for angles on AMNESTY!

Unemployment can never be high enough! Billions in welfare states, cities and counties pay out to support MEXICO'S WELFARE and PRISON SYSTEMS, can never be enough, and certainly WAGES CAN NEVER BE LOW ENOUGH!

You won't find a billionaire that is not pushing for OPEN BORDERS, DEPRESSED WAGES, AND AMNESTY!

The richest man in the world used to be Bill Gates. Gates built his fortune off fucking over Americans buy demanding endless boatloads of Chinese and Indians to take American jobs (Silicon Valley CA is nothing but a third-world province resulting from this). Twice Gates had gone to Congress to demand NO CAPS on bringing in foreign workers. The whores in the biggest whore house on earth, CONGRESS drooled over the billionaire like he was their pimp. Before Gates went to be drooled over, he paid a "state visit" to Narcomex. Not to implore the Mexicans to stop exporting their pregnant women, which is 50% of Mexico, for "free" birthing and then 18 years of "anchor baby" welfare, but to KEEP SENDING MORE ILLEGALS! Bill Gates is a generous donor to the Mexican fascist party of LA RAZA... "The Race".

As noted, Gates is no longer the richest man in the world. That title is now held by Mexican CARLOS SLIM, who owns the NEW YORK TIMES. The Times seldom ever prints anything on illegals, certainly not the Mexican crime tidal wave, let alone the state by state ever expanding Mexican welfare state within a state. Only an occasional give'me amnesty, give'em amnesty! Carlos Slim owns the Mexican phone monopoly which is why Mexico pays the highest phone rates in the hemisphere. In fact it's worked out nicely in Narcomex. The ruling class owns the economy and there's always more money for the billionaire class if they export their poor, illiterate, criminal and frequently pregnant over our borders! And they have! Most sources put the LA RAZA STATE within a state at 38 million illegals and breeding fast! According to the Christian Science Monitor (see article bottom) the only thing the Mexican rulers do for their poor is export them to America where they arrive with their inherent LA RAZA racism, waving their Mexican flags, and demanding all the rights and privileges they deny "illegals" in their own country. Mexican hypocrisy runs deep!

Mayor Bloomberg in New York wants amnesty like OBAMA, GATES, AND OUR CARLOS SLIM! It's not because he cares about poor illegals! Like Gates he doesn't give a fuck about poor Americans! It's all about keeping wages DEPRESSED! THE WALL ST. RULERS OF THIS ONCE GREAT NATION PREACH THAT CORPORATE PROFITS, LIKE C.E.O. BONUSES, CAN NEVER BE HIGH ENOUGH! THEREFORE WAGES CAN NEVER BE LOW ENOUGH! Obama knows this. He started working for the LA RAZA agenda the day he took office.

There are only eight states with a population greater than LOS ANGELES COUNTY where 47% (dated) of those with a job are ILLEGALS USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS. When have you ever heard about an employer of an illegal getting busted? In fact California's Sen. Dianne Feinstein has called Americans "stupid" for not wanting amnesty. She has long illegally hired illegals at her S.F. hotel. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who lied about illegals being part of OBAMACARE, as did Obama in the face of the nation, also has long hired illegals at her $20 million dollar St. Helena, Napa winery! Along with Barbara Boxer, these three work tirelessly for banksters, utility monopolies, and AMNESTY!

IT TOOK 20 YEARS OF BUSH, HILLARY, BILLARY, BUSH AND NOW OBAMA to turn this once great nation into a Mexican gang infested welfare state. It will take that long to reverse their assault. Obama this minute is assaulting the people of Arizona which pays out billions in welfare and crime related costs for their Mexican invasion! While Mex President is below the border doing his part for the LA RAZA OCCUPATION and WELFARE STATE IN ARIZONA!


