Friday, September 3, 2010

MEXIFORNIA - State of Mexican Supremacy

Sheriff Works To Protect Illegal Immigrants
• View
• Discussion
Last Updated: Fri, 09/03/2010 - 12:04pm
The top law enforcement official in a major U.S. county is vigorously working to withdraw from a federal program that checks criminals’ immigration status because it violates the area’s sanctuary policies.
San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennessey, who operates the county jails, has for months tried to bail on a program (Secure Communities) that requires local authorities to check the fingerprints of arrestees against a federal database. The idea is to deport dangerous criminals, many of whom have fallen through the cracks over the years.
But the veteran elected sheriff says the arrangement violates San Francisco’s longtime sanctuary law, which forbids public employees and police from asking anyone about their immigration status. The famously liberal city by the bay also offers illegal aliens official government identification cards and all sorts of taxpayer-financed public benefits.
The policies have protected violent criminals from deportation, including those who have been convicted of atrocious felonies. A few years ago a Salvadoran gang member with two felony convictions murdered a father and his two sons because San Francisco law enforcement agencies never turned him over to federal authorities for removal. Secure Communities was implemented nationwide in 2008 precisely to avoid situations like those.
Incredibly, the sheriff’s priority is to continue shielding illegal aliens from deportation even when they commit crimes in the community he’s been elected to protect. Earlier this year Hennessey formally requested that California’s attorney general exempt his agency from participating in Secure Communities and when the request was denied, he asked the feds directly.
In rejecting the exemption request California’s attorney general said that Secure Communities “serves both public safety and the interests of justice" because it “advances an important law enforcement function by identifying those individuals who are in the country illegally and who have a history of serious crimes or who have previously been deported."

OBAMA'S TRAIL OF A TRAITOR

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com
OBAMA’S ON GOING ASSAULT ON THE AMERICA WORKERS!

FROM JUDICIAL WATCH

ICE Ignores Cos That Hire Illegal Workers
Last Updated: Wed, 09/01/2010 - 3:12pm
An Obama Administration program launched with great fanfare last summer to punish businesses that exploit illegal workers has given hundreds of flagrant offenders a free pass after Homeland Security audits determined they employed large numbers of undocumented immigrants.

“The inspections have determined that hundreds of companies throughout the U.S. have significant numbers of illegal immigrants on their payroll yet none have been punished, according to a Houston newspaper that obtained internal ICE records through the Freedom of Information Act. At least 430 audit cases listed as “closed” by the agency had high percentages of workers with “questionable” documents yet they faced no consequences.”
THE ENTIRE REASON THE BORDERS ARE LEFT OPEN IS TO CUT WAGES!

“We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs taken by illegal workers,” said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, co-chairman of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus. “President Obama is on the wrong side of the American people on immigration. The president should support policies that help citizens and legal immigrants find the jobs they need and deserve rather than fail to enforce immigration laws.”
*
“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
MOST OF THE FORTUNE 500 ARE GENEROUS DONORS TO LA RAZA – THE MEXICAN FASCIST POLITICAL PARTY. THESE FIGURES ARE DATED. CNN CALCULATES THAT WAGES ARE DEPRESSED $300 - $400 BILLION PER YEAR!
*
OBAMA’S LONG HISTORY OF HISPANDERING….
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.
*
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
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.
*
Obama soft on illegals enforcement

Arrests of illegal immigrant workers have dropped precipitously under President Obama, according to figures released Wednesday. Criminal arrests, administrative arrests, indictments and convictions of illegal immigrants at work sites all fell by more than 50 percent from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2009.

The figures show that Mr. Obama has made good on his pledge to shift enforcement away from going after illegal immigrant workers themselves - but at the expense of Americans' jobs, said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the Republican who compiled the numbers from the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Mr. Smith, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said a period of economic turmoil is the wrong time to be cutting enforcement and letting illegal immigrants take jobs that Americans otherwise would hold.

OBAMA FLIPS OFF THE AMERICAN WORKER FOR "CHEAP" LABOR ILLEGALS!

FROM JUDICIAL WATCH

“The inspections have determined that hundreds of companies throughout the U.S. have significant numbers of illegal immigrants on their payroll yet none have been punished, according to a Houston newspaper that obtained internal ICE records through the Freedom of Information Act. At least 430 audit cases listed as “closed” by the agency had high percentages of workers with “questionable” documents yet they faced no consequences.”


ICE Ignores Cos That Hire Illegal Workers
Last Updated: Wed, 09/01/2010 - 3:12pm
An Obama Administration program launched with great fanfare last summer to punish businesses that exploit illegal workers has given hundreds of flagrant offenders a free pass after Homeland Security audits determined they employed large numbers of undocumented immigrants.
It’s the one area of immigration enforcement that President Obama vows to pursue, penalizing companies that benefit from cheap illegal alien labor rather than workplace raids that lead to mass deportations. To fulfill the mission, the commander-in-chief launched a “bold, new audit initiative” last July to inspect businesses suspected of hiring large numbers of illegal workers. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents scrutinize hiring records to determine if companies are complying with employment eligibility laws.
The inspections have determined that hundreds of companies throughout the U.S. have significant numbers of illegal immigrants on their payroll yet none have been punished, according to a Houston newspaper that obtained internal ICE records through the Freedom of Information Act. At least 430 audit cases listed as “closed” by the agency had high percentages of workers with “questionable” documents yet they faced no consequences.
The records show federal inspectors specifically identified more than 110 companies with suspect documents for multiple workers yet none of them were fined or criminally charged. They include a California business with suspicious documents for 93% of its employees, an Illinois firm with dubious paperwork for nearly all of its 200 employees and a Texas manufacturer with bogus files for more than half of its 107-member workforce.
Additionally, ICE agents in Atlanta reached a secret agreement with a manufacturing firm that had questionable records on file for 574 of its 1,187 employees. The undisclosed agreement allowed the company to avoid criminal prosecution on the condition that it complies with certain agency requirements, though ICE would not provide additional details.
So much for Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s promise that, under her leadership, the agency will focus on “renewing a priority on employers who are making money off of these illegal immigrants and giving them jobs that should be going to American workers.”

