Thursday, March 3, 2011

MEXICAN HERION - NARCOMEX'S NEXT LARGEST EXPORT, NEXT TO POOR MEXICANS, OVER OUR UNDEFENDED BORDERS - But It's Americans Fault!

A growing Mexican heroin supply


Posted: 03 Mar 2011 10:16 AM PST

An independent U.N. body has issued an alarm over growing opium production in Mexico, and a corresponding rise in the supply of “white heroin” funneling to the United States.

The warning came in the annual report of the International Narcotics Control Board. Here are the pertinent parts about Mexico:

Law enforcement reports indicate that Mexican drug trafficking organizations have gained a more significant share of the heroin market in the United States at the expense of South American criminal groups. In addition to South American heroin being trafficked and distributed in greater quantities, there are some indications that “white heroin” (heroin with a higher purity level) is being illicitly manufactured in Mexico and that a mixture of both Mexican and South American heroin is being distributed. Mexico is the world’s third largest source of illicitly produced opium. The total area of illicitly cultivated opium poppy eradicated in Mexico increased from 13,095 hectares in 2008 to 14,753 hectares in 2009.

The Government of Mexico also reported an increase in the illicit production of opium. . . . In some areas of the United States, the availability of heroin is increasing, as evidenced by high purity levels and low prices.

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

*

Go to http://www.MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com and read articles and comments from other Americans on what they’ve witnessed in their communities around the country. While most of the population of California is now ILLEGAL, the problems, costs, assault to our culture by Mexico is EVERYWHERE. copy and pass it to your friends.



*

Report Illegals & Employers Toll Free... (866) 347-2423

INS National Customer Service Center Phone: 1-800-375-5283.

http://www.ice.gov/ ICE, ice, ICE

http://www.reportillegals.com/



*

Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform

www.CAIRCO.org





http://www.FAIRUS.org



http://www.JUDICIALWATCH.org



http://www.ALIPAC.us



*

http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/mexico/2011/01/getting-over-the-border-fence-fast.html



*

Obama Quietly Erasing Borders (Article)





Article Link:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=240045





CONTACT THE HISPANDERING LA RAZA PARTY PRESIDENT HERE:



You can contact President Obama and let him know of your opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/



*

UCLA PROFESSOR CALLS FOR MEXICAN REVOLT IN UNITED STATES

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/7165215?fr=yvmtf



*

Wake up America!!! Illegal Immigration has to be stopped. Take a look at this website and see where all your tax dollars are going: http://immigrationcounters.com/



See: CFR’s Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20050816.htm The Great Alien Invasion - What's Happening Now http://www.rense.com/general69/inva.htm

*

"Bush Secret Border Wars" Mayhem and terror in Southern states to protect government drug cartels

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2005/140805borderwars.htm Mexican/Bush Crime

*

“Through love of having children, we are going to take over.” AUGUSTIN CEBADA, BROWN BERETS, THE LA RAZA FASCIST PARTY



http://www.aztlan.net/anchor_baby_power.htm





*

206 Most wanted criminals in Los Angeles. Out of 206 criminals--183 are hispanic---171 of those are wanted for Murder.



Why do Americans still protect the illegals??



http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_11255121?appSession=934140935651450&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=&cpipage=1&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=



*

TEN MOST WANTED CRIMINALS IN CALIFORNIA ARE MEXICANS!

http://ag.ca.gov/wanted/mostwanted.php?fid=mostWantedFugitives_2010-01

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103 Did you know illegals kill 12 Americans a day?



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1738432/posts FBI Crime Statistics - Crimes committed by illegals.