June 25, 2010

The Cheap Cost of Cheating the Lowest Paid

Her baby will soon be due, so Modesta Toribio has to grudgingly admit she may not soon make her current career goal — New York’s supposedly mandatory $7.25 minimum wage — that she has been routinely denied for the past five years. She inched her salary up to $6.60 an hour from the starting $5 at a cut-rate Brooklyn clothing store mainly by pestering her bosses. Ms. Toribio has a brassy knack for that, but she has learned it takes a lot to best scheming employers.

Academic studies estimate that unscrupulous employers in New York City keep an extra billion dollars a year by defying New York State’s weak labor law and cheating timorous and ill-informed immigrant workers.

Ms. Toribio was both when she arrived from the Dominican Republic 10 years ago. But she evolved into a word-of-mouth investigator and organizer for the Make the Road New York community group. The organization has successfully worked with committed state inspectors to wring wage-theft judgments against scores of employers — $28,000 for a gouged fruit-stand peddler, $70,000 for 99-cent store workers, $400,000 from moguls squeezing the payroll at a sneaker chain.

New York needs a strong labor law like Arizona’s. Arizona is rightly notorious for its abusive anti-immigrant law. But its labor law seriously penalizes employers who retaliate against outspoken workers, and it provides confidentiality for whistleblowers and faster, bigger damages for employers who ignore wage-theft judgments. A bill to toughen New York’s law awaits action by the Legislature, which is in its closing days, when the good and the ugly elbow for attention.

“Albany could stop an awful lot of injustice,” Ms. Toribio says prayerfully. Her voice had a steely lilt on Friday when she talked other wage-cheated workers into going with her to Manhattan to picket a grocery store. She knows a “scared guy” there, a Mexican immigrant who earns $5 an hour with no vacation or overtime allowed in his 70-hour week. “The boss,” she says, “has to understand a worker is not alone.

EXPORTING POVERTY... we take MEXICO'S 38 million poor, illiterate, criminal and frequently pregnant

........ where can we send AMERICA'S poor?

The Mexican Invasion................................................
Mexico prefers to export its poor, not uplift them

March 30, 2006 edition

Mexico prefers to export its poor, not uplift them
At this week's summit, failed reforms under Fox should be the issue, not US actions.

By George W. Grayson WILLIAMSBURG, VA.

At the parleys this week with his US and Canadian counterparts in Cancún, Mexican President Vicente Fox will press for more opportunities for his countrymen north of the Rio Grande. Specifically, he will argue for additional visas for Mexicans to enter the United States and Canada, the expansion of guest-worker schemes, and the "regularization" of illegal immigrants who reside throughout the continent. In a recent interview with CNN, the Mexican chief executive excoriated as "undemocratic" the extension of a wall on the US-Mexico border and called for the "orderly, safe, and legal" northbound flow of Mexicans, many of whom come from his home state of Guanajuato. Mexican legislators share Mr. Fox's goals. Silvia Hernández Enriquez, head of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for North America, recently emphasized that the solution to the "structural phenomenon" of unlawful migration lies not with "walls or militarization" but with "understanding, cooperation, and joint responsibility." Such rhetoric would be more convincing if Mexican officials were making a good faith effort to uplift the 50 percent of their 106 million people who live in poverty. To his credit, Fox's "Opportunities" initiative has improved slightly the plight of the poorest of the poor. Still, neither he nor Mexico's lawmakers have advanced measures that would spur sustained growth, improve the quality of the workforce, curb unemployment, and obviate the flight of Mexicans abroad. Indeed, Mexico's leaders have turned hypocrisy from an art form into an exact science as they shirk their obligations to fellow citizens, while decrying efforts by the US senators and representatives to crack down on illegal immigration at the border and the workplace. What are some examples of this failure of responsibility? • When oil revenues are excluded, Mexico raises the equivalent of only 9 percent of its gross domestic product in taxes - a figure roughly equivalent to that of Haiti and far below the level of major Latin American nations. Not only is Mexico's collection rate ridiculously low, its fiscal regime is riddled with loopholes and exemptions, giving rise to widespread evasion. Congress has rebuffed efforts to reform the system. Insufficient revenues mean that Mexico spends relatively little on two key elements of social mobility: Education commands just 5.3 percent of its GDP and healthcare only 6.10 percent, according to the World Bank's last comparative study. • A venal, "come-back-tomorrow" bureaucracy explains the 58 days it takes to open a business in Mexico compared with three days in Canada, five days in the US, nine days in Jamaica, and 27 days in Chile. Mexico's private sector estimates that 34 percent of the firms in the country made "extra official" payments to functionaries and legislators in 2004. These bribes totaled $11.2 billion and equaled 12 percent of GDP. • Transparency International, a nongovernmental organization, placed Mexico in a tie with Ghana, Panama, Peru, and Turkey for 65th among 158 countries surveyed for corruption. • Economic competition is constrained by the presence of inefficient, overstaffed state oil and electricity monopolies, as well as a small number of private corporations - closely linked to government big shots - that control telecommunications, television, food processing, transportation, construction, and cement. Politicians who talk about, much less propose, trust-busting measures are as rare as a snowfall in the Sonoran Desert. Geography, self-interests, and humanitarian concerns require North America's neighbors to cooperate on myriad issues, not the least of which is immigration. However, Mexico's power brokers have failed to make the difficult decisions necessary to use their nation's bountiful wealth to benefit the masses. Washington and Ottawa have every right to insist that Mexico's pampered elite act responsibly, rather than expecting US and Canadian taxpayers to shoulder burdens Mexico should assume.

