Wednesday, December 8, 2010

The Dream Act IS Amnesty! By Tom Tancredo

“Instead, the Party of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama sees the season as just one more opportunity to sneak past legislation to rob the American people of a future.”

The DREAM Act Is Amnesty
By Tom Tancredo

For most of us, the holidays are a time for reflection. You would think that the Democrats would take advantage of the opportunity after their latest “shellacking.” Instead, the Party of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama sees the season as just one more opportunity to sneak past legislation to rob the American people of a future.
Even as our troops in Afghanistan fight a growing insurgency, Senate Leader Harry Reid used a defense bill to try to push the so called DREAM act through the lame duck Congress. The Democrats have learned nothing from their historic defeat, and are doubling down on amnesty for illegal aliens.
Shockingly, they are even being assisted by Republican collaborators like Senator Richard Lugar. Since they are unpopular with Americans, the Democrats’ strategy for political survival is essentially a massive voter registration drive for criminals. Meanwhile, RINO’s like Lugar, in pursuing praise from the liberal media and money from corporations lusting for cheap labor, blind themselves to what the Democrats clearly understand. Immigration has finished the GOP in California, where Ronald Reagan was once governor, and amnesty will finish the party as a national force.
Harry Reid is self-interested but, unlike Lugar, is not stupid. His latest piece of chicanery combines a cutsey title and happy talk about “the children” and education to disguise its true intent. Proponents describe the bill as a way to provide a pathway to legal residency for illegal alien “kids” who just want to go to college or serve in the military. However, the true scope of the act is far more broad.
Under the act, illegal aliens under 35 – hardly children – can apply for permanent residency. Any illegal who came to the country before he was sixteen, has been here for five years, and has dodged deportation is rewarded by being allowed to apply if they say they want to go to college or join the military.
As a bonus, illegals will receive in-state tuition under this act. Not only do the Democrats cheapen citizenship, they make it an outright disadvantage. That’s not even the worst part. Because the law has no enforcement mechanisms, an illegal alien simply has to claim that the United States before he or she was sixteen to be eligible. As illegals are, as they themselves like to say, “undocumented,” there is no way to prove the truth or falsity of their claims. There is also no way to prove that an illegal is over 35 and therefore ineligible. The act also leaves intact the “chain migration” system that allows illegals to bring in their entire families. Essentially, the DREAM act is a path to permanent residency for any criminal alien who can plausibly claim to be under 35 – and their entire families.
Make no mistake – the DREAM act is amnesty. All patriotic Americans concerned about crime, education, health care, unemployment, or the staggering budget deficits of states like California that are coping with the illegal immigrant invasion should be outraged that we are even considering this legislation.
In 2006, and 2007, we were able to overcome the leaders of both political parties in the past to stop amnesty. Amnesty advocates know they can’t win if there is an open debate on illegal immigration. If the DREAM act sneaks through the lame duck Congress, apologists for illegals will undo that victory by accomplishing their aims through trickery and deception.
The American people are out of work and out of savings, with paying the bills – never mind college for their children – as a real dream. Rather than lending assistance, the Democrats and Republican collaborators like Lugar are actually taunting them, forcing them to pay for their own dispossession. Democrats caring about actual Americans is the real dream.
Tom Tancredo
Tom Tancredo is a lifelong conservative with nearly a decade of experience in the U.S. Congress, where he has emerged as the leader in the national struggle for true immigration reform. One can help Tom in his Save America and Presidential campaign

Is Illegal Immigration Moral?