*

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/feb2011/mexi-f10.shtml

Pentagon official: US could send troops to fight Mexican “insurgency”

*

http://www.congressandimmigration.com/The_Dark_Side_Index.htm



Recent Heritage Studies ................HERITAGE.org

*

EVERYDAY THERE IS A KIDNAPPING BY A MEXICAN IN PHOENIX!



http://arizona.mugshotlist.com/



http://arizona.mugshotlist.com/mugshots/male/



http://arizona.mugshotlist.com/mugshots/female/

*

illegals vs crime



http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_property_crimes_and_operation_predator.html



http://www.usillegalaliens.com/impacts_of_illegal_immigration_crime.html



http://www.cis.org/mortensen/bratton



http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/08/local/me-jail8

*

http://www.numbersusa.com

*

http://www.capsweb.org

*

http://www.fairus.org

*

http://www.immigrationwatchdog.com

*



206 Most wanted criminals in Los Angeles. Out of 206 criminals--183 are hispanic---171 of those are wanted for Murder.



Why do Americans still protect the illegals??



http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_11255121?appSession=934140935651450&RecordID=&PageID=2&PrevPageID=&cpipage=1&CPISortType=&CPIorderBy=



*

TEN MOST WANTED CRIMINALS IN CALIFORNIA ARE MEXICANS!

http://ag.ca.gov/wanted/mostwanted.php?fid=mostWantedFugitives_2010-01

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53103 Did you know illegals kill 12 Americans a day?



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/1738432/posts FBI Crime Statistics - Crimes committed by illegals.

*

http://www.mexica-movement.org/ They claim all of North America for Mexico!





*

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/feb2011/mexi-f10.shtml

Pentagon official: US could send troops to fight Mexican “insurgency”



DOES LA RAZA CONTROL MEXIFORNIA? OR ONLY THE LA RAZA DEMS?

BECAUSE OF THE POWER OF ILLEGALS, AND THEIR REPS, FEINSTEIN, BOXER, PELOSI, WAXMAN, LOFGREN, BECERRA, SANCHEZ SISTERS, AND RABIDLY RACIST BACA, CA IS RUN BY AND FOR ILLEGALS!


$20 BILLION PER YEAR IN SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS PAID OUT IN CA!!!

L.A. COUNTY, CAPITAL OF OCCUPIED MEXIFORNIA, PUTS OUT $600 MILLION IN WELFARE TO ILLEGALS AND HAS A MEXICAN TAX-FREE UNDERGROUND ECON CALCULATED TO BE $2 BILLION PER YEAR!!!



HALF OF THE POPULATION OF MEXIFORNIA IS ILLEGAL AND THEY ARE ILLEGALLY GETTING OUR JOBS, VOTING, AND EXPANDING THE LA RAZA WELFARE STATE!



*

Friends of ALIPAC,



Invite/Release: ALIPAC President to Speak in Burlington, NC Tonight

http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-230176.html



Our largest support base resides in the border disaster areas of California. Our third largest support base comes from Florida where we have the illegals leaving in large numbers already.



The fine ALIPAC activists of Florida and California have funded and volunteered for operations in many states.



Now, it is our time to help them!



Californians have an uphill battle in a state where Mexico runs things more than Washington, DC. Florida had all of our immigration enforcement bills blocked over the last few years by past Speaker of the House, now US Senator, Marco Rubio.



Georgia and Oklahoma are likely to vote today on our bills, so we hope you can get your calls completed today that were requested by email yesterday!



Swing into Action in California and Florida





Effort 1: CALIFORNIA



Step 1: Craft your own distinct version of our sample message.



"I'm calling/writing today to ask you to support Assemblyman Donnelly's ASSEMBLY BILL 26 which would assure that all employers and local governments cooperate with Federal law enforcement on immigration issues. Please oppose Cedillo's Dream Act Amnesty bill ASSEMBLY BILL 130 which would displace and replace innocent American students in our limited number of college seats while rewarding illegal alien families and encouraging more illegal immigration. Recent Rasmussen polling shows 67% of Americans want our existing immigration laws enforced instead of new laws giving taxpayer benefits to illegal aliens. California should join the over 24 other American states trying to crack down on illegal immigration like Arizona."



Please remember that each call and email should be personalized to include the name of the legislator and should be your own version. If you simply copy and paste our message you will have less of an impact and many of your emails will land in the trash folder.



