Tuesday, August 31, 2010


What Side Is She On?
Posted 06/18/2010 06:56 PM ET
Sovereignty: Hillary Clinton assured Ecuadoreans the U.S. would sue Arizona if it tried to enforce federal immigration laws. She said it just as the feds ceded part of Arizona to Mexican traffickers. What's going on here?
We'd like to think that the secretary of state, who went way overboard in attempting to placate the anti-American government of Ecuador on a visit there two weeks ago, was just trying to win popularity points with the Ecuadorean public when she told a Quito-based TV station on June 8 the Obama administration "will be bringing a lawsuit against the (Arizona) act." That law, you'll recall, requires state police to enforce federal immigration laws already on the books.
The statement comes at a bad time and demonstrates, at best, how ignorant Clinton is of the terrible realities in Arizona.
That's because Mexican cartels (who smuggle Ecuadorean as well as other illegal immigrants) have begun moving in as far as 80 miles inland of Arizona, effectively assuming control over U.S. land, according to officials.
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu declared at a press conference that "we have lost control."
If that sounds like hyperbole, note that one of Babeu's deputies was recently wounded in a pitched gun battle with alien smugglers. And more to the point, the Feds themselves admit as much.
They have closed off the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge — land specially set aside for taxpayers to enjoy — as too dangerous. Further north, they have posted 11 signs in the Sonoran Desert National Monument warning visitors to keep away if they value their lives because traffickers are rampant and they cannot protect everyone.
One reason for this is our Border Patrol is nearly powerless. Federal environmental regulations literally forbid them from going onto the land. Lawmen are confined to visits by horseback against these armed foreign invaders, but only to protect the environment traffickers openly defile. As a result, paramilitary traffickers armed with AK-47s now circle the outer edges of Phoenix, our nation's fifth-largest city.
If it sounds shocking, it is. Never in the history of the United States has land been ceded to a foreign power because the U.S. has been unwilling to defend it.
Hillary Clinton's words to Ecuador may have been meant to please the locals, but they also sent a message to the smuggling cartels on our border: The door is open for invasion and the U.S. has no intent to defend

"You old white people. It is your duty to die."



Augustin Cebada, Brown Berets; "Go back to Boston! Go back to Plymouth Rock, Pilgrims! Get out! We are the future. You are old and tired. Go on. We have beaten you. Leave like beaten rats. You old white people. It is your duty to die . . Through love of having children, we are going to take over.

Richard Alatorre, Los Angeles City Council. "They're afraid we're going to take over the governmental institutions and other institutions. They're right. We will take them over . . . We are here to stay."

Excelsior, the national newspaper of Mexico, "The American Southwest seems to be slowly returning to the jurisdiction of Mexico without firing a single shot."

Professor Jose Angel Gutierrez, University of Texas; "We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. The explosion is in our population . . . I love it. They are shitting in their pants with fear. I love it."

Art Torres, Chairman of the California Democratic Party, "Remember 187––proposition to deny taxpayer funds for services to non–citizens––was the last gasp of white America in California."

Gloria Molina, Los Angeles County Supervisor, "We are politicizing every single one of these new citizens that are becoming citizens of this country . . . I gotta tell you that a lot of people are saying, "I'm going to go out there and vote because I want to pay them back."

Mario Obledo, California Coalition of Hispanic Organizations and California State Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare under Governor Jerry Brown, also awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bill Clinton, "California is going to be a Hispanic state. Anyone who doesn't like it should leave."

Jose Pescador Osuna, Mexican Consul General, "We are practicing 'La Reconquista' in California."

Professor Fernando Guerra, Loyola Marymount University; "We need to avoid a white backlash by using codes understood by Latinos . . . "

Are these just the words of a few extremists? Consider that we could fill up many pages with such quotes. Also, consider that these are mainstream Mexican leaders.

On February 15, 1998, the U.S. and Mexican soccer teams met at the Los Angeles Coliseum. The crowd was overwhelmingly pro–Mexican even though most lived in this country. They booed during the National Anthem and U.S. flags were held upside down. As the match progressed, supporters of the U.S. team were insulted, pelted with projectiles, punched and spat upon. Beer and trash were thrown at the U.S. players before and after the match. The coach of the U.S. team, Steve Sampson said, "This was the most painful experience I have ever had in this profession."

Did you know that immigrants from Mexico and other non–European countries can come to this country and get preferences in jobs, education, and government contracts? It's called affirmative action or racial privilege. The Emperor of Japan or the President of Mexico could migrate here and immediately be eligible for special rights unavailable for Americans of European descent. Recently, a vote was taken in the U.S. Congress to end this practice. It was defeated. Every single Democratic senator except Ernest Hollings voted to maintain special privileges for Hispanic, Asian and African immigrants. They were joined by thirteen Republicans. Bill Clinton and Al Gore have repeatedly stated that they believe that massive immigration from countries like Mexico is good. They have also backed special privileges for these immigrants.