HISPANDERING OBAMA HARASSES AMERICANS IN ARIZONA FOR ILLEGALS

FROM JUDICIAL WATCH

DOJ Sues Public Colleges Over Immigration Rule

Last Updated: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 3:10pm

In its mission to prevent states from enforcing immigration laws the Obama Administration has filed another lawsuit against Arizona, this time accusing a public college system of discrimination for requiring job applicants to furnish proof of legal residency before getting hired.
The complaint comes less than two months after the administration sued the state and its governor, Jan Brewer, to halt enforcement of its new immigration control law which, ironically, was modeled after the existing federal statute that’s seldom enforced. It bans “sanctuary city” policies, makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. without proper documentation and allows local police to check suspects’ immigration status.
In that suit the Justice Department accuses Arizona of “intruding” on the government’s authority by passing a state version of its immigration laws. A few weeks go a federal judge ruled in favor of the government, temporarily blocking the law’s key provisions—allowing police to check a person’s immigration status and requiring immigrants to prove they’re authorized to be in the country—from being implemented.
Now the feds want the taxpayer-financed Maricopa Community College system to stop making prospective employees show proof of legal status. With 10 campuses and two skill centers in the Phoenix area, Maricopa County Colleges require that job applicants who aren’t U.S. citizens show their green cards to ensure eligibility.
This is discriminatory because it treats authorized workers differently during the hiring process based on their citizenship status, according to the renowned illegal immigrant advocate (Thomas Perez) appointed by Obama to head the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. Therefore the community college system is demonstrating a “pattern or practice of discrimination,” Perez asserts in a news report this week.
Perez, Maryland’s former Labor Secretary, used to serve on the board of a controversial, taxpayer-funded advocacy organization (Casa de Maryland) that helps illegal immigrants by operating day laborer facilities and offering free legal services. He has long fought for the rights of illegal aliens in the U.S. by supporting Mexican and Guatemalan-issued cards as valid identification in this country, favoring discounted tuition at public colleges and providing advice to illegal aliens on how to deal with police.
It’s not surprising that he’s leading a fierce effort to combat immigration enforcement. Besides the two lawsuits, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is also under Justice Department “investigation” for his agency’s unfounded “discriminatory” practices in operating a successful immigration enforcement partnership between local and federal authorities.

OBAMA - HIS BANKSTER DONORS, LA RAZA ILLEGALS and SAUDIS DONORS - The Rest Of the Nation FUCKED!

JUDICIAL WATCH
U.S. Helps Radical Muslim Groups Get Taxpayer Dollars
Last Updated: Tue, 08/31/2010 - 11:57am
In its fervent crusade to befriend Muslims, the White House will host special workshops this week to provide members of radical Islamic groups with direct access to U.S. government funding, assistance and resources.
While this may sound surreal, it’s reality in the Obama Administration, which has embarked on a never-ending mission to befriend the enemy. Previous efforts include secret meetings between Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and extremist Arab and Muslim groups to discuss national security matters and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s special order allowing the reentry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties have for years banned them from the U.S.
As contemptible as those moves may seem, the latest effort is even more outrageous. Various government agencies, including the departments of Homeland Security, Agriculture, Education and Health will participate in the White House seminars which were exposed by an independent nonprofit dedicated to monitoring the nation’s security.
The goal is to provide the leaders of groups associated with the parent organization of Hamas and Al Qaeda (Muslim Brotherhood) with tips on cutting through “red tape” when seeking U.S. government access or money. In all 20 national Muslim groups with ties to the global Islamist organization that preaches Jihad are scheduled to participate. Their mission is to obtain cash and other resources from Uncle Sam.
While the U.S. government has kept the event quiet, it was announced in a newsletter by a Saudi-funded group (Islamic Society of North America or ISNA) that was a co-conspirator in a federal terrorist funding case a few years ago. Featured in a Judicial Watch special report on Muslim charities that finance terrorism, ISNA is firmly committed to spreading the radical form of Islam, which is the driving force behind Jihad.
Now the Obama Administration is helping ISNA and its radical Islamic counterparts access American taxpayer resources as well as top government officials.

*
Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism (Paperback) BY DORE GOLD – get it!

*
“The Obama administration is continuing this policy of shielding the Saudi monarchy.” OBAMA LOOKS FORWARD TO THE KIND OF DIRTY SAUDI LOOT THAT HILLARY BILLARY HAVE LOADED UP ON!

IT WAS BUSH LAP DOG, JAMES BAKER OF BUSH- SAUDI- CARLYLE GROUP ASSIGNED THE TASK OF PROTECTING THE FILTHY SAUDIS FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AFTER THEY INVADED 9-11.
OBAMA MUST SMELL THE KIND OF LOOT HILLARY AND BILLARY HAVE PUT THEIR FAR REACHING CLAWS ON. DIRTY SAUDI MONEY PAID TO THE CLINTON LIBRARY….
*
Hatred's Kingdom: How Saudi Arabia Supports the New Global Terrorism (Paperback) BY DORE GOLD – get it!