Step 2: Whether you are in California, Maine, or Nebraska, pick up your phone and start calling members of the California Senate and House. Speak to lawmakers, staff, or voicemail boxes. After you have made your call, follow up with an email, fax, or letter.



Contact Information



STATE HOUSE: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/acsframeset7text.htm



STATE SENATE: http://www.sen.ca.gov/~newsen/senators/senators.htp



Step 3: Once you have made as many calls as you can, please share your feedback with our online activists at this link. Your feedback, questions, suggestions, and notes can help other activists in California and across the nation.



Feedback link...

http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-1192578.html#1192578











Effort 2: FLORIDA



Step 1: Craft your own distinct message using our example for your calls and emails.



"Please support and pass Senate Bills 136, 230, 304 and House Bills 205, 237, and 691! These bills will help empower our police to reduce crimes committed by illegal aliens and get illegals deported when released from jail. They will also help employers hire only American citizens and legal immigrants. We need Florida to crack down on illegal immigration like Arizona to protect innocent American workers, students, taxpayers, and voters from the negative effects of illegal immigration"





Step 2: Call as many Florida Senators and Representatives as possible. If you can, call them all. If not, call your own, or if calling from another state call as many randomly as you can.



STATE HOUSE: http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Representatives/representatives.aspx



STATE SENATE: http://www.flsenate.gov/Senators/



Step 3: Leave questions, feedback, suggestions, copies of your distinct message, or feedback and push-back from lawmakers on our tracking link



http://www.alipac.us/ftopicp-1192578.html#1192578





We need a stronger response from our volunteers to prevail. While many of our activists are working very hard to make these calls, much more help is needed. Too many people are letting others carry the weight.



Please get on the phones with our targeted campaigns and/or call your state lawmakers today using our state campaign area at this link.



40 states with our legislation to push..

http://www.alipac.us/forum-24.html





The ALIPAC Team

www.alipac.us







PS: As of today we have raised $36,362 of the $40,000 we must raise by midnight Sunday March 5. Time is quickly running out! Please visit our secure online donations page to fund our operations into the summer using this link...

http://www.alipac.us/content-9.html







MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

*

Go to http://www.MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com and read articles and comments from other Americans on what they’ve witnessed in their communities around the country. While most of the population of California is now ILLEGAL, the problems, costs, assault to our culture by Mexico is EVERYWHERE. copy and pass it to your friends.



*

Report Illegals & Employers Toll Free... (866) 347-2423

INS National Customer Service Center Phone: 1-800-375-5283.

http://www.ice.gov/ ICE, ice, ICE

http://www.reportillegals.com/



*

Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform

www.CAIRCO.org





http://www.FAIRUS.org



http://www.JUDICIALWATCH.org



http://www.ALIPAC.us



*

http://blogs.mcclatchydc.com/mexico/2011/01/getting-over-the-border-fence-fast.html



*

Obama Quietly Erasing Borders (Article)





Article Link:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=240045





CONTACT THE HISPANDERING LA RAZA PARTY PRESIDENT HERE:



You can contact President Obama and let him know of your opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/



*

UCLA PROFESSOR CALLS FOR MEXICAN REVOLT IN UNITED STATES

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/7165215?fr=yvmtf

*

*

“PUNISH OUR ENEMIES”… does that mean assault the legals of Arizona that must fend off the Mexican invasion, occupation, growing criminal and welfare state, as well as Mex Drug cartels???



OBAMA TELLS ILLEGALS “PUNISH OUR ENEMIES”

Friends of ALIPAC,



Each day new reports come in from across the nation that our movement is surging and more incumbents, mostly Democrats, are about to fall on Election Day. Obama's approval ratings are falling to new lows as he makes highly inappropriate statements to Spanish language audiences asking illegal alien supporters to help him "punish our enemies."





*



The fastest growing political party in America is NOT the tea baggers! It is the Mexican Fascist Party of LA RAZA… “The Race”. .. The House now as 90 members, nearly one-quarter, that are CONGRESSIONAL HISPANIC CAUCUS pushing for AMNESTY, no e-verify, expanded sanctuary cities, open borders, and illegals voting!