Is Illegal Immigration Moral?
By Victor Davis Hanson

We know illegal immigration is no longer really unlawful, but is it moral?
Usually Americans debate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. Supporters of open borders rightly remind us that illegal immigrants pay sales taxes. Often their payroll-tax contributions are not later tapped by Social Security payouts.
Opponents counter that illegal immigrants are more likely to end up on state assistance, are less likely to report cash income, and cost the state more through the duplicate issuing of services and documents in both English and Spanish. Such to-and-fro talking points are endless.
So is the debate over beneficiaries of illegal immigration. Are profit-minded employers villains who want cheap labor in lieu of hiring more expensive Americans? Or is the culprit a cynical Mexican government that counts on billions of dollars in remittances from its expatriate poor that it otherwise ignored?
Or is the engine that drives illegal immigration the American middle class? Why should millions of suburbanites assume that, like 18th-century French aristocrats, they should have imported labor to clean their homes, manicure their lawns and watch over their kids?
Or is the catalyst the self-interested professional Latino lobby in politics and academia that sees a steady stream of impoverished Latin American nationals as a permanent victimized constituency, empowering and showcasing elite self-appointed spokesmen such as themselves?
Or is the real advocate the Democratic Party that wishes to remake the electoral map of the American Southwest by ensuring larger future pools of natural supporters? Again, the debate over who benefits and why is never-ending.
But what is often left out of the equation is the moral dimension of illegal immigration. We see the issue too often reduced to caricature, involving a noble, impoverished victim without much free will and subject to cosmic forces of sinister oppression. But everyone makes free choices that affect others. So ponder the ethics of a guest arriving in a host country knowingly against its sovereign protocols and laws.
First, there is the larger effect on the sanctity of a legal system. If a guest ignores the law -- and thereby often must keep breaking more laws -- should citizens also have the right to similarly pick and choose which statutes they find worthy of honoring and which are too bothersome? Once it is deemed moral for the impoverished to cross a border without a passport, could not the same arguments of social justice be used for the poor of any status not to report earned income or even file a 1040 form?
Second, what is the effect of mass illegal immigration on impoverished U.S. citizens? Does anyone care? When 10 million to 15 million aliens are here illegally, where is the leverage for the American working poor to bargain with employers? If it is deemed ethical to grant in-state tuition discounts to illegal-immigrant students, is it equally ethical to charge three times as much for out-of-state, financially needy American students -- whose federal government usually offers billions to subsidize state colleges and universities? If foreign nationals are afforded more entitlements, are there fewer for U.S. citizens?
Third, consider the moral ramifications on legal immigration -- the traditional great strength of the American nation. What are we to tell the legal immigrant from Oaxaca who got a green card at some cost and trouble, or who, once legally in the United States, went through the lengthy and expensive process of acquiring citizenship? Was he a dupe to dutifully follow our laws?
And given the current precedent, if a million soon-to-be-impoverished Greeks, 2 million fleeing North Koreans, or 5 million starving Somalis were to enter the United States illegally and en masse, could anyone object to their unlawful entry and residence? If so, on what legal, practical or moral grounds?
Fourth, examine the morality of remittances. It is deemed noble to send billions of dollars back to families and friends struggling in Latin America. But how is such a considerable loss of income made up? Are American taxpayers supposed to step in to subsidize increased social services so that illegal immigrants can afford to send billions of dollars back across the border? What is the morality of that equation in times of recession? Shouldn't illegal immigrants at least try to buy health insurance before sending cash back to Mexico?
The debate over illegal immigration is too often confined to costs and benefits. But ultimately it is a complicated moral issue -- and one often ignored by all too many moralists.
Victor Davis Hanson
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal. - REALITIES ON THE DREAM ACT

Dream Act Makes Children Pawns

Posted 12/07/2010 06:59 PM ET

Immigration: Congress is expected to vote on the Dream Act on Wednesday, providing a path to citizenship to millions of illegal immigrant youth. It's a bad precedent that uses kids, costs taxpayers and invites new amnesties.

After years of failing to sell mass amnesty to voters, the open-borders lobby has turned to tugging at Americans' heartstrings, presenting treacly stories of illegal immigrants brought here as children who then bettered themselves here.

Somehow legalizing this group ahead of all the other people awaiting immigration visas legally is supposed to specially benefit all of us, even though the most obvious beneficiaries are the individuals themselves. But out of guilt, or because we "owe" them "justice," the case is being made for passing the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act.

That act provides a path to citizenship for some 2.1 million illegals who have lived here continuously for five years, avoided felony convictions, came to the U.S. before they turned 16 and completed two years of college or U.S. military service within six years.

Now, in the lame-duck session of Congress, the open-borders lobby has lawmakers right where it wants them. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has filed Senate cloture to bring the Dream Act to a vote as soon as Wednesday, and the House may vote even sooner.

It's a scam, using children unethically to achieve an open-borders political agenda that opens the door to perverse incentives.

The Dream Act is an effort to mimic the benefits illegals derive from having anchor babies in the U.S., a tactic used by millions as an "insurance policy" to avoid deportation and achieve legal status.