Obama administration seeks to quash suit by 9/11 families
By Barry Grey
26 June 2009
The Obama administration has intervened to quash a civil suit filed against Saudi Arabia by survivors and family members of victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The suit seeks to hold the Saudi royal family liable, charging that it provided financial and other support to Al Qaeda and was thereby complicit in the hijack bombings that killed nearly 3,000 people in New York and Washington DC.
According to an article by Eric Lichtblau in the June 24 New York Times, documents assembled by lawyers for the 9/11 families “provide new evidence of extensive financial support for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups by members of the Saudi royal family.” However, the article states, the documents may never find their way into court because of legal challenges by Saudi Arabia, which are being supported by the US Justice Department.
The administration is taking extraordinary measures to kill the suit and suppress the evidence of Saudi support for Al Qaeda and complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Last month, the Justice Department sided in court with the Saudi monarchy in seeking to halt further legal action. Moreover, it had copies of American intelligence documents on Saudi finances that had been leaked to lawyers for the families destroyed, and is now seeking to prevent a judge from even looking at the material.
Two federal judges and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals have already ruled against the 7,630 people represented in the lawsuit, rejecting the suit on the grounds that the plaintiffs cannot sue in the US against a sovereign nation and its leaders. The Supreme Court is expected to rule this month on whether to hear an appeal, but the families’ prospects have been weakened by the intervention of the Obama administration, which has called on the court not to hear the plaintiffs’ appeal.
The Times reports that it obtained the new documents from the families’ lawyers, adding that they are among “several hundred thousand pages of investigative material” assembled by the 9/11 families in their long-running suit against the Saudi royal family.
Lichtblau writes that the documents “provide no smoking gun connecting the royal family to the events of September 11, 2001.” However, there is a wealth of evidence in the public record strongly pointing to such a connection. And there is the 28-page, classified section of the 2003 joint congressional inquiry into 9/11 that deals with the Saudi role in the attacks. Lichtblau writes that “the secret section is believed to discuss intelligence on Saudi financial links to two hijackers.”
Then-President George W. Bush ordered that section of the congressional report to be classified, and its contents were blacked out in the findings released to the public by Congress. The Obama administration is continuing this policy of shielding the Saudi monarchy.
Lichtblau reports that the material obtained by the Times from the families’ lawyers includes “thousands of pages of previously undisclosed documents” that provide “an unusually detailed look at some of the evidence.” He cites as one example “internal Treasury Department documents” that show that the International Islamic Relief Organization, a “Saudi charity,” heavily supported by members of the Saudi royal family, “provided ‘support for terrorist organizations’ at least through 2006.”
He gives other examples of evidence of Saudi support for Islamist terrorists in Bosnia in the 1990s and witness statements and intelligence reports of money being given by Saudi princes to the Taliban and to “militants’ activities” in Pakistan and Bosnia during the same decade.
What are the motives behind the Obama administration’s efforts to cover up the connections between the Saudi monarchy and Al Qaeda?
The Justice Department, according to the Times, cites “potentially significant foreign relations consequences” should the 9/11 families’ suit be allowed to go to trial. This is undoubtedly a factor. The US has an immense political and economic interest in protecting the Saudi dictatorship, which is a major American ally in the Middle East, a supporter of Washington’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the world’s biggest producer of oil.
But there is a more immediate and compelling reason for suppressing any exposure of the Saudi connection to Al Qaeda and 9/11. The revelations would undoubtedly shatter the official explanations of the September 11 attacks and point to complicity on the part of US intelligence and security agencies.
Given its longstanding and intimate ties to the Saudi royal family and Saudi intelligence, it is not possible to believe that the CIA would have been unaware of Saudi support for Al Qaeda and at least some of the 19 hijackers, 15 of whom were Saudi nationals, as they were preparing to carry out the attacks on New York and Washington.
The ties between the Saudi and US intelligence establishments were strengthened during the US-backed war against the pro-Soviet regime in Afghanistan, beginning in 1979 and continuing through the 1980s. The US poured billions of dollars in arms and financing into this war, most of it funneled through the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence agency.
The Saudi regime also helped fund the anti-Soviet guerrillas, many of whom were brought to Afghanistan by Islamist forces in the Middle East. Osama bin Laden served as the Saudi regime’s personal emissary in this cause, helping to organize, train and equip Arab volunteers for the Afghan war. The movement now known as Al Qaeda was spawned through the interaction of these three intelligence agencies—the CIA, the ISI and the Saudis.
The bipartisan 9/11 commission, in its July 2004 report, echoed the Bush administration’s whitewash of Saudi ties to the terrorist attacks, declaring that it found “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded” Al Qaeda.
However, in a book published later that year, Intelligence Matters, then-Florida Senator Bob Graham charged the Bush administration with orchestrating a cover-up of Saudi involvement in the September 11 attacks. Graham was at the time the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which had carried out, along with its House counterpart, the joint congressional investigation into 9/11.
He wrote that “evidence of official Saudi supportî for at least some of the hijackers was ìincontrovertible.” Graham’s charges focused on the extraordinary cases of Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar, who were identified as hijackers of American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon.
The two men, both Saudi nationals, are undoubtedly the “two hijackers” to whom Times reporter Lichtblau refers in connection with the secret section of the joint congressional report on 9/11.
Both were known to US intelligence as Al Qaeda operatives at least since 1999. Malaysian agents, acting in concert with the CIA, photographed and videotaped them and others during a 2000 meeting of Islamist terrorist groups in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Nevertheless, after the meeting, al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were allowed to fly to the US using their own passports and visas issued by US consular authorities in Saudi Arabia. While the CIA knew of their presence in the US, it did not inform the Federal Bureau of Investigation, according to the FBI. (The CIA disputes this claim, insisting that it did alert the FBI). Nor did the CIA inform immigration authorities.
Graham wrote that this was the only time he had ever heard of the FBI refusing to serve a congressional subpoena. He commented, “We were seeing in writing what we had suspected for some time: the White House was directing a cover-up.”
Bush’s extraordinary intervention to block questioning of FBI informant Shaikh was consistent with his administration’s actions in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, when it allowed chartered planes to ferry some 140 prominent Saudis—including at least a dozen of Osama bin Laden’s relatives—to Boston for evacuation to Saudi Arabia. The pick-up flights were organized at a time when all non-military and non-emergency aviation had been grounded by government order. Bin Laden’s relatives were allowed to leave the country with little or no questioning by the FBI.
Graham did not spell out what “damning” information about the 9/11 conspiracy the informant might have revealed. But the role of the CIA, the FBI and the Bush administration in the case of al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar suggests that it went beyond involvement by the Saudi government. It strongly suggests he was blocked from being questioned out of concern that he would reveal that elements within the US state apparatus knew of plans for an impending hijacking and allowed them to go forward.
Eight years after the attacks, no one has been held accountable for what on its face is the greatest failure of national security in US history. The question is: Was it a failure, or was a decision taken to permit a terrorist attack on US soil in order to provide the pretext for implementing plans for wars abroad and repressive policies at home that had been drawn up well in advance of September 11, 2001?
That a new administration is continuing the policy of shielding the Saudi monarchy and suppressing evidence of its complicity in 9/11 points strongly to the latter explanation.
*