Corporate America has signed on to the idea that minorities and third world immigrants should get special, privileged status. Some examples are Exxon, Texaco, Merrill Lynch, Boeing, Paine Weber, Starbucks and many more.

Did you know that Mexico regularly intercedes on the side of the defense in criminal cases involving Mexican nationals? Did you know that Mexico has NEVER extradited a Mexican national accused of murder in the U.S. in spite of agreements to do so? According to the L.A. Times, Orange County, California is home to 275 gangs with 17,000 members; 98% of which are Mexican and Asian. How's your county doing?

According to a New York Times article dated May 19, 1994, 20 years after the great influx of legal immigrants from Southeast Asia, 30% are still on welfare compared to 8% of households nationwide. A Wall Street Journal editorial dated December 5, 1994 quotes law enforcement officials as stating that Asian mobsters are the "greatest criminal challenge the country faces." Not bad for a group that is still under 5% of the population.

Is education important to you? Here are the words of a teacher who spent over 20 years in the Los Angeles School system. "Imagine teachers in classes containing 30–40 students of widely varying attention spans and motivation, many of whom aren't fluent in English. Educators seek learning materials likely to reach the majority of students and that means fewer words and math problems and more pictures and multicultural references."

When I was young, I remember hearing about the immigrants that came through Ellis Island. They wanted to learn English. They wanted to breathe free. They wanted to become Americans. Now too many immigrants come here with demands. They demand to be taught in their own language. They demand special privileges––affirmative action. They demand ethnic studies that glorify their culture.

Send copies of this letter to at least two other people, 100 would be even better. Help us get the word out.

California Coalition for Immigration Reform
5942 Edinger, Suite 113–117
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Phone 714.921.7142 714.921.7142


THEY HATE THE LEGALS of ARIZONA - But Love the Generous Dictators of Saudis Land... Following the Trail of Saudi Loot

THE DICTATOR OF SAUDI LAND IS LISTED ON PARADE.com AS No. 5 of the 10 worst dictators.

We all witnessed Barack Obama pay his respects to the dictator by bowing and scraping like a serf.

We have all experienced the two wars the Bush family has started for their Saudi business friends at BUSH SAUDI CARLYLE GROUP, Inc.

We have all witnessed Obama sabotage the American interests of those pursuing the 9-11 invaders in court!

We all know the Saudi dictators have repaid HILLARY BILLARY with more than $10 million in looted money to the Billary Library.


Hillary Clinton gets royal treatment at Saudi king's retreat

By Glenn Kessler

Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 16, 2010; A06
RAWDAT KHURAYIM, SAUDI ARABIA -- There's nothing like having tea served by men with guns dangling from their shoulders.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton got the royal treatment, literally, on Monday when King Abdullah hosted her and her entourage at his winter retreat here, about an hour's drive northeast of Riyadh, the capital. Few visitors are invited to the king's desert sanctuary, and reporters are almost never permitted. But the king not only allowed the media to venture inside his soaring black tent but personally greeted each of them.
The royal surroundings -- the result of the House of Saud's autocratic control of the country's oil wealth -- are both spectacular and surprisingly banal.

U.N. Human Wrongs
Posted 08/30/2010 07:04 PM ET
United Nations: The U.S. State Department is holding up Arizona as America's human rights problem, fishing for applause from the likes of Cuba and Libya. But Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer isn't taking it lying down.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton managed to go lower than even Andrew Young in his Carter-era heyday by holding up Arizona as a human rights violator in its groveling "Universal Periodic Review" for the U.N.'s Human Rights Commission.
The 29-page mea culpa of America's wrongs is nothing but a political advertisement for recent executive acts from the Obama administration, repackaged as human rights improvements.
Apologizing for legitimate domestic political differences is pernicious, given that hellish non-democratic nations like Cuba and Libya sit on the U.N. Human Rights Commission and no doubt are applauding. On human rights, the report managed to equate Arizona to Burma's tin-pot rule, Saudi Arabia's Shariah-law maimings, Iran's electoral fraud, and Cuba's "preventive" jailings of the innocent, obscenely blurring the lines between real human rights violations and mere policy differences.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, to her credit, wrote a letter expressing "concern and indignation" to Clinton on Aug. 27, demanding that the reference to Arizona be removed.
She's right. The report's reference is a distortion of SB 1070, the state law Arizona passed to discourage illegal immigration and undercut the deadly Mexican cartels behind it. Brewer noted the cartels have left 170 dead bodies in Arizona's desert so far this year and pose a mortal danger to Arizona's citizens.
Moreover, Brewer points out that the Arizona law mirrors federal law, raising questions about why the law is considered a human rights violation if federal agents, but not state lawmen, can ask for ID from people who've already been arrested.
More to the point, Brewer underscored the hypocrisy of the federal stance, which hasn't managed to find any human rights grounds for challenging the law in court.
"In fact, the Department of Justice has correctly not included these so-called 'human rights' issues in the current litigation against the State of Arizona," Brewer wrote.
What it adds up to is an Obama administration that seeks to take its political battles to questionable forums like the U.N., using dissident states as its villains. It's a nasty abrogation of the U.S. duty to speak out on real human rights and, in the end, will only give comfort to tyrants and criminals.