The awfulness of that incentive can be seen in the case of Edgar Jimenez Lugo, the 14-year-old U.S. "citizen" who was arrested in Mexico after a rather spectacular career beheading rivals and innocent people for $2,500 each on behalf of a Mexican cartel enforcer.

Cronica, a Mexican newspaper, reported that the throwaway kid was born in San Diego and then spent his life with Mexican parents who took him back to Morelos, Mexico, and "wandered around." Apparently the child's birth in San Diego was the same gambit millions of other immigrants use to game the system for U.S. entry. And he's only facing three years in jail in Mexico, so he'll soon become our problem — not Mexico's.

The Dream Act makes every baby an anchor baby, commodifying children, as young Jimenez seems to have been. It extends the incentive for parents to use their kids to beat immigration laws.

Under the Dream Act it may take 10 years for an illegal to achieve full U.S. citizenship, but there's little doubt he will. And as soon as he does achieve citizenship, he will sponsor the parents who brought him into the country illegally — thus achieving the original intention of the law-breaking parents.

This bill is really an amnesty bill. The 1986 amnesty signed by President Reagan provided amnesty to 2.7 million illegals. Now, 24 years on, we have 12 million illegals to amnesty.

Columnist Michelle Malkin points to six successive amnesties since the 1986 act. Each has raised anticipation of new ones for illegals. For them, no need to hurry for the amnesty train — the next one will be along in just a moment.

Worse, the Dream Act will cost a lot. By some estimates it's a $6.2 billion bill for taxpayers, but it may be even more. Judges over the years have already ruled that children of illegals are entitled to "free" U.S. public education through the 12th grade, plus "free" medical care, bankrupting hospital emergency rooms.

The Dream Act will give them even more.

With a treasured U.S. green card as motivation, all they have to do is clog up community college enrollments with no minimum performance standards, crowding out legitimate students who are interested in learning, or else sign up for diploma-mill trade schools with government loans they aren't under any obligation to repay.

For every Harvard valedictorian the illegal immigration lobby presents as a poster boy, there will be thousands of gang members who will qualify because the cops haven't caught them yet.

Worst of all is the entitlement mentality this bill creates.

Suddenly the U.S. taxpayer "owes" all this, as the brazen illegal students parading around in graduation robes for cameras without fear of apprehension make clear. This entitlement mentality is no success ethic. And it won't stop at the Dream Act.

It just underscores the disgusting ethic of special interests playing grievance and identity politics by using children as pawns.

The only good answer to this is no.

AMNESTY Increases Illegal Immigraiton & Unemployment & Depressed Wages & Mex Welfare State


“As one member of the U.S. Border Patrol (search) told me, “They believe that they are only responding to an invitation.”