ALIPAC - Federal Candidates OPPOSING THE LA RAZA DEMS' OBAMA AMNESTY

September 3, 2010

CONTACT: Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC)
(866) 703-0864 WilliamG@alipac.us

ALIPAC is endorsing a new round of Federal candidates who have indicated they oppose President Obama's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Amnesty plans and favor enforcing America's existing immigration and border laws instead, which is expected to generate a continued exodus of illegal aliens out of America.

Today ALIPAC is endorsing US Senate Candidate Davis Westlake of Wisconsin, and Congressional candidates who include Sandy Adams of Florida, Delia Lopez of Oregon, Lee Byberg of Minnesota, Ted Danz of New York, and Mike Crane in Georgia!

"We have a real political revolution on our hands involving the illegal immigration issue in America," said William Gheen President of ALIPAC. "We are seeing more candidates openly line up against the push for Amnesty in DC than ever before and we applaud these brave Americans for standing with the American public against Amnesty."

Today ALIPAC is endorsing Republican US Senate Candidate Dave Westlake who is running in the GOP Primary in Wisconsin to be decided September 13. Westlake has indicated he will oppose Obama's Amnesty for illegal aliens and will use the full power of his office to restore the Rule of Law in America.

ALIPAC believes that Dave Westlake is the best candidate to defeat incumbent Senator Russ Feingold who supports mass Amnesty for illegal aliens through Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Feingold also has an F- grade on immigration issues through NumbersUSA due to his support for unnecessary worker visas, benefits for illegal aliens, and reduced border security.

ALIPAC is also endorsing Sandy Adams for Congress in Florida's 24th District. Adams narrowly defeated Karen Diebel in the GOP Primary. Both Adams and Diebel have signed ALIPAC's pledge to reign in Obama's executive order Amnesty plan.

ALIPAC is also endorsing Delia Lopez Oregon's District 3 who is running against illegal alien Amnesty supporter Earl Blumenauer.

Lee Byberg is a Republican challenger facing Democratic incumbent Collin Peterson in Minnesota's 7th District. Peterson has a D grade at NumbersUSA and his campaign website avoids the topic of immigration, likely due to his support for Amnesty. Lee Byberg is a better choice for Congress because he has signed ALIPAC's pledge to oppose Amnesty and his campaign website says he will secure our borders and "support legislation that will rid us of illegal aliens through attrition".

ALIPAC is endorsing Ted Danz a Republican Challenger in New York's 21st District for his opposition to Amnesty, his inclusion of his immigration positions on his website, and his promise to use the power of Congress to compel President Obama to secure our borders. Danz is running against incumbent Democrat Paul Tonko who has an F- score at NumbersUSA due to his support for Comprehensive Amnesty for illegal aliens. While Danz proudly displays his support for immigration enforcement, Tonko is concealing his pro-Amnesty immigration stances by giving them no mention on his campaign website.

ALIPAC is endorsing Mike Crane for Congress in Georgia's 13th District. Crane won a crowded GOP Primary to face David Scott who has has a D grade at NumbersUSA for his support of Amnesty for illegals. Immigration is not mentioned on Scott's website, yet Mike Crane's campaign website has a detailed explanation of his plan to crack down on illegal immigration. Mike Crane was the only candidate in the race for Georgia's 13th district to fill out ALIPAC's candidate survey and sign the pledge. ALIPAC is pleased to see the candidate with clearest views on immigration winning the primary and mounting a strong challenge against an incumbent.

Americans for Legal Immigration PAC, founded 9/11/2004, is the nation's largest political action committee endorsing candidates opposed to Comprehensive Amnesty. These six new endorsements bring ALIPAC's total endorsements up to 132. ALIPAC's goal is to channel as many votes, volunteers, and contributions behind this army of candidates.