*********************************************************************** Unfettered Immigration = Poverty

By. Robert Rector | May 16, 2006

This paper focuses on the net fiscal effects of immigration with particular emphasis on the fiscal effects of low skill immigration. The fiscal effects of immigration are only one aspect of the impact of immigration. Immigration also has social, political, and economic effects. In particular, the economic effects of immigration have been heavily researched with differing results. These economic effects lie beyond the scope of this paper. Overall, immigration is a net fiscal positive to the government’s budget in the long run: the taxes immigrants pay exceed the costs of the services they receive. However, the fiscal impact of immigrants varies strongly according to immigrants’ education level. College-educated immigrants are likely to be strong contributors to the government’s finances, with their taxes exceeding the government’s costs. By contrast, immigrants with low education levels are likely to be a fiscal drain on other taxpayers. This is important because half of all adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. have less than a high school education. In addition, recent immigrants have high levels of out-of-wedlock childbearing, which increases welfare costs and poverty. An immigration plan proposed by Senators Mel Martinez (R-FL) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) would provide amnesty to 9 to 10 million illegal immigrants and put them on a path to citizenship. Once these individuals become citizens, the net additional cost to the federal government of benefits for these individuals will be around $16 billion per year. Further, once an illegal immigrant becomes a citizen, he has the right to bring his parents to live in the U.S. The parents, in turn, may become citizens. The long-term cost of government benefits to the parents of 10 million recipients of amnesty could be $30 billion per year or more. In the long run, the Hagel/Martinez bill, if enacted, would be the largest expansion of the welfare state in 35 years. Current Trends in Immigration Over the last 40 years, immigration into the United States has surged. Our nation is now experiencing a second “great migration” similar to the great waves of immigrants that transformed America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In 2004, an estimated 35.7 million foreign-born persons lived in the U.S. While in 1970 one person in twenty was foreign born, by 2004 the number had risen to one in eight. About one-third of all foreign-born persons in the U.S. are illegal aliens. There are between 10 and 12 million illegal aliens currently living in the U.S.[1] Illegal aliens now comprise 3 to 4 percent of the total U.S. population. Each year approximately 1.3 million new immigrants enter the U.S.[2] Some 700,000 of these entrants are illegal.[3] One third of all foreign-born persons in the U.S. are Mexican. Overall, the number of Mexicans in the U.S. has increased from 760,000 in 1970 to 10.6 million in 2004. Nine percent of all Mexicans now reside in the U.S.[4] Over half of all Mexicans in the U.S. are illegal immigrants,[5] and in the last decade 80 to 85 percent of the inflow of Mexicans into the U.S. has been illegal.[6] The public generally perceives illegals to be unattached single men. This is, in fact, not the case. Some 44 percent of adult illegals are women. While illegal men work slightly more than native-born men; illegal women work less. Among female illegals, some 56 percent work, compared to 73 percent among native-born women of comparable age.[7] As well, Mexican women emigrating to the U.S. have a considerably higher fertility rate than women remaining in Mexico.[8] Decline in Immigrant Wages Over the last 40 years the education level of new immigrants has fallen relative to the native population. As the relative education levels of immigrants have declined, so has their earning capacity compared to the general U.S. population. Immigrants arriving in the U.S. around 1960 had wages, at the time of entry, that were just 13 percent less than natives’. In 1965, the nation’s immigration law was dramatically changed, and from 1990 on, illegal immigration surged. The result was a decline in the relative skill levels of new immigrants. By 1998, new immigrants had an average entry wage that was 34 percent less than natives.’[12] Because of their lower education levels, illegal immigrants’ wages would have been even lower. The low-wage status of recent illegal immigrants can be illustrated by the wages of recent immigrants from Mexico, a majority of whom have entered the U.S. illegally. In 2000, the median weekly wage of a first-generation Mexican immigrant was $323. This was 54 percent of the corresponding wage for non-Hispanic whites in the general population.