*

NATIONAL COUNSEL FOR LA RAZA “THE RACE”



NCLR: Agents for the Government of Mexico?

Especially troubling is NCLR's leading role in the Fundacion Solidaridad Mexicano Americana (Foundation for Mexican-American Solidarity, FSMA), an organization founded and funded by the government of Mexico and directed by the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Public Education. Both of these ministries have been engaged in efforts aimed at demanding full political rights for illegal aliens in the U.S. and indoctrinating America's Hispanic population in radical, racist La Raza ideology.

*

LaRaza Calls For Boycott Against Free Speech

________________________________________

No surprise here. Pulling the race/hate card again and using political correctness La Raza goes after cable shows reporting on illegal immigration.



"Murguía said she recognized that ultimately the power to change the debate lies with the Hispanic community itself. “Latinos buy products from the advertisers supporting these programs,” she said. “Latinos vote in primaries and in the general election. We have a significant role to play picking winners and losers in both arenas. We need to make it clear to those who embrace hate that they do so at their own economic and political peril.”



http://www.nclr.org/content/news/detail/50375/



*

HARRY REID PUTS MONEY IN LA RAZA’S DIRTY HANDS!

25% OF THE POPULATION OF REID’S STATE ARE ILLEGALS.

*

New Stealth Federal Funding Bill for La Raza

Which brings us to an extraordinary matter of some urgency. Several weeks before the White House and its Senate allies announced their big "breakthrough" legislation (S.1348), radicals in the House quietly introduced legislation to pump $5 million directly into La Raza next year — and $10 million per year for "each fiscal year thereafter."

*

"This country belongs to Mexico" is said by the Mexican Militant. This is a common teaching that the U.S. is really AZTLAN, belonging to Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican kids in Arizona and California through a LA Raza educational program funded by American Tax Payers via President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in March of 2009!

H. R. 1999, entitled the Hope Fund Act of 2007, should truthfully be labeled the "Perpetual Funding of La Raza Radicals Act."

*

“Through love of having children, we are going to take over.” AUGUSTIN CEBADA, BROWN BERETS, THE LA RAZA FASCIST PARTY



*



The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) is not only one of the wealthiest and most politically powerful militant organizations in the country, it is also notoriously racist and subversive. The group's name, "La Raza," means "The Race," by which they are referring to ethnic Mexicans, or more broadly to "hispanics" or "latinos." And it is quite clear from their decades of vitriolic rhetoric — both spoken and written — that the La Raza activists are trying to engender not only race consciousness amongst hispanic U.S. citizens and Mexican migrants, but also racial militancy and animosity toward "Gringo America."

The NCLR grew out of the La Raza Unida (The Race United) Party and the Southwest Council of La Raza in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The key leaders were Marxist-Leninist followers of Fidel Castro and Che Guevarra.

The radical student group MEChA (Moviemento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan), with which NCLR has been closely allied for several decades, is even more explicitly and militantly, having adopted the slogan, "Por La Raza Todo, Fuera de La Raza Nada," which translated means: "For the Race, Everything; Outside the Race, Nothing."

MEChA's founding documents and literature are replete with appeals to "La Raza de Bronce" (The Bronze Race) and condemnation of the "brutal gringo." MEChA, as its name suggests, is also a leading promoter of the radical "reconquista" (reconquest) movement, a plan of to take over the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Texas — a region they refer to as "Aztlan" — which they claim was stolen from the "Aztecan" peoples. NCLR provides major financial support to MEChA and many of NCLR's leaders were MEChA leaders in their college days.



IDENTITY THEFT - I.C.E. BUST ILLEGALS

THERE ARE ONLY EIGHT STATES WITH A POPULATION GREATER THAN MEX OCCUPIED LOS ANGELES COUNTY, WHERE HALF THOSE WITH A JOB ARE ILLEGALS USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS.


THIS SAME COUNTY PAYS OUT $600 MILLION PER YEAR IN WELFARE TO ILLEGALS!