To view ALIPAC's endorsements please visit

http://www.alipac.us/2010_campaign_endorsements.html


###

AMERICANS FOR LEGAL IMMIGRATION PAC
www.alipac.us
Post Office Box 30966, Raleigh, NC 27622-0966
Tel: (919) 787-6009 Toll Free: (866) 703-0864
FEC ID: C00405878

OBAMA and WALL ST's ASSAULT ON WAGES - No Legal Need Apply!

CALIFORNIA ALONE PUTS OUT $20 BILLION IN SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS! THERE ARE ONLY EIGHT (8) STATES WITH A POPULATION GREATER THAN MEX GANG INVESTED LOS ANGELES, WHICH PAYS OUT $600 MILLION IN WELFARE TO ILLEGALS, AND WHERE 47% OF THOSE WITH A JOB ARE ILLEGALS WITH STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS!

WHY IS IT THE POLS DON’T TALK ABOUT THE STAGGERING COST OF ALL THIS “CHEAP” MEX LABOR?



THE ENTIRE REASON THE BORDERS ARE LEFT OPEN IS TO CUT WAGES!

“We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs taken by illegal workers,” said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, co-chairman of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus. “President Obama is on the wrong side of the American people on immigration. The president should support policies that help citizens and legal immigrants find the jobs they need and deserve rather than fail to enforce immigration laws.”
*
“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
MOST OF THE FORTUNE 500 ARE GENEROUS DONORS TO LA RAZA – THE MEXICAN FASCIST POLITICAL PARTY. THESE FIGURES ARE DATED. CNN CALCULATES THAT WAGES ARE DEPRESSED $300 - $400 BILLION PER YEAR!
*
How to End the Great Recession
By ROBERT B. REICH
Berkeley, Calif.
THIS promises to be the worst Labor Day in the memory of most Americans. Organized labor is down to about 7 percent of the private work force. Members of non-organized labor — most of the rest of us — are unemployed, underemployed or underwater. The Labor Department reported on Friday that just 67,000 new private-sector jobs were created in August, while at least 125,000 are needed to keep up with the growth of the potential work force.
The national economy isn’t escaping the gravitational pull of the Great Recession. None of the standard booster rockets are working: near-zero short-term interest rates from the Fed, almost record-low borrowing costs in the bond market, a giant stimulus package and tax credits for small businesses that hire the long-term unemployed have all failed to do enough.
That’s because the real problem has to do with the structure of the economy, not the business cycle. No booster rocket can work unless consumers are able, at some point, to keep the economy moving on their own. But consumers no longer have the purchasing power to buy the goods and services they produce as workers; for some time now, their means haven’t kept up with what the growing economy could and should have been able to provide them.
This crisis began decades ago when a new wave of technology — things like satellite communications, container ships, computers and eventually the Internet — made it cheaper for American employers to use low-wage labor abroad or labor-replacing software here at home than to continue paying the typical worker a middle-class wage. Even though the American economy kept growing, hourly wages flattened. The median male worker earns less today, adjusted for inflation, than he did 30 years ago.
But for years American families kept spending as if their incomes were keeping pace with overall economic growth. And their spending fueled continued growth. How did families manage this trick? First, women streamed into the paid work force. By the late 1990s, more than 60 percent of mothers with young children worked outside the home (in 1966, only 24 percent did).
Second, everyone put in more hours. What families didn’t receive in wage increases they made up for in work increases. By the mid-2000s, the typical male worker was putting in roughly 100 hours more each year than two decades before, and the typical female worker about 200 hours more.
When American families couldn’t squeeze any more income out of these two coping mechanisms, they embarked on a third: going ever deeper into debt. This seemed painless — as long as home prices were soaring. From 2002 to 2007, American households extracted $2.3 trillion from their homes.
Eventually, of course, the debt bubble burst — and with it, the last coping mechanism. Now we’re left to deal with the underlying problem that we’ve avoided for decades. Even if nearly everyone was employed, the vast middle class still wouldn’t have enough money to buy what the economy is capable of producing.
Where have all the economic gains gone? Mostly to the top. The economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty examined tax returns from 1913 to 2008. They discovered an interesting pattern. In the late 1970s, the richest 1 percent of American families took in about 9 percent of the nation’s total income; by 2007, the top 1 percent took in 23.5 percent of total income.
It’s no coincidence that the last time income was this concentrated was in 1928. I do not mean to suggest that such astonishing consolidations of income at the top directly cause sharp economic declines. The connection is more subtle.
The rich spend a much smaller proportion of their incomes than the rest of us. So when they get a disproportionate share of total income, the economy is robbed of the demand it needs to keep growing and creating jobs.
What’s more, the rich don’t necessarily invest their earnings and savings in the American economy; they send them anywhere around the globe where they’ll summon the highest returns — sometimes that’s here, but often it’s the Cayman Islands, China or elsewhere. The rich also put their money into assets most likely to attract other big investors (commodities, stocks, dot-coms or real estate), which can become wildly inflated as a result.
Meanwhile, as the economy grows, the vast majority in the middle naturally want to live better. Their consequent spending fuels continued growth and creates enough jobs for almost everyone, at least for a time. But because this situation can’t be sustained, at some point — 1929 and 2008 offer ready examples — the bill comes due.
This time around, policymakers had knowledge their counterparts didn’t have in 1929; they knew they could avoid immediate financial calamity by flooding the economy with money. But, paradoxically, averting another Great Depression-like calamity removed political pressure for more fundamental reform. We’re left instead with a long and seemingly endless Great Jobs Recession.
THE Great Depression and its aftermath demonstrate that there is only one way back to full recovery: through more widely shared prosperity. In the 1930s, the American economy was completely restructured. New Deal measures — Social Security, a 40-hour work week with time-and-a-half overtime, unemployment insurance, the right to form unions and bargain collectively, the minimum wage — leveled the playing field.
In the decades after World War II, legislation like the G.I. Bill, a vast expansion of public higher education and civil rights and voting rights laws further reduced economic inequality. Much of this was paid for with a 70 percent to 90 percent marginal income tax on the highest incomes. And as America’s middle class shared more of the economy’s gains, it was able to buy more of the goods and services the economy could provide. The result: rapid growth and more jobs.
By contrast, little has been done since 2008 to widen the circle of prosperity. Health-care reform is an important step forward but it’s not nearly enough.
What else could be done to raise wages and thereby spur the economy? We might consider, for example, extending the earned income tax credit all the way up through the middle class, and paying for it with a tax on carbon. Or exempting the first $20,000 of income from payroll taxes and paying for it with a payroll tax on incomes over $250,000.
In the longer term, Americans must be better prepared to succeed in the global, high-tech economy. Early childhood education should be more widely available, paid for by a small 0.5 percent fee on all financial transactions. Public universities should be free; in return, graduates would then be required to pay back 10 percent of their first 10 years of full-time income.
Another step: workers who lose their jobs and have to settle for positions that pay less could qualify for “earnings insurance” that would pay half the salary difference for two years; such a program would probably prove less expensive than extended unemployment benefits.
These measures would not enlarge the budget deficit because they would be paid for. In fact, such moves would help reduce the long-term deficits by getting more Americans back to work and the economy growing again.
Policies that generate more widely shared prosperity lead to stronger and more sustainable economic growth — and that’s good for everyone. The rich are better off with a smaller percentage of a fast-growing economy than a larger share of an economy that’s barely moving. That’s the Labor Day lesson we learned decades ago; until we remember it again, we’ll be stuck in the Great Recession.
Robert B. Reich, a secretary of labor in the Clinton administration, is a professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of the forthcoming “Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future.”