[13] Historically, the relative wages of recent immigrants have risen after entry as immigrants gained experience in the labor market. For example, immigrants who arrived in the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s saw their relative wages rise by 10 percentage points compared to natives’ wages during their first 20 years in the country. But in recent years, this modest catch up effect has diminished. Immigrants who arrived in the late 1980s actually saw their relative wages shrink in the 1990s.[14] Immigration and Welfare Dependence Welfare may be defined as means-tested aid programs: these programs provide cash, non-cash, and social service assistance that is limited to low-income households. The major means-tested programs include Food Stamps, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, public housing, the earned income credit, and Medicaid. Historically, recent immigrants were less likely to receive welfare than native-born Americans. But over the last thirty years, this historic pattern has reversed. As the relative education levels of immigrants fell, their tendency to receive welfare benefits increased. By the late 1990s immigrant households were fifty percent more likely to receive means-tested aid than native-born households.[15] Moreover, immigrants appear to assimilate into welfare use. The longer immigrants live in the U.S., the more likely they are to use welfare.[16] A large part, but not all, of immigrants’ higher welfare use is explained by their low education levels. Welfare use also varies by immigrants’ national origin. For example, in the late 1990s, 5.6 percent of immigrants from India received means-tested benefits; among Mexican immigrants the figure was 34.1 percent; and for immigrants from the Dominican Republic the figure was 54.9 percent.[17] Ethnic differences in the propensity to receive welfare that appear among first-generation immigrants persist strongly in the second generation.[18] The relatively high use of welfare among Mexicans has significant implications for current proposals to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants. Some 80 percent of illegal immigrants come from Mexico and Latin America.[19] (See Chart 1) Historically, Hispanics in America have had very high levels of welfare use. Chart 2 shows receipt of aid from major welfare programs by different ethnic groups in 1999; the programs covered are Medicaid, Food Stamps, public housing, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, General Assistance, and Supplemental Security Income.[20] As the chart shows, Hispanics were almost three times more likely to receive welfare than non-Hispanic whites. In addition, among families that received aid, the cost of the aid received was 40 percent higher for Hispanics than for non-Hispanic whites.[21] Putting together the greater probability of receiving welfare with the greater cost of welfare per family means that, on average, Hispanic families received four times more welfare per family than white non-Hispanics. 1. Part, but not all, of this high level of welfare use by Hispanics can be explained by background factors such as family structure.[22] It seems likely that, if Hispanic illegal immigrants are given permanent residence and citizenship, they and their children will likely assimilate into the culture of high welfare use that characterizes Hispanics in the U.S. This would impose significant costs on taxpayers and society as a whole. Welfare use can also be measured by immigration status. In general, immigrant households are about fifty percent more likely to use welfare than native-born households.[23] Immigrants with less education are more likely to use welfare. (See Chart 3) 1. The potential welfare costs of low-skill immigration and amnesty for current illegal immigrants can be assessed by looking at the welfare utilization rates for current low-skill immigrants. As Chart 4 shows, immigrants without a high school degree (both lawful and unlawful) are two-and-a-half times more likely to use welfare than native-born individuals.[24] This underscores the high potential welfare costs of giving amnesty to illegal immigrants. 1. All categories of high school dropouts have a high utilization of welfare. Immigrants who have less than a high school degree are slightly more likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts. Legal immigrants who are high school dropouts are slightly more likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts.[25] Illegal immigrant dropouts, however, are less likely to use welfare than native-born dropouts mainly because they are ineligible for many welfare programs. With amnesty, current illegal immigrants’ welfare use would likely rise to the level of lawful immigrants with similar education levels. Illegal Immigration and Poverty 1. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 4.7 million children of illegal immigrant parents currently live in the U.S.[26] Some 37 percent of these children are poor.[27] While children of illegal immigrant parents comprise around 6 percent of all children in the U.S., they are 11.8 percent of all poor children.[28] This high level of child poverty among illegal immigrants in the U.S. is, in part, due to low education levels and low wages. It is also linked to the decline in marriage among Hispanics in the U.S. Within this group, 45 percent of children are born out-of-wedlock.[29] (See Table 1.) Among foreign-born Hispanics the rate is 42.3 percent.[30] By contrast, the out-of-wedlock birth rate for non-Hispanic whites is 23.4 percent.[31] The birth rate for Hispanic teens is higher than for black teens.[32] While the out-of-wedlock birth rate for blacks has remained flat for the last decade, it has risen steadily for Hispanics.[33] These figures are important because, as noted, some 80 percent of illegal aliens come from Mexico and Latin America.[34] In general, children born and raised outside of marriage are seven times more likely to live in poverty than children born and raised by married couples. Children born out-of-wedlock are also more likely to be on welfare, to have lower educational achievement, to have emotional problems, to abuse drugs and alcohol, and to become involved in crime.[35] 5. Poverty is also more common among adult illegal immigrants, who are twice as likely to be poor as are native-born adults. Some 27 percent of all adult illegal immigrants are poor, compared to 13 percent of native-born adults.[36] Economic and Social Assimilation of Illegal Immigrant Offspring One important question is the future economic status of the children and grandchildren of current illegal immigrants, assuming those offspring remain in the U.S. While we obviously do not have data on future economic status, we may obtain a strong indication of future outcomes by examining the educational attainment of offspring of recent Mexican immigrants. Some 57 percent of current illegal immigrants come from Mexico, and about half of Mexicans currently in the U.S. are here illegally.[37] First-generation Mexican immigrants are individuals born in Mexico who have entered the U.S. In 2000, some 70 percent of first-generation Mexican immigrants (both legal and illegal) lacked a high school degree. Second-generation Mexicans may be defined as individuals born in the U.S. who have at least one parent born in Mexico. Second-generation Mexican immigrants (individuals born in the U.S. who have at least one parent born in Mexico) have greatly improved educational outcomes but still fall well short of the general U.S. population. Some 25 percent of second-generation Mexicans in the U.S. fail to complete high school. By contrast, the high school drop out rate is 8.6 percent among non-Hispanic whites and 17.2 percent among blacks. Critically, the educational attainment of third-generation Mexicans (those of Mexican ancestry with both parents born in the U.S.) improves little relative to the second generation. Some 21 percent of third-generation Mexicans are high school drop outs.[38] Similarly, the rate of college attendance among second-generation Mexicans is lower than for black Americans and about two-thirds of the level for non-Hispanic whites; moreover, college attendance does not improve in the third generation.[39] These data indicate that the offspring of illegal Hispanic immigrants are likely to have lower rates of educational attainment and higher rates of school failure compared to the non-Hispanic U.S. population. High rates of school failure coupled with high rates of out-of-wedlock childbearing are strong predictors of future poverty and welfare dependence. Immigration and Crime Historically, immigrant populations have had lower crime rates than native-born populations. For example, in 1991, the overall crime and incarceration rate for non-citizens was slightly lower than for citizens.[40] On the other hand, the crime rate among Hispanics in the U.S. is high. Age-specific incarceration rates (prisoners per 100,000 residents in the same age group in the general population) among Hispanics in federal and state prisons are two to two-and-a-half times higher than among non-Hispanic whites.[41] Relatively little of this difference appears to be due to immigration violations.[42] Illegal immigrants are overwhelmingly Hispanic. It is possible that, over time, Hispanic immigrants and their children may assimilate the higher crime rates that characterize the low-income Hispanic population in the U.S. as a whole.