“More Krikorian on the Obama administration: "They feel morally self-righteous, and really, they don't like Americans much.”



“As Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer noted, this time the White House was dissing her state's law to a U.N. committee whose members include infamous human rights abusers Cuba and Libya.”

Obama Isn't Being Smart About Arizona
A Commentary By Debra J. Saunders
Tuesday, August 31, 2010

The latest CBS poll found that 59 percent of Americans view Arizona's SB1070, the immigration bill that allows Arizona to prosecute immigration violations, as "just right," while another 14 percent think the bill doesn't go far enough. So why does President Obama continue to hammer Arizona's law? And why did the State Department include a reference to the Arizona law in a report for the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights on America's human rights record?
I thought Obama was politically savvy. But he keeps gratuitously bashing a law supported by a majority of voters. Worse, the more Obamaland goes after Arizona's law, the more Americans like the Arizona law. A CBS/New York Times poll taken four months ago found that 60 percent of Americans supported the law or thought it didn't go far enough.
I asked Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports strict immigration laws, why Obama keeps pursuing this politically unpopular path. "Because they believe it," he answered. "They can't help themselves. They think this is the right thing to do."
Let me note that going against the political tide can be courageous -- except this latest Arizona gambit lacked conviction. On the one hand, the human-rights review mentioned the Arizona law. On the other hand, it used vague language that never claimed the law represented a human rights abuse.
To wit: "A recent Arizona law, SB1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined."
Why bother dinging Arizona? It's not as if the administration won any points when it made a similar miscalculation in May, when a State Department official admitted bringing up the Arizona law as a human rights issue of "discrimination or potential discrimination" -- with China of all countries.
As Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer noted, this time the White House was dissing her state's law to a U.N. committee whose members include infamous human rights abusers Cuba and Libya.
The report rejects any suggestion that reporting on America's shortcomings in the human rights category equates this country's records with those of repressive regimes. So you see the conceit that only the left has the courage to take a hard look into America's soul.
Except the report only takes on perceived shortcomings on the right, while trumpeting the left's agenda on labor, health care and even the Obama economic stimulus package.
More Krikorian on the Obama administration: "They feel morally self-righteous, and really, they don't like Americans much."
You see it in the State Department report, which starts out with the assertion that the world shares "universal values," such as that "all are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights." But the world does not share those values. D.C. diplomats were overly generous toward foreign thugs, while they dumped on Arizona for passing a state law to bolster duly- enacted federal immigration law.
If that tactic makes



Mexico fires 3,200 federal police officers

Hundreds of others face charges or disciplinary action as the government attempts to modernize the force and eliminate corruption, part of its war against drug cartels.
By Ken Ellingwood, Los Angeles Times

August 31, 2010

Reporting from Mexico City


About 3,200 Mexican federal police officers, nearly a tenth of the force, have been fired this year under new rules designed to weed out crooked cops and modernize law enforcement, officials said Monday.

The housecleaning is part of President Felipe Calderon's crackdown on drug cartels, which includes overhauling the 34,500-strong federal police force.

An additional 465 federal officers have been charged with breaking the law, and 1,020 others face disciplinary action after failing screening tests, officials said.

Facundo Rosas, a senior federal police official, said in a radio interview that the 3,200 dismissed officers were removed for substandard performance.

Rosas said the 1,020 officers who failed vetting fell short for a variety of reasons, including suspected criminal links and medical problems. He said failure rates were within "operable limits."

Among the 465 arrested officers were four commanders fired Aug. 7 in Ciudad Juarez after 250 subordinates publicly accused them of corruption.

The new police standards, which took effect in May, are aimed at cleaning up Mexico's graft-plagued police force through lie detector tests, financial disclosure statements and drug testing. The government has sought to improve the caliber of federal officers by boosting wages and requiring that recruits have college degrees.

Eliminating police corruption is a pillar of Calderon's nearly 4-year-old war against drug cartels. Crooked officers tip off drug lords and often moonlight as hit men.

The problem is considered worst at the local level, where fear or low wages prompt many officers to help drug gangs. State and local forces account for the vast majority of Mexico's 427,000 police officers.

The cleanup is to take place nationwide and began with the federal police, the law enforcement agency mainly responsible for fighting the powerful cartels.