*



MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

*

Go to http://www.MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com and read articles and comments from other Americans on what they’ve witnessed in their communities around the country. While most of the population of California is now ILLEGAL, the problems, costs, assault to our culture by Mexico is EVERYWHERE. copy and pass it to your friends.

*

Lou Dobbs Tonight

Monday, February 11, 2008

In California, League of United Latin American Citizens has adopted a resolution to declare "California Del Norte" a sanctuary zone for immigrants. The declaration urges the Mexican government to invoke its rights under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo "to seek third nation neutral arbitration of disputes concerning immigration laws and their enforcement." We’ll have the story.



*



More Colorado Premium Foods workers charged with identity theft



By Sharon Dunn

Greeleytribune.com



Immigration enforcement officials and local authorities said they have found a few more suspected illegal immigrants working in Greeley through random business audits and calls from victims.



In the past several months, agents with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement have arrested nine suspected illegal immigrants working at Colorado Premium Foods, 2035 2nd Ave. in Greeley. Greeley and Weld authorities have arrested two more suspects in recent months, based on victims reporting the crimes.



Officials from Colorado Premium Foods and ICE did not return calls for comment Wednesday.



In December, five Guatemalan nationals were arrested on suspicion of supplying stolen identity documentation to their employer, Colorado Premium. Four more were arrested in January after a similar records audit at the company. All were arrested for identity theft and criminal impersonation, according to an ICE affidavit:



»Juan Antonio Gutierrez-Bocanegra, 26, of Mexico, who told agents he paid $200 in Denver for his stolen Social Security card and Colorado ID. He said he got rid of the documents after he was hired at Colorado Premium, according to an affidavit. He’s scheduled for preliminary hearing at 10 a.m. Friday.



»German Eliso Velasquez-Lux, 20, of Guatemala, told agents he paid $400 for his documents, and gave them back to his friend after he got a job. He’s scheduled for hearing on a plea bargain at 4 p.m. Wednesday.



»David Rogelio Alcon-Mendoza, 27, of Guatemala, told agents his father bought his documents about five years ago in Missouri. He told agents he knew the Social Security card belonged to someone else but said he didn’t realize his using it would cause problems for the rightful owner. He has already been sentenced and is set to be deported.



»Manuel Marcos-Rafael, 42, of Guatemala. He did not answer questions from agents. He’s scheduled for a hearing to discuss a plea bargain at 4 p.m. Wednesday.



From the December arrests, two of the women involved in that case are contemplating plea deals, which would result in deportation within a week of their court cases. The women, Hilda Francisco-Martin and Maria Francisco-Martin, have been in the country for a decade. One more woman’s case continues to work through the system.



Two men, Eugenio Bernal-Ailon and Francisco Mendoza-Mendoza, pleaded guilty in February and were deported. They face six years in prison if they return to the country. Other ID theft cases

In two other identity theft cases, authorities fielded calls from two victims:

» Shanita Waldrup called Denver police in late December to report that her Social Security card was being used by a person in Greeley at Sergeant Pet Care Products, 1232 N. 11th Ave. Greeley police arrested Maria Portillo-Hernandez, 33, who told them she had made up the Social Security number and had been using it since 2003, when she started work at Sergeant. Formal charges are due by Monday.

»Maria Hinojos of Texas told Weld County sheriff’s deputies that her Social Security card had been used for the past eight years at Morning Fresh Farms, 15121 Weld County Road 32. They arrested Rosalba Arreola, 52, of Mexico. She told deputies she had come to the United States 14 years ago, and a family friend gave her the identity documents so she could work. She will return to court at 2:30 p.m. March 18 for a potential plea bargain.







LAMAR SMITH - 2 MILLION ILLEGALS WALK OVER OUR OPEN BORDERS & INTO OUR JOBS, WELFARE AND FREE BIRTHING CENTERS

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com


*

Go to http://www.MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com



OBAMA HAS PROMISED MEXICO, LA RAZA ILLEGALS, AND THE U.S. CHAMBER of COMMERCE THAT HE WILL SABOTAGE E-VERIFY TO ASSURE THAT JOBS GO TO ILLEGALS FIRST!