[43] If this were to occur, then policies that would give illegal immigrants permanent residence through amnesty, as well as policies which would permit a continuing influx of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants each year, would increase crime in the long term. The Fiscal Impact of Immigration One important question is the fiscal impact of immigration (both legal and illegal). Policymakers must ensure that the interaction of welfare and immigration policy does not expand the welfare-dependent popula_?tion, which would hinder rather than help immi_?grants and impose large costs on American society. This means that immigrants should be net contributors to government: the taxes they pay should exceed the cost of the benefits they receive. In calculating the fiscal impact of an individual or family, it is necessary to distinguish between public goods and private goods. Public goods do not require additional spending to accommodate new residents.[44] The clearest examples of government public goods are national defense and medical and scientific research. The entry of millions of immigrants will not raise costs or diminish the value of these public goods to the general population. Other government services are private goods; use of these by one person precludes or limits use by another. Government private goods include direct personal benefits such as welfare, Social Security benefits, Medicare, and education. Other government private goods are “congestible” goods.[45] These are services that must be expanded in proportion to the population. Government congestible goods include police and fire protection, roads and sewers, parks, libraries, and courts. If these services do not expand as the population expands, there will be a decrease in the quality of service. An individual makes a positive fiscal contribution when his total taxes paid exceed the direct benefits and congestible goods received by himself and his family.[46] The Fiscal Impact of Low Skill Immigration The 1997 New Americans study by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) examined the fiscal impact of immigration.[47] It found that, within in a single year, the fiscal impact of foreign-born households was negative in the two states studied, New Jersey and California.[48] Measured over the course of a lifetime, the fiscal impact of first-generation immigrants nationwide was also slightly negative.[49] However, when the future earnings and taxes paid by the offspring of the immigrant were counted, the long-term fiscal impact was positive. One commonly cited figure from the report is that the net present value (NPV) of the fiscal impact of the average recent immigrant and his descendents is $83,000.[50] There are five important caveats about the NAS longitudinal study and its conclusion that in the long term the fiscal impact of immigration is positive. First, the study applies to all recent immigration, not just illegal immigration. Second, the finding that the long-term fiscal impact of immigration is positive applies to the population of immigrants as a whole, not to low-skill immigrants alone. Third, the $83,000 figure is based on the predicted earnings, tax payments, and benefits of an immigrant’s descendents over the next 300 years.[51] Fourth, the study does not take into account the growth in out-of-wedlock childbearing among the foreign-born population, which will increase future welfare costs and limit the upward mobility of future generations. Fifth, the assumed educational attainment of the children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of immigrants who are high school dropouts or high school graduates seems unreasonably high given the actual attainment of the offspring of recent Mexican and Hispanic immigrants.[52] The NAS study’s 300-year time horizon is highly problematic. Three hundred years ago, the United States did not even exist and British colonists had barely reached the Appalachian Mountains. We cannot reasonably estimate what taxes and benefits will be even 30 years from now, let alone 300. The NAS study assumes that most people’s descendents will eventually regress to the social and economic mean, and thus may make a positive fiscal contribution, if the time horizon is long enough. With similar methods, it seems likely that out-of-wedlock childbearing could be found to have a net positive fiscal value as long as assumed future earnings are projected out 500 or 600 years. Slight variations to NAS’s assumptions used by NAS greatly affect the projected outcomes. For example, limiting the time horizon to 50 years and raising the assumed interest rate from 3 percent to 4 percent drops the NPV of the average immigrant from around $80,000 to $8,000.