The United States has backed the reform push by helping evaluate officers and supplying trainers for a state-of-the-art police academy in the city of San Luis Potosi.

Calderon has rapidly expanded the federal police force, hiring about 10,000 officers during the last two years.

Experts applaud the cleanup as long overdue. Mexicans so mistrust police that they often refuse to report crimes.

But firing suspect or substandard officers also carries risks that they might jump to another department or join the traffickers. Rosas said a new computerized public safety database, called Platform Mexico, would make it easier to monitor former officers.



Suspected drug lord captured in Mexico state

Edgar Valdez Villarreal, also known as 'La Barbie,' was seized by federal police agents, the government says.

By Tracy Wilkinson, Los Angeles Times
9:58 PM PDT, August 30, 2010
Reporting from Mexico City

Mexico announced the capture Monday of one of its most wanted alleged drug lords, a Texas-born figure accused of unleashing a wave of brutal slayings near Mexico City as part of a ruthless battle with rivals.

Edgar Valdez Villarreal, also known by the improbable nickname "La Barbie," was seized by federal police in the state of Mexico, the region surrounding Mexico City, the Public Security Ministry said in a statement.

Valdez allegedly served as the top enforcer for Arturo Beltran Leyva, a major kingpin killed by Mexican marines in December. Since Beltran Leyva's death, police say, Valdez had been locked in a vicious war with Beltran Leyva's brother Hector for control of the cartel's business.

The fighting brought gangland-style executions and the hanging of beheaded corpses to Cuernavaca, a once-tranquil playground for the elite outside Mexico City that turned out to be headquarters for part of the Beltran Leyva gang.

The U.S. government had offered a $2-million reward for Valdez's capture after indicting him for allegedly smuggling tons of cocaine into the United States. It is possible Valdez will be extradited to the U.S.

The capture of Valdez is an important victory for beleaguered President Felipe Calderon, whose offensive against drug cartels has suffered a string of setbacks in recent weeks, including the slaying of two mayors, a rash of car bombings and the massacre of 72 immigrants, apparently because they refused to work for the traffickers who kidnapped them.

But arresting Valdez will not necessarily quell the violence since others may rise to fight for control of the Beltran Leyva operations.

Authorities released a photograph of Valdez, plumper than he appeared in earlier pictures and surrounded by police officers, some with their guns drawn. He was wearing a green shirt emblazoned with a large logo of a polo player, a coat of arms and the word "London." He appeared to be kneeling, a police agent's hand planted on his shoulder.

Valdez has been linked to numerous heinous crimes, including the mutilation of enemies in Cuernavaca and the slaughter of the family of a Mexican marine who was slain in the operation that killed Beltran Leyva.

His alleged battle with Hector Beltran Leyva pushed the bloodletting from Morelos state, where Cuernavaca is located, westward through Guerrero state to Acapulco. Bodies and body parts now turn up regularly in the popular resort city, often with messages scrawled in warning to one faction or another.

The Public Security Ministry announcement said Valdez was pursued in an intelligence operation that began in June 2009. In major operations, such as the killing of Beltran Leyva, Mexican authorities have been buoyed by intelligence from U.S. law enforcement authorities. It was not clear what role the U.S. might have played in Monday's capture.

Security forces are believed to have been close to trapping him in the affluent Bosques de las Lomas neighborhood of Mexico City a couple of months ago, but came up empty.

Valdez, who turned 37 this month, was known as "La Barbie" because of his blondish hair and what some considered good looks, plus his reputation as a party boy who frequented the bars, discos and nightclubs of Mexico City and Acapulco.

"Edgar Valdez Villarreal is a highly dangerous criminal," the government's security spokesman, Alejandro Poire, told reporters late Monday. He took no questions.

Valdez headed the division of gunmen within the cartel, Poire said, and helped expand its drug-running operations into Central and South America.

Poire said authorities mounted operations in six Mexican states to search for Valdez.

"This is positive for Calderon and a blow to the trafficking organization," security expert Raul Benitez said. However, "there well could be a backlash of violence."

Calderon confirmed the arrest in a Twitter message, announcing that Mexico had "trapped La Barbie, one of the most wanted criminals in Mexico and abroad."

Valdez's capture also has value for Mexican and U.S. authorities because of the tactical knowledge of trafficking operations they believe he has. He is the third major figure taken down in the last nine months. But the other two, Beltran Leyva and Ignacio "Nacho" Coronel Villarreal, a major leader of the Sinaloa cartel, were killed.



"The corporations and the union have shown nothing but contempt for the democratic will of the workers."

Corporations, UAW continue campaign against Indianapolis GM workers
By Jerry White and Andre Damon
31 August 2010
[Click here to toggle images]

Workers enter the gates of the Lucas Oil Stadium to
attend the meeting
The campaign by General Motors, the United Auto Workers and investor Justin Norman to force workers at the Indianapolis stamping plant to take a 50 percent wage cut moved ahead Sunday with a meeting between Norman and a small group of GM workers and their families.