THEY DO IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY! THERE ARE ONLY EIGHT STATES WITH A POPULATION GREATER THAN L.A.C., WHERE 50% OF ALL JOBS GO TO ILLEGALS USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS!



Regarding illegal immigration, however, he proposes a program of "attrition through enforcement." Workplace enforcement, that is.

He says such enforcement has declined 70 percent in the past two years, and fines levied on employers of illegal immigrants are treated by businesses as a bearable cost of doing business as usual. Nationally, 250,000 businesses are using E-Verify, the program that quickly validates the legality of workers, and each week another 1,300 businesses sign up for the system.

*

OBAMA WILL ENDLESSLY PUSH FOR OPEN BORDERS, NO REAL WALL, AND CONTINUED NON-ENFORCEMENT. HIS ONLY JOBS PLAN IS CALLED AMNESTY!



Although half a million people are caught trying to enter the country illegally each year, Border Patrol agents tell Smith that two to four get in for every one apprehended. Hence his estimate that up to 2 million are entering illegally each year.





*

Lamar Smith: Immigration's taskmaster

By George F. Will

Wednesday, March 2, 2011;

During Lamar Smith's first 18 years in Congress, the view from his office was of a parking lot. Now, in his 13th term, he looks out upon the Capitol dome. Seniority confers perquisites.

Today he chairs the House Judiciary Committee, which has custody of the immigration issue. When first elected, his Texas district - then 42,000 square miles, five times larger than Massachusetts - included 400 miles of the border with Mexico. His district has meandered north and now is 150 miles from the border. It includes portions of San Antonio and Austin. But Smith still looks south, toward the flow of illegal immigration, which he considers a uniquely comprehensive problem, affecting schools, health care, employment and the culture.

Smith wants you to know that he is Texas to the marrow of his bones, even if he did go to Yale. There he was one year behind George W. Bush. Smith is proud to have been, he thinks, the only freshman who subscribed to Field and Stream magazine. When his ancestors got to Texas in the 1850s, they were immigrants entering an established Hispanic culture. He notes that San Antonio is a "tri-cultural city" - 7 percent African-American, 30 percent Anglo and 60 percent Hispanic. America, he says, has the world's "most generous legal immigration policies. We admit as many legal immigrants as the rest of the world combined."

Regarding illegal immigration, however, he proposes a program of "attrition through enforcement." Workplace enforcement, that is.

He says such enforcement has declined 70 percent in the past two years, and fines levied on employers of illegal immigrants are treated by businesses as a bearable cost of doing business as usual. Nationally, 250,000 businesses are using E-Verify, the program that quickly validates the legality of workers, and each week another 1,300 businesses sign up for the system.

We are, Smith notes with quiet asperity, not finishing the fence, and the 1,200 National Guard troops President Obama sent to the border will leave one day. Although half a million people are caught trying to enter the country illegally each year, Border Patrol agents tell Smith that two to four get in for every one apprehended. Hence his estimate that up to 2 million are entering illegally each year.

He thinks some physical barrier is necessary - he says the fence near San Diego reduced illegal immigration there by 95 percent - but no barrier will be sufficient. We must "reduce the attraction of the job magnet" so fewer illegal immigrants will come here and more will go home. Workplace enforcement is a "disincentive to enter and an incentive to leave."

Some people say such policies will put Hispanic votes beyond the reach of Republicans. Smith serenely disagrees.

He believes, on the basis of quotes he is pleased to share, that many on the left see amnesty for illegal immigrants as a way to build a permanent Democratic majority. He, however, is confident that Republicans can compete for Hispanic votes while - indeed, by - insisting that everyone "play by the rules."