[53] Critically, the NAS projections assumed very large tax increases and benefits cuts would begin in 2016 to prevent the federal deficit from rising further relative to GDP. This assumption makes it far easier for future generations to be scored as fiscal contributors. If these large tax hikes and benefit cuts do not occur, then the long-term positive fiscal value of immigration evaporates.[54] Moreover, if future tax hikes and benefit cuts do occur, the exact nature of those changes would likely have a large impact on the findings; this issue is not explored in the NAS study. Critically, the estimated net fiscal impact of the whole immigrant population has little bearing on the fiscal impact of illegal immigrants, who are primarily low-skilled. As noted, at least 50 percent of illegal immigrants do not have a high school degree. As the NAS report states, “[S]ome groups of immigrants bring net fiscal benefits to natives and others impose net fiscal costs [I]mmigrants with certain characteristics, such as the elderly and those with little education, may be quite costly.”[55] The NAS report shows that the long-term fiscal impact of immigrants varies dramatically according to the education level of the immigrant. The fiscal impact of immigrants with some college education is positive. The fiscal impact of immigrants with a high school degree varies according to the time horizon used. The fiscal impact of immigrants without a high school degree is negative: benefits received will exceed taxes paid. The net present value of the future fiscal impact of immigrants without a high school degree is negative even when the assumed earnings and taxes of descendents over the next 300 years are included in the calculation.[56] A final point is that the NAS study’s estimates assume that low skill immigration does not reduce the wages of native-born low-skill workers. If low-skill immigration does, in fact, reduce the wages of native-born labor, this would reduce taxes paid and increase welfare expenditures for that group. The fiscal, social, and political implications could be quite large. The Cost of Amnesty Federal and state governments currently spend over $500 billion per year on means-tested welfare benefits.[57] Illegal aliens are ineligible for most federal welfare benefits but can receive some assistance through programs such as Medicaid, In addition, native-born children of illegal immigrant parents are citizens and are eligible for all relevant federal welfare benefits. Granting amnesty to illegal aliens would have two opposing fiscal effects. On the one hand, it may raise wages and taxes paid by broadening the labor market individuals compete in; it would also increase tax compliance and tax receipts as more work would be performed “on the books,”[58] On the other hand, amnesty would greatly increase the receipt of welfare, government benefits, and social services. Because illegal immigrant households tend to be low-skill and low-wage, the cost to government could be considerable. The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has performed a thorough study of the federal fiscal impacts of amnesty.[59] This study found that illegal immigrant households have low education levels and low wages and currently pay little in taxes. Illegal immigrant households also receive lower levels of federal government benefits. Nonetheless, the study also found that, on average, illegal immigrant families received more in federal benefits than they paid in taxes.[60] Granting amnesty would render illegal immigrants eligible for federal benefit programs. The CIS study estimated the additional taxes that would be paid and the additional government costs that would occur as a result of amnesty. It assumed that welfare utilization and tax payment among current illegal immigrants would rise to equal the levels among legally-admitted immigrants of similar national, educational, and demographic backgrounds. If all illegal immigrants were granted amnesty, federal tax payments would increase by some $3,000 per household, but federal benefits and social services would increase by $8,000 per household. Total federal welfare benefits would reach around $9,500 per household, or $35 billion per year total. The study estimates that the net cost to the federal government of granting amnesty to some 3.8 million illegal alien households would be around $5,000 per household, for a total federal fiscal cost of $19 billion per year.[61] preference for entry visas. The current visa allotments for family members (other than spouses and minor children) should be eliminated, and quotas for employment- and skill-based entry increased proportionately.