Norman, a 34-year-old former stockbroker, is insisting that workers accept a reduction in pay from $29 an hour to $15.50 as precondition for his purchase of the factory, which GM plans to close next year. On August 15 workers shouted down and drove out UAW International executives from their local union meeting for agreeing to the concessions and defying their vote barring any talks with Norman.

The rebellion by workers caught the UAW, the corporations and the political establishment off guard. It also has provoked widespread interest and sympathy from workers around the country. Since then, the forces lined up against the workers have sought to regroup and work out a plan to force through another vote.

JD Norman
The UAW and Norman, backed by the local media, are peddling the claim that only a “vocal minority” opposes the deal. They claim the majority of workers are being “intimidated” by these opponents who are not interested in keeping the plant open, but only in retaining their wages and benefits by transferring to other GM plants.

In fact, all the intimidation is being carried out by the corporations, which are using the threat of another plant closure to force workers to accept poverty level wages. Norman told reporters Sunday that the first set of dies used to stamp auto parts has already been shipped to other GM facilities, and added that he hoped getting a new vote “didn’t take too long because there is a plant shutdown schedule that we are up against.”

With the assistance of the UAW, Norman has sought to cultivate support from older workers nearing retirement and from temporary workers for whom a $15.50 wage would actually be a 44-cent raise. Exploiting high levels of unemployment in Indianapolis—where the official jobless rate approaches 10 percent and the real rate is much higher—he has claimed he will convert temporaries into full-time workers and might add jobs in the future.

Sunday’s meeting was an indication of how little support Norman’s wage-cutting plan has. Organizers tried every effort to bribe workers to come. The meeting was held at the Lucas Oil Stadium, the home of the Indianapolis Colts professional football team, and workers and their families were invited to walk on the playing field before and after the meeting. An assortment of free pastries, fruits, chips and other food was on hand. Nevertheless, the vast majority of 1,500 seats set up in a conference room beneath the grandstands remained empty.

Afterwards Norman praised the “large turnout” although only about 50 auto workers showed up. There are 660 active workers at the plant.

Despite the small number, Norman told reporters that there was “a resolve in that group to get a vote, a kind of democratic process for their voices to be heard so they could decide on their fate and their future.” He continued, “We are going to persist until a vote happens—out of respect for the employees.”

The corporations and the union have shown nothing but contempt for the democratic will of the workers. Last May workers at the plant voted by a margin of 384-22 against reopening the contract and explicitly forbade the UAW from holding further negotiations with Norman. Instead, UAW International and Region 3 officials continued talks with Norman and GM behind the backs of workers.

Norman gave particular praise to the union bureaucracy, saying, “We have really good relations with the UAW” and “have worked really hard to put a proposal together with them.”

Referring to high levels of unemployment he was exploiting to get workers to take lower wages, Norman said, “I believe strongly that we are in a unique time in manufacturing now. And this is an opportunity—maybe it’s not something that everybody wants—but certainly there is a future for that manufacturing plant.” A wage of $15.50 an hour, he said, was “a living wage” and said again, “it’s a great opportunity”—without mentioning for whom.

When the World Socialist Web Site asked Norman how much he made last year, he refused to answer and walked away.

Behind the scenes, the UAW is conspiring to push through another vote. Having been exposed for running roughshod over the decision of local union members—including the UAW Constitutional prohibition against national officers negotiating a contract without the approval of the local union—International President Bob King, Region 3 Director Maurice Davison and others are concocting a “legal” and “constitutional” pretense to hold another vote in the local and browbeat workers into accepting the concessions.

This was made clear in comments following the meeting from Glenn Sheeks, an advocate of the deal with Norman, and a “sourcing rep” for Local 23. Sheeks said that his role was to “interface between the company and the union.”

Sheeks said he shared Norman’s view that there was a “silent majority” in favor of the deal, but that they were intimidated by a “boisterous minority.” The latter, the local union official said, were like “bullies on the block” who, for no apparent reason, simply wanted the plant to close.

He said, “we can get [the vote] done, but we have to go through the proper channels.” The UAW, he said, has rules and regulations and if the proper procedure was followed, including the issuing of paper ballots to “avoid the intimidation,” he said, “I’m pretty sure it will come out.”

Asked by local reporters what the next step was, Sheeks continued, “We have to get all our ducks in a row. We have a new director, Bob King. He’s got to call for a special vote—he has got to put his stamp on it—and it’s got to go to our regional director, Mo Davison. Davison has got to include our chairman Greg Clark, our president Ray Kennedy, the executive board and the shop committee. When all of them agree to it; then we can have a vote,” he said, adding that this could be accomplished “in a couple weeks.”