CHANGE WAS HIS PHONY SPIEL! HIS BANKSTER DONORS PROFITS UP! FORECLOSURES UP OBAMA'S LIES UP!

WHAT DID THE BANKSTERS KNOW ABOUT OUR ACTOR OBAMA THAT WE DIDN’T KNOW?
Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).
BARACK OBAMA HAS COLLECTED NEARLY TWICE AS MUCH MONEY AS JOHN McCAIN


WHY IS IT AGAIN SOME CALL OBAMA A SOCIALIST? IS IT BECAUSE HE SOCIALIZES THE LOSES OF CRIMINAL BANKSTERS AND HANDS THEIR WELFARE BILLS TO US TO PAY… once again!
OBAMA IS NOTHING BUT BUSH IN DRAG! BANKSTERS, SAUDIS AND ILLEGALS… how’s that different that BUSH HILLARY-BILLARY?


The government engineered and subsidized the takeover of Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual by JPMorgan Chase, Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, and Wachovia by Wells Fargo. It allowed the Wall Street icon Lehman Brothers to collapse. As a result, the top five banks control more deposits and assets than ever before.

The fact that the banks are raking in bumper profits in the midst of this economic miasma testifies to the single-minded focus of both the Bush and Obama administrations on protecting the financial elite from the consequences of the financial breakdown precipitated by its own recklessness and criminality.
Hundreds of billions of dollars in public funds have been handed over to the banks—the bulk going to the biggest Wall Street firms—while the Obama administration and both political parties claim there is “no money” for government job-creation programs or relief to the unemployed and those facing such disasters as foreclosure, the shutoff of utilities or the loss of health insurance.

Much of the increase in profits at the major banks came from reducing their capital reserves, thus increasing the risk of future crises. The FDIC reported that big banks cut back the money allocated for reserves by $11.8 billion during the quarter.