Thursday , February 19, 2004
By Matt Hayes
On Jan. 27, the Copley News Service reported that shortly after President Bush announced his plans to amnesty millions of illegal aliens in the U.S., more than half of the Mexicans trying to sneak into the U.S. through San Ysidro (search) told authorities they were doing so to position themselves for the amnesty.
As one member of the U.S. Border Patrol (search) told me, “They believe that they are only responding to an invitation.”
The percentage suggested by Copley probably does not come close to the actual number of people who are running for the American border as word of Bush’s immigration plan (search) spreads through Mexico -- and indeed throughout the world. Mexico, it seems, is now regarded the world over as the doorway to the United States.
In the last several weeks, a staggering 90 percent of all illegal aliens intercepted in one sector in southern Texas claim they’ve come for the amnesty.
Officers of the Border Patrol have now been directed to ask a set of questions of the illegal aliens they apprehend running across the border. One of those questions is: Is the person attempting to illegally enter the U.S. in response to the Bush amnesty proposal? To make arrests, Border Patrol officers often must dodge rocks being thrown at them by aliens as they cross. They then are told by all but 10 percent of the illegals they apprehend that it is the Bush amnesty (search) they've come for.
“The agents were soon told to stop collecting this information, presumably because it appeared as if the proposal was acting as a lure,” says my source within the Border Patrol.
Word of the 2000-mile wide open door between Mexico and the U.S. has spread far beyond Mexico. It is not just Mexicans who are flooding into our border states anymore. Along with the Nicaraguans, Brazilians, Venezuelans, Ecuadorians, and Chileans, agents of the Border Patrol now encounter Chinese, Pakistanis, and Indians. Nationals of countries other than Mexico are known, in Border Patrol parlance, as “OTMs.” (search) Because they cannot easily be returned to their home country (whereas a Mexican national might be driven right back across the border), OTMs are permitted to enter the U.S. and given a Notice to Appear, which is a piece of paper demanding their appearance before an Immigration Judge.
“I’m an OTM and I want my NTA,” some have been known to declare to the Border Patrol. Rules require that most be given their NTA, upon which the OTM departs forever for some unknown location in America.
“A lot of OTMs want to be caught so they can get their "papers," which makes them legal enough to get past our checkpoint without having to ride in the back of an 18-wheeler or crammed into the trunk of a car,” says one agent.
This is what the Bush amnesty proposal has caused to happen at our border with Mexico. Foreign nationals walk nearly unimpeded into our country -- fully aware of ways in which our immigration laws can be used to their advantage and even the nomenclature of immigration law enforcement-- and demand that our federal officers take a certain action that gives them the greatest likelihood of disappearing within the U.S.
Like a loss-making business that is kept alive by its corporate parent so it can be used as a tax write-off, the Border Patrol remains deliberately undermanned and hogtied while the administration tries to keep up the appearance that the borders of the United States actually mean something.
At a Democratic rally in Tennessee, Al Gore dumbfounded observers when, in criticizing President Bush's invasion of Iraq, he baroquely claimed the president had "betrayed his country." Right now, thousands of registered Republicans -- particularly those in border states -- are experiencing a tangible sense of betrayal. Some things are sacrosanct to the modern Republican, and along with such values as a strong national defense and limited government, one is a secure national border. That disappeared with President Bush’s amnesty proposal, just as if he had announced that the GOP is no longer interested in reducing taxes.
I doubt that most principled Republicans will forget it.
Judicial Watch
Mexicans Say Amnesty Will Boost Illegal Immigration
last Updated: Wed, 10/14/2009 - 3:02pm
If President Obama keeps his promise of giving the nation’s 12 million illegal aliens amnesty it will encourage more Mexicans to enter the United States, according to residents of the struggling Latin American country who are undoubtedly rooting for the commander-in-chief’s plan.
The majority of illegal immigrants in the U.S. are from Mexico therefore the president’s reprieve project will greatly affect that nation. Two-thirds of Mexicans say they know someone living in the United States and around one-third have an immediate member of their household or close relative living in the U.S.
A majority of those residing south of the border say legalizing their undocumented countrymen will inspire more Mexicans to head north, according to a recent survey conducted by an internationally known polling and market research company. A vast majority of Mexicans with a relative in the United States said a legalization program would make people they know more likely to go to America illegally.
The results of the survey were made public this week by a research organization dedicated to studying the economic, social, fiscal and demographic impacts of immigration in the U.S. It reveals that nearly one-third of Mexican residents (nearly 40 million people) would like to live in the U.S. and if there was an amnesty a large number would come illegally with the hope of qualifying for a future exoneration.
An amnesty, therefore, would stimulate more illegal immigration which is the last thing this country needs. Furthermore, rewarding those who have violated our nation’s laws with coveted U.S. residency and possibly citizenship demeans the system, especially for those who follow the appropriate steps to come lawfully.
It’s bad enough that U.S. taxpayers annually dish out billions of dollars to educate, medically treat and incarcerate illegal aliens who are, in many cases, depleting local governments. Los Angeles County alone spends more than $1 billion a year, including $48 million a month in welfare costs, to provide services for illegal aliens. The crisis is hardly limited to border states, which have traditionally been the most impacted. Georgia’s skyrocketing illegal population costs taxpayers nearly $2 billion a year.
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."

It's All About Keeping Wages Depressed!

REALITY OF OBAMA: He’s simply a walking con job!
This position, shared by the Republicans, is absurd on its face. The private sector labor force is still smaller than it was in 2000. If the estimated $700 billion in tax breaks coming to the rich over the next decade were used for a public works program, it could put millions to work. But such a policy is unthinkable to Obama. Indeed, it’s not that reform measures cannot make it past Republican opposition; they can’t make it out of the White House.
The danger, as Washington Post economics columnist Robert Samuelson argues, is that of “importing poverty” in the form of a new underclass—a permanent group of working poor.


“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.”