Meanwhile, state and local politicians, from Indiana’s Republican governor Mitch Daniels to Indianapolis Democratic congressman AndrĂ© Carson, are ramping up pressure on Local 23 leaders to conduct a revote.

Supporters of the Socialist Equality Party distributed a statement pointing to the “three-way conspiracy” of the UAW, GM and Norman and warning of the dangers of leaving the initiative in their hands. The leaflet called for the unification of higher and lower seniority, temporary and full-time workers on the basis of a common struggle against wage cuts and the closure of the plant.

“Allowing the plant to close is not an alternative. That will further devastate the city and the region, undermine the wages and conditions of upcoming generations and set a precedent that will be followed at plants across the country,” the statement said.

“The real alternative is a fight to unite all the workers in the plant against both the wage cut and the plant closure. This must be prepared now with the election of a rank-and-file committee of action—completely independent of the UAW—to lay the groundwork for the occupation of the factory and the mobilization of auto workers and the working class as a whole in Indianapolis, Indiana and across the country.”

An auto worker with 15 years came to listen to Norman’s proposal despite his opposition to the contract. He told the WSWS, “I can’t make basic necessities on $15 per hour. When I started as an auto worker 15 years ago, I was making $12.50, and everything cost half as much.

“Some of these guys in here have got 30 years in and just want to retire, so they’re considering the contract. But what about the guy who got you what you have? Did he do it by only thinking of himself? We have to fight for the next generation.

“This is bigger than this facility,” he said. “This is a national issue. If this plant closes, what’s next?”

370 ILLEGALS ARRESTED! Part of Obama's La Raza Propaganda?


US arrests 370 immigrants in Midwest raids
By Tom Eley

31 August 2010

A large-scale police operation resulted in the arrest of 370 immigrants in ten Midwestern states last week. The US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) coordinated with other federal authorities in conducting the operation, dubbed “Cross Check.”
Arrests of immigrants from 56 different nations were made over a three-day period in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin. The authorities and the media made much of the fact that the majority of those arrested were reportedly guilty of “prior criminal convictions,” including “nine gang members and 16 convicted sex offenders.”
Such sensationalist reporting aims to obscure the danger to democratic and constitutional principles posed by the police dragnet. The mass arrest, imprisonment and deportation of immigrants—the vast majority of whom are not criminals—has been intensified under the Obama administration, marking a new stage in the growing police powers of the state.
So far this year, ICE has removed a record 142,526 “criminal aliens” from the US, but according to Department of Homeland Security data, it is likely that a sizable majority of these so-called criminals had never been convicted of a crime. Most were arrested by local police agencies and turned over to immigration authorities under the Criminal Alien Program.
By the end of September, it is anticipated that the Obama administration will have deported a record 400,000 immigrants this fiscal year. Another 369,000 immigrants—men, women, and children— are in jail in the US for no other crime than entering the country, and about 250,000 immigrants are awaiting hearings in the nation’s clogged immigration court system, according to statistics compiled by Syracuse University.
On August 13, Obama signed into law the Southwest Border Security Bill, which allocates $600 million to the further militarization of the US-Mexico border, including the ramped-up use of unmanned Predator drones—the same planes used to terrorize the populations on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. (See “Obama signs law to militarize US-Mexico border”)
Behind Obama’s stepped-up anti-immigrant measures are the most cynical and reactionary calculations. In advance of the midterm elections, Obama and the Democrats are determined not to be outflanked by the Republicans’ racist anti-immigrant demagogy. The Democrats will make a virtue of the fact that Obama has deported more immigrants than Bush, and will tout high-profile raids like those that took place in the Midwest last week.
The politicians’ efforts to scapegoat immigrants for mass joblessness aim to obscure the real culprits in the US financial aristocracy—the better to divide and further exploit the entire working class. Meanwhile, the police-state measures developed to deal with immigrants will inevitably be used against political opponents and the working class as a whole.
For tens of millions of immigrants, whether undocumented or not, life in the US is already a hellish ordeal of extreme exploitation by employers and harassment by state authorities. This was highlighted in a Monday New York Times report revealing that Border Patrol agents in northern US states are straying farther from the border in order to question and detain immigrants.
Border Patrol agents routinely board trains and buses that do not enter or even come close to Canada, according to the report. The agents ask travelers whether or not they are US citizens or legal residents, and then demand evidence to prove it.
Those who cannot supply the required documents—passports, “green card” resident alien permits, and visas—are subject to arbitrary arrest and detention. In this way, “hundreds of passengers [are] taken to detention each year from domestic trains and buses along the nation’s northern border,” according to the article.
The Border Patrol presence aboard trains and buses in places like upstate New York illustrates the means by which immigration is being used to gut constitutional protections and basic conceptions of liberty. Immigration police are allowed extraordinary powers on the border and at a “reasonable distance,” and the definition of “reasonable distance” is being stretched as never before to include public transportation dozens of miles from the border.
Nor are US citizens spared late at night from being “startled by an agent’s flashlight in their eyes,” the article notes. The Border Patrol does not even inform travelers that they have the right to not answer questions.
“It’s turned into a police state on the northern border,” Cary M. Jensen, director of the University of Rochester’s international student services office, told the Times. International students at the upstate New York college have been jailed, as have their parents, based on mistakes made by the Border Patrol, Jensen said.
Critics of the Border Patrol have compared its questioning of travelers to the attempt by the state of Arizona to implement broad police powers to stop and search anyone. In fact, the routine practice of the Border Patrol is in some ways more arbitrary.
“At least in Arizona, you have to be doing something wrong to be stopped,” said a Chinese-American woman who, along with her Mexican boyfriend, was interrogated by agents on a train in New York. “Here, you’re sitting on the train asleep and if you don’t like a US citizen, it’s ‘Wake up!’”
Many of those arrested did not have immigration papers with them at the time of their questioning, but were nevertheless legally residing in the US. Among these was a Pakistani college student who was detained for two weeks because he did not have his student visa with him.
The roving “border” searches are one of the many anti-democratic measures put in place after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington D.C. “Our mission is to defend the homeland, primarily against terrorists and terrorist weapons,” said Thomas Pocorobba, Jr., who heads the Rochester, New York Border Patrol station.
In fact, in keeping with the “war on terror,” the purpose of the Border Patrol presence on Amtrak trains and Greyhound buses is to terrorize immigrant workers, while inuring the population against the growing police presence in daily life.