US bank profits back to pre-crisis heights
By Barry Grey
3 September 2010
US bank profits returned to their pre-crisis heights in the second quarter of this year, according to a report released Tuesday by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), the regulatory agency that insures consumer deposits at commercial banks.
Profits reported by the 7,830 banks overseen by the FDIC totaled $21.6 billion for the three months to June, compared to a $4.4 billion loss in the second quarter of 2009. It was the banks’ highest quarterly profit since the third quarter of 2007, when the subprime mortgage market began to collapse.
During the quarter, the number of banks on the FDIC’s “problem bank” list hit the highest level in 17 years, rising from 775 in the first quarter to 829 by the end of June. More than a tenth of US banks are now on the list.
Thus far in 2010, 118 banks have failed, well ahead of last year’s pace of 140 banks seized by regulators. There were 104 fewer banks in the second quarter than in the first quarter of this year.
The surge in profits at the big banks occurred during the same quarter that saw a sharp slowdown in US economic growth and a deepening of the social crisis confronting tens of millions of working Americans. Over the past three months the housing market has collapsed, manufacturing has weakened and jobless claims have climbed.
Last month the Commerce Department revised downward its estimate of gross domestic product growth in the second quarter from 2.4 percent to 1.6 percent—an anemic rate that all but guarantees a further rise in the official jobless rate, presently at 9.5 percent.
The fact that the banks are raking in bumper profits in the midst of this economic miasma testifies to the single-minded focus of both the Bush and Obama administrations on protecting the financial elite from the consequences of the financial breakdown precipitated by its own recklessness and criminality.
Hundreds of billions of dollars in public funds have been handed over to the banks—the bulk going to the biggest Wall Street firms—while the Obama administration and both political parties claim there is “no money” for government job-creation programs or relief to the unemployed and those facing such disasters as foreclosure, the shutoff of utilities or the loss of health insurance.
The bank rescue operation was designed and presided over by Wall Street insiders, such as Bush’s treasury secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson, and Obama’s treasury secretary, former New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner. They have deliberately worked to increase the concentration of the financial system by favoring the biggest firms and pushing smaller ones over the edge.
The government engineered and subsidized the takeover of Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual by JPMorgan Chase, Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, and Wachovia by Wells Fargo. It allowed the Wall Street icon Lehman Brothers to collapse. As a result, the top five banks control more deposits and assets than ever before.
At the same time, the Federal Reserve has kept its key interest rate near zero, allowing the big banks to borrow money virtually for free and then lend it back to the government at a higher rate, guaranteeing huge profits. Moreover, the precedent of government bailouts of firms deemed “too big to fail” has enabled the biggest banks to borrow on the financial markets at substantially lower rates than those paid by smaller institutions.
The Treasury handed over taxpayer dollars to the banks with no strings attached. The banks were allowed to use the money as they saw fit, and were not even required to inform the government as to how its cash was being used.
The banks have chosen to use the money to increase their speculative activities, resume paying top executives multimillion-dollar bonuses, and amass a cash hoard above their required capital reserves estimated at $1 trillion. They have sharply reduced their lending to consumers and small businesses, thereby contributing to the weakening of the economy and the deepening of the jobs crisis.
The FDIC reported that in the second quarter, the banks’ aggregate loans and leases fell by $95.7 billion, or 1.3 percent, amid big drops in construction and credit card loans. Commercial real estate loan balances fell 8.3 percent and credit card balances declined by about 2.5 percent. Mortgage loans were also down.
Much of the increase in profits at the major banks came from reducing their capital reserves, thus increasing the risk of future crises. The FDIC reported that big banks cut back the money allocated for reserves by $11.8 billion during the quarter.
The US stock market celebrated the bank profit report with a splurge of buying. The Dow Jones Industrial Average soared 254.75 points on Wednesday, a gain of 2.5 percent. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index and Nasdaq composite index both rose even more, in percentage terms.
The S&P 500 financials index rose 3.9 percent, with Bank of America surging 6.1 percent, Citigroup gaining 3.7 percent, and JPMorgan Chase rising 3.8 percent.
The financial press largely attributed the stock market surge to manufacturing reports for both China and the US that were somewhat better than anticipated. The markets evidently chose to ignore the monthly survey by Automatic Data Processing Inc. (ADP), which showed a net decrease of 10,000 private-sector US jobs in August, the first monthly decrease since January.
The ADP report said goods-producing companies cut 40,000 jobs, more than offsetting the 30,000 jobs created by service companies.
A separate survey by the Commerce Department reported a 1 percent fall in construction spending in July to the lowest level in ten years. Spending was 10.7 percent below year-earlier levels.
Also on Wednesday, US-based auto companies reported sharply lower sales in August. Auto sales fell an average 21 percent as compared with a year earlier, and 5 percent from the level in July. General Motors sales declined 24.5 percent from August 2009 and Ford sales fell 11 percent.
*
WELLS FARGO – BANKSTERS TO THE MEX DRUG CARTEL… and where NO American need apply for a bankster job!

CA MORTGAGE LICENSE REVOKED FOR WELLS FARGO!

“Wells Fargo said last month that first-quarter profit jumped 53 percent from a year earlier as borrowers rushed to refinance mortgages amid record-low interest rates.”
*
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.
*
DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATIONS
The San Diego Union
By Craig D. Rose May 3, 2003

Wells Fargo mortgage license is revoked
State takes action over interest dispute


Citing a pattern of overcharging borrowers, state regulators yesterday revoked the mortgage lending license of Wells Fargo, but the bank will continue to make and service loans under federal jurisdiction.
The California Department of Corporations said Wells Fargo, the state's largest mortgage lender, has been charging consumers interest for days disallowed by state regulation.
"Wells Fargo charged consumers interest on their mortgages more than one day before being recorded, an admitted violation of California law," said Demetrios Boutris, state commissioner of corporations. "If Wells Fargo is not going to abide by California's laws, it has no right to California's licenses."
*
Bank of America and Wells Fargo both also spent more than $2 million in the first half of the year. Spending far less were PNC Bank, US Bancorp, Capital One Financial and Regions Financial. The American Bankers Association, the main trade group for the industry, also lobbied heavily, spending $4.2 million in the first half of 2010.