Obama’s pretensions at sympathy for working people are demolished by his own record in office, a tenure entirely dedicated to protecting the rich. While overseeing the bailout of the banks to the tune of trillions of dollars, Obama put in place no measures to directly provide jobs. On the contrary, he spearheaded the ongoing wave of wage-cutting through his forced bankruptcy and reorganization of General Motors and Chrysler, while intervening to scotch any attempt to impose pay limits on the executives of bailed-out banks and corporations whose financial speculation set the global financial crash in motion.

Obama’s Big Lie: Tax cut for rich will benefit workers
By Tom Eley
8 December 2010
At a Tuesday press conference President Obama defended his deal with the Republican Party to extend for two years Bush-era tax cuts for the rich by presenting the agreement’s token concessions to the working population as major gains.
The deal is in fact a total victory for Republicans and the wealthy. It includes the continuation of tax cuts for the highest percentile of income earners, couples with incomes above $250,000 per year or individuals whose income is over $200,000 per year. It exempts fortunes of up to $5 million from inheritance tax, up from the previous mark of $3.5 million, and sets the rate at 35 percent, well below the 45 percent level that would have taken effect January 1 under current law. The plan also includes new and continued tax loopholes for big business.

To provide political cover for this giveaway to the rich, the plan includes an extension of federal long-term unemployment benefits for 13 months and a one-year reduction in the Social Security payroll tax from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent. While this would temporarily increase paychecks for tens of millions, it would also deprive Social Security of $120 billion in funding. The White House said this shortfall would be made up through general revenue sources, but these have not been specified.
Obama attempted to present this abject capitulation to the avarice of the financial elite as a compromise driven by a deep and unwavering concern for the welfare of ordinary people. He claimed that taxes would have gone up for millions otherwise and that the deal was the only way to carry on federal assistance to the long-term unemployed.
“Because of this agreement, middle-class Americans won’t see their taxes go up on January 1, which is what I promised—a promise I made during the campaign, a promise I made as President,” Obama said, ignoring his more frequently-stated promise that he would let the tax cuts for the rich expire. “Because of this agreement, two million Americans who lost their jobs and are looking for work will be able to pay their rent and put food on their table.”
Obama’s pretensions at sympathy for working people are demolished by his own record in office, a tenure entirely dedicated to protecting the rich. While overseeing the bailout of the banks to the tune of trillions of dollars, Obama put in place no measures to directly provide jobs. On the contrary, he spearheaded the ongoing wave of wage-cutting through his forced bankruptcy and reorganization of General Motors and Chrysler, while intervening to scotch any attempt to impose pay limits on the executives of bailed-out banks and corporations whose financial speculation set the global financial crash in motion.
Addressing himself to his “fellow Democrats,” Obama reiterated that the market would be responsible for creating jobs. “The single most important jobs program we can put in place is a growing economy,” Obama said. “The single most important anti-poverty program we can put in place is making sure folks have jobs and the economy is growing… if the private sector is not hiring faster than it’s currently hiring, then we are going to continue to have problems no matter how many programs we put into place.”
This position, shared by the Republicans, is absurd on its face. The private sector labor force is still smaller than it was in 2000. If the estimated $700 billion in tax breaks coming to the rich over the next decade were used for a public works program, it could put millions to work. But such a policy is unthinkable to Obama. Indeed, it’s not that reform measures cannot make it past Republican opposition; they can’t make it out of the White House.
Several times in the press conference Obama reiterated his claim that the Democrats could not overcome Republican demands that the tax cuts be extended.
“Well, let me say that on the Republican side, this is their holy grail, these tax cuts for the wealthy,” Obama said in responding to a reporter who asked why the matter had not been legislated sooner. “I have said that I would have liked to have seen a vote before the election… I haven’t persuaded the Republican Party. I haven’t persuaded [Republican Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell and I haven’t persuaded [incoming Speaker of the House] John Boehner.”
The Democrats control not only the White House, but the Senate and the House, both by lopsided margins. For the tax cuts to pass, not only will Obama have to sign a bill, but large numbers of Congressional Democrats will have to vote for it. Beyond this, and as Obama himself observed in the press conference, opinion polls indicate that most Americans favor the expiration of the tax cuts for the rich.
This apparent paradox—that the minority Republican Party is able to dictate policy to the majority, the president, and the population—generated a handful of questions in the press conference in response to Obama’s claim that he will fight any further tax cut for the rich when the extension expires in two years.
A reporter asked, “[A]ren’t you telegraphing, though, a negotiating strategy of how the Republicans can beat you in negotiations all the way through the next year because they can just… be unwilling to budge—to use your words—and force you to capitulate?” Another asked, “what’s going to be different in 2012, when all these tax cuts again are up for expiration?”
Obama evaded these and similar questions, and in responding to others all but admitted the new “temporary” tax cuts are in fact permanent.
“Now, I have an option, which is to say, you know what, I’m going to keep fighting a political fight, which I can’t win in the Senate—and by the way, there are going to be more Republican senators in the Senate next year sworn in than there are currently,” Obama said. “So the likelihood that the dynamic is going to improve for us getting my preferred option through the Senate will be diminished.”
In fact, while Obama lamented that the Republicans are holding the American people hostage, especially the unemployed, using the December 31 expiration deadline, the Democrats created the conditions for this to be done.
One of the first decisions taken by Obama, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, shortly after Obama entered the White House, was to renege on their campaign pledge to rescind the tax cuts for the rich immediately. Instead, the White House decided to allow the tax breaks to continue until their scheduled expiration date, December 31, 2010.
Throughout the two years when they controlled large majorities in both houses of Congress, the Democrats took no measures to alleviate the crisis for working people, perpetually offering up minority Republican resistance as an excuse. Now the victory of the Republicans in the midterm elections is being seized on as a means to push savage austerity measures, including unprecedented cuts in entitlement programs.
The Republican Party’s strength is that it expresses in the most direct, open, and consistent way the will of the bourgeoisie to grab an ever-greater share of the wealth not only in the US, but over the entire world. The weakness of the Democratic Party lies in its two-faced character. While it also represents the bourgeoisie, by its particular function in the two-party system the Democrats are obliged to pretend they represent the interests of ordinary working people.
While Obama is prostrate before the Republicans, he used his press conference to attack the liberal wing of his party for its criticism of the deal, whose aim he said is to have “the satisfaction of having a purist position [and] be able to feel good about ourselves and sanctimonious about how pure our intentions are and how tough we are.”
These critics are alarmed that Obama’s total capitulation to the Republicans has undermined their efforts to portray the Democratic Party as the lesser of two evils. The expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the rich, after all, had been a cornerstone of Obama’s own “change you can believe in” campaign for the presidency.
A handful of House Democrats have so far withheld their endorsement of the deal, and Senator Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with the Democrats, has said he may try to filibuster it.
“It is an absolute disaster and an insult to the vast majority of the American people to be talking about giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest people in this country, driving up our deficit and increasing the growing gap between the very rich and everybody else,” Sanders said.
“Republicans have held the middle class hostage for provisions that benefit only the wealthiest 3 percent, do not create jobs and add tens of billions of dollars to the deficit,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a Tuesday statement.
In the end, the capitulation of such “critics” to Obama is every bit as certain as Obama’s surrender to the Republicans. The dispute among Democrats is not whether or not to defend the interests of the financial elite, but how best to do so—with some of the liberals fearing that the naked class character of the tax cuts for the rich will provoke political opposition that breaks free of the Democratic Party.