“Walsh stated. Walsh said his analysis indicating there are 38 million illegal aliens in the U.S. was calculated using the conservative estimate of three illegal immigrants entering the U.S. for each one apprehended.”

Illegal alien population may be as high as 38 million

Study: Illegal alien population may be as high as 38 million A new report finds the Homeland Security Department "grossly underestimates" the number of illegal aliens living in the U.S. Homeland Security's Office of Immigration Studies released a report August 31 that estimates the number of illegal aliens residing in the U.S. is between 8 and 12 million. But the group Californians for Population Stabilization, or CAPS, has unveiled a report estimating the illegal population is actually between 20 and 38 million. Four experts, all of whom contributed to the study prepared by CAPS, discussed their findings at a news conference at the National Press Club in Washington Wednesday. James Walsh, a former associate general counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, said he is "appalled" that the Bush administration, lawyers on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and every Democratic presidential candidate, with the exception of Joe Biden, have no problem with sanctuary cities for illegal aliens. "Ladies and gentlemen, the sanctuary cities and the people that support them are violating the laws of the United States of America. They're violating 8 USC section 1324 and 1325, which is a felony -- [it's] a felony to aid, support, transport, shield, harbor illegal aliens," Walsh stated. Walsh said his analysis indicating there are 38 million illegal aliens in the U.S. was calculated using the conservative estimate of three illegal immigrants entering the U.S. for each one apprehended. According to Walsh, "In the United States, immigration is in a state of anarchy -- not chaos, but anarchy."




"Earlier it was revealed that President Karzai’s half-brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, was also collecting a CIA paycheck while presiding over both drug trafficking and death squads in Kandahar."



Wsws.org… get on their free non-corporate mailings
Fourteen more US troops killed in Afghanistan: What are they dying for?
31 August 2010
Another 14 US troops have been killed in Afghanistan since Saturday, with the death toll so far this year already rising to the level reached for all of 2009.
A pair of roadside bombings took the lives of seven soldiers on Monday, five of them dying in a blast that tore apart a Humvee in which they were riding. Bomb blasts took the lives of four others in southern Afghanistan over the weekend, while three were killed in clashes with armed groups resisting the US-led occupation.
These latest deaths bring US fatalities for the month to nearly 50, after the record 65 killed in July.

NATO has announced that it is investigating yet another report of civilians killed in a US bombing. The air strike last Thursday hit children who were collecting scrap metal on a mountain in the province of Kunar, which borders Pakistan. A local police commander said that the six children killed by the US bombs were aged six to 12. Another child was seriously wounded.

After a much-reported decline in US air strikes, attributed to orders from sacked US senior commander in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley McChrystal that were designed to reduce civilian casualties, such strikes are back up again. According to figures released by the Air Force, US warplanes flew 5,500 “close air support” missions in June and July of 2010, compared to 4,600 in the same months last year.

With the Obama administration’s Afghanistan surge having brought US troops up to the full strength of nearly 100,000, together with another 40,000 troops from NATO and other allied countries, fighting has intensified and casualties among both US troops and Afghan civilians are up sharply. New revelations of rampant corruption and CIA payoffs to the US-backed Kabul government raise the inescapable question: What are they dying for?