Bailed-out banks spent big on financial lobbying
By EILEEN AJ CONNELLY
The Associated Press
NEW YORK — The 10 banks that received the most bailout aid during the financial crisis spent over $16 million on lobbying efforts in the first half of 2010, as the debate over the financial-regulatory overhaul reached its height.
Disclosure reports show that the banks that got the most government help in late 2008 and early 2009 also invested the most to influence members of Congress, the White House, the Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and a long list of federal agencies as new rules were enacted governing Wall Street and the nation's financial system.
"I'm not shocked that they spent that much money because I saw them every day," said Ed Mierzwinski, consumer-program director at U.S. Public Interest Research Group, who said more than 2,000 lobbyists worked on the financial overhaul bill.
The sweeping law signed by President Obama in July topped 2,300 pages, and outlined broad rules for issues ranging from derivatives trading to the fees merchants are charged for processing credit- and debit-card transactions. It also covered the creation of a consumer-financial protection bureau. Banks are continuing efforts to try to shape many of the new rules that are still being finalized.
The $16.32 million spent in the first half of 2010 was 26 percent higher than the combined $12.94 million they spent in the first half of 2009.
Leading the pack this year was JPMorgan Chase, which spent $1.52 million on lobbying in the second quarter, on top of $1.51 million in the first quarter of 2010, for a total of $3.03 million, according to disclosure reports filed with the House of Representatives clerk's office.
Citigroup, the largest bank recipient of government funds during the crisis in late 2008 and early 2009, was second. The New York-based bank spend $1.47 million on lobbyists in the second quarter, after spending $1.31 million in the first quarter for a total of $2.78 million.
And Wall Street titan Goldman Sachs was third, with $1.58 million spent in the second quarter, on top of $1.19 million in the first quarter of 2010.
Mierzwinski said the big win for consumers was the financial protection bureau, which banks tried to remove from the law.
Bank of America and Wells Fargo both also spent more than $2 million in the first half of the year. Spending far less were PNC Bank, US Bancorp, Capital One Financial and Regions Financial. The American Bankers Association, the main trade group for the industry, also lobbied heavily, spending $4.2 million in the first half of 2010.
*
HEY, ANYONE ACTUALLY BELIEVE FOX IS NOT IN ON MEX DRUG CARTEL MONEY? HE’S A FREAKING MEX!

Wells Fargo, which owns Wachovia, immediately entered into a deferred prosecution agreement and paid the federal government $160 million in fines.

Several other U.S. banks have also been discovered flouting money-laundering laws.

No wonder former Mexican president Vicente Fox, a conservative businessman, is
urging his country to legalize the production, sale and distribution of drugs
"as a strategy to weaken and break the economic system that allows cartels to earn
huge profits."

Calderon's military surge was backed by more than $1.2 billion in drug war aid from former President Bush, and by several hundred million more from the Obama administration.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2010/08/20/2010-08-20_mexico_drug_war_boosts_us_firms.html#ixzz0xaCMzkz0
Bloody Mexico drug war boosts U.S. gun shops, banks

Juan Gonzalez - News

Friday, August 20th 2010, 4:00 AM

Romero/ReutersMexican military has spent billions of
dollars fighting endless drug war, with little to show
but profits for banks and gun dealers in U.S.

They found the body of Edelmiro Cavazos
on a dirt road on the outskirts of Santiago,
a popular tourist spot near Monterrey,
Mexico.

The 38-year-old, U.S.-educated mayor of
Santiago had been shot execution-style,

hands tied behind his back, head bound
with tape.

Cavazos, whose body was found
Wednesday, was the fifth Mexican mayor
gunned down in the past two years - the
latest high-profile victim in a nation that is
bleeding to death from its War on Drugs.

The mayhem in Mexico has gotten so bad
that President Felipe Calderon launched an
unprecedented public debate and political
summit on ways to end the war, possibly
by legalizing drugs.

The reason Mexico's politicians are
desperate for peace is simple.

More people are dying each day from the
bullets and bombs of drug traffickers in
their country than are being killed in the
Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.

In the border city of Juarez, the epicenter
of the violence, 60 residents were gunned
down between Friday and Monday.

Since December 2006, 28,000 Mexicans
have been murdered, including more than
2,000 police and security officials.

Drug gangs have resorted to car bombs,

kidnappings and have even blockaded
wealthy neighborhoods of Monterrey in
spectacular displays of force.

The escalating carnage is a direct result of
Calderon's decision, shortly after his
election in 2006, to station 45,000 soldiers
and police on the country's streets to
combat the cartels.

Calderon's military surge was backed by
more than $1.2 billion in drug war aid from
former President Bush, and by several
hundred million more from the Obama
administration.

Although Mexican officials have captured or
killed scores of drug lords and seized tons
of drugs, the violence and the trafficking
continue to mushroom.

The country's tourism is dying, its industry
is suffering and thousands have fled
violence-plagued border cities like Tijuana
, Matamoros and Juarez.

Meanwhile, two industries in the U.S. are
flourishing from Mexico's tragedy.

More than 7,000 gun shops have sprouted
on the U.S. side of the border, and their
owners seem not to care where the

merchandise goes. Three-quarters of the
84,000 weapons, including high-powered
assault rifles, that Mexican officials have
seized since 2006, originated in the U.S.

Then there are the banks.

On March 12, federal prosecutors in Miami
charged Wachovia Bank with repeatedly
failing to report possible money-laundering
activity by money-transfer firms from
Mexico that used the bank.

Some of the more than $370billion wired to
Wachovia from Mexico bought planes here
that were used to transport drugs.

Wells Fargo, which owns Wachovia,
immediately entered into a deferred
prosecution agreement and paid the
federal government $160 million in fines.

Several other U.S. banks have also been
discovered flouting money-laundering laws.

*
QUOTE FROM JOHN EDWARDS CAMPAIGN MANAGER
"Barack Obama's kind of change is where you sit down and you cut a deal with the corporate world," Edwards Campaign Manager David Bonior said during an interview with MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough. "If you look at his record in Illinois when he had a major — sponsored a major health bill that's what he did. He watered down with the help of the corporate lobbyist and they got a weak product out of that."
Scarborough asked: "Are you saying that Barack Obama is a sellout to corporate interests?"
Bonior replied: "He was four years ago in Illinois. All you have to do is look at the legislation I'm referring to."
Bonior was referring to health care legislation that Obama was instrumental in passing when he was an Illinois state senator five years ago, in part because he worked with insurance companies to make additions to the bill that would ensure their approval of the measure.