California's metro areas lead the nation in unemployment
By Alana Semuels
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
12:22 PM PST, December 7, 2010

Many of the metropolitan areas with the highest unemployment rates in the country are in California, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Tuesday morning. Among the 10 metro areas with jobless rates of at least 15% in October, eight were located in California, the bureau said.

Those eight include El Centro (24.3%), Fresno (15.7%), Hanford-Corcoran (15%), Merced (16.3%), Modesto (16.2%), Stockton (16.3%), and Visalia-Porterville (15.9%). They are among the 138 metro areas with unemployment rates higher than the national average. Overall, 224 areas had unemployment rates below the U.S. figure of 9% in October.

There are 49 metropolitan areas with 1 million or more people, and the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario areas had the highest unemployment rates of those large metro areas, 14.2%. The lowest jobless rate in those large metro areas was Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, in the District of Columbia and Virginia, at 5.8%.

Metropolitan areas in the South seemed to improve most over the year. Jobless rates decreased by 2.8 percentage points in Hickory-Lenoir-Morgantown, N.C.; by 2.7 percentage points in Anderson, S.C.; and by 2.6 percentage points in Spartanburg, S.C. Yuma, Ariz., saw its unemployment rate jump in October by 4.1 percentage points.

The jobless rate in the Los Angeles metro area in October was 11.7%, up from 11.6% a year earlier.

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.