Among the bodies shipped back to the US through Dover Air Base in flag-draped coffins this past week was that of a 20-year-old from Elizabeth, New Jersey, Army Specialist Pedro Millet, who was killed by an improvised explosive device in southern Afghanistan.

“I feel like someone ripped my heart out. I have no heart. My baby is gone,” the soldier’s mother, Denise Meletiche, told reporters outside her home after making the painful journey from the base in Delaware. She said that her son had joined the Army without telling her, explaining only afterwards that he did it to get money to go to college. “I was against the Army,” she said. “I’m against war.”

The soldier’s stepfather said that Army recruiters had been allowed into Pedro’s high school and enticed him into joining the military. “We’re losing kids in a war, and what are they doing about it?” he said. “This is ridiculous.”

What can justify such human sacrifices? Obama, like Bush before him, has tried to frighten the American people into supporting this brutal war by claiming it is necessary to defeat terrorism. This is just as much a lie coming out of the Democratic president’s mouth as it was when uttered by his Republican predecessor.
US military and intelligence officials have repeatedly acknowledged that there are less than 100 Al Qaeda members in all of Afghanistan—compared to 100,000 US troops. Moreover, the 91,000 classified documents released by WikiLeaks, most of them battlefield reports, make virtually no mention of American troops pursuing terrorists. On the contrary, they are fighting to suppress resistance to foreign occupation, a resistance that enjoys broad support from the Afghan people.

A recent poll taken in Helmand and Kandahar provinces by the International Council on Security and Development, a London-based think tank, bears this out. It found that three quarters of the male population believed it was wrong to collaborate with the US-led occupation forces. Roughly the same share said that the Afghan government officials in the area were connected either to drug traffickers or to the armed groups opposing the occupation.

These figures are essentially in sync with those reported by the Pentagon itself in the spring, indicating that less than a quarter of the people in the areas where US forces are battling to suppress Afghan resistance support the government of President Hamid Karzai.

Another study released by the United Nations last January provided a vivid illustration of why Karzai and his cronies are so hated. It found that 52 percent of Afghan adults had been forced to pay at least one bribe to a public official in the previous 12 months, and that, collectively, Afghans had paid out $2.49 billion in bribes in 2009, an amount equal to nearly one-quarter of the country’s gross domestic product.

In a television interview broadcast at the beginning of this month, Obama admitted to the American people that “Nobody thinks that Afghanistan is going to be a model Jeffersonian democracy.”

What an understatement! As media revelations of the past several days have made clear, the US-backed regime in Afghanistan is made up of warlords, drug dealers and kleptocrats, most of whom are on the payroll of the US Central Intelligence Agency.
Figuring prominently among them is Mohammed Zia Salehi, the chief of administration for the Afghan National Security Council, who was arrested by a US-created Afghan anti-corruption unit in July for taking bribes and attempting to quash an investigation into a company that is reportedly at the center of money laundering for corrupt officials and heroin traffickers. President Karzai intervened immediately to free the aide and block the investigation into the company.
The New York Times, citing senior officials in both Washington and Kabul, established that Zia Salehi had been on the CIA payroll for “many years.”
Before joining the Afghan government, the official had served as spokesman for the Northern Alliance warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum, also on the CIA payroll. Dostum earned his money in part by massacring thousands of unarmed Taliban prisoners in the desert near Mazar-i-Sharif during the US invasion in the fall of 2001.

Earlier it was revealed that President Karzai’s half-brother, Ahmed Wali Karzai, was also collecting a CIA paycheck while presiding over both drug trafficking and death squads in Kandahar.

During his West Point speech last December announcing his 30,000-troop surge, Obama insisted that “The days of providing a blank check are over. We’ll support Afghan ministries, governors and local leaders that combat corruption and deliver for the people.”

Indeed, the checks are not blank. They bear generous figures and are signed by the CIA. They are going to criminal officials who have sold their loyalty to Washington, but are hated by their own people.

These checks are the unmistakable hallmark of a puppet regime installed in the attempt to assert neo-colonial US control in Afghanistan, against the will of the country’s population. This war is not aimed against terrorism. Rather, young American soldiers, drawn overwhelmingly from the working class, are being sent to kill and die in the interests of a US financial aristocracy that is determined to advance its interests by militarily establishing hegemony over Central Asia and its vast energy resources. Working people at home are forced to bear the cost of militarism as hundreds of billions of dollars worth of cuts are imposed on jobs and social services to pay for war.

What is required is the revival of a genuine movement against war, based on the working class and joined with the struggle to defend jobs and living standards against the onslaught being carried out by the banks and corporations and their government.

It must raise the demand for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US and other foreign troops from Afghanistan and Iraq, and for all those in both the Bush and Obama administrations who are responsible for these wars of aggression to be held accountable for war crimes.
Bill Van Auken