Notice, he says, that in 2010 the three Hispanics elected in statewide races - Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez and Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval - were all Republicans. In Texas, two new Hispanics were elected to Congress, Quico Canseco and Bill Flores, both Republicans. Like the other three freshman Hispanics in the House (Idaho's Raul Labrador, Washington's Jaime Herrera Beutler and Florida's David Rivera, all Republicans), Canseco and Flores stress border security.

Smith does not flinch from questioning the practice of "birthright citizenship" - awarding citizenship to anyone born in America, including children whose parents are here illegally. He cites a Houston Chronicle report that stated 70 percent of births in Houston and Dallas public hospitals in 2005 were to illegal-immigrant mothers. Today births to illegal immigrants account for nearly 10 percent of births nationally.

He believes the practice of birthright citizenship rests on a misconstruing of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court, he says, has never addressed the "precise question" of the meaning of this: "All persons born ... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

He favors ending birthright citizenship as currently administered and thinks it is possible to "write a statute to get five votes" on the court. If he does write one, this soft-spoken man will be carrying a big stick of legislative dynamite.

*

Obama Administration Challenges Arizona E-Verify Law

The Obama administration has asked the Supreme Court to strike down a 2007 Arizona law that punishes employers who hire illegal aliens, a law enacted by then-Governor Janet Napolitano. (Solicitor General's Amicus Curiae Brief). Called the “Legal Arizona Workers Act,” the law requires all employers in Arizona to use E-Verify and provides that the business licenses of those who hire illegal workers shall be repealed. From the date of enactment, the Chamber of Commerce and other special interest groups have been trying to undo it, attacking it through a failed ballot initiative and also through a lawsuit. Now the Chamber is asking the United States Supreme Court to hear the case (Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria), and the Obama Administration is weighing in against the law.

To date, Arizona’s E-Verify law has been upheld by all lower courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit, in particular, viewed it as an exercise of a state’s traditional power to regulate businesses. (San Francisco Chronicle, June 2, 2010). Obama’s Justice Department, however, disagrees. Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said in his filing with the Supreme Court that the lower courts were wrong to uphold the statute because federal immigration law expressly preempts any state law imposing sanctions on employers hiring illegal immigrants. Mr. Katyal argues that this is not a licensing law, but “a statute that prohibits the hiring of unauthorized aliens and uses suspension and revocation of all state-issued licenses as its ultimate sanction.” (Solicitor General's Amicus Curiae Brief, p. 10). This is the administration’s first court challenge to a state’s authority to act against illegal immigration, and could be a preview of the battle brewing over Arizona’s recent illegal immigration crackdown through SB 1070.

Napolitano has made no comment on the Department of Justice’s decision to challenge the 2007 law, but federal officials said that she has taken an active part in the debate over whether to do so. (Politico, May 28, 2010). As Governor of Arizona, Napolitano said she believed the state law was valid and became a defendant in the many lawsuits against it. (Id.).



*



February 9, 2011

Immigration Laws

To the Editor:

Re “Napolitano Accuses Critics of Politicizing Border Issues” (news article, Feb. 1), about the 287(g) program:

Your article cites a report claiming that the program is problematic because it results in the arrest and deportation of illegal immigrants with little or no criminal record. Such a view is misguided and dangerous.

The 287(g) program allows state and local law enforcement agencies to enter into an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security to help enforce federal immigration laws. When the program began, there was no intent to limit it to criminal illegal immigrants or to those who commit serious offenses. I should know because I wrote the law that established the program.

Waiting until illegal immigrants commit criminal offenses before deporting them places American citizens and legal immigrants in danger.

America’s immigration laws apply to all illegal immigrants, not just those who have committed crimes. The Obama administration is responsible for enforcing those laws, and the 287(g) program is a useful tool to help do so.

Lamar Smith

Washington, Feb. 1, 2011

The writer, a Republican from Texas, is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.

*

“And doing so will reduce taxpayer costs for health care, education, social services and criminal justice. And it could open up the seven million jobs currently held by illegal immigrants for American workers and legal immigrants.” BY REP. LAMAR SMITH – AS OBAMA PELOSI REID WORK FOR AMNESTY AGAIN!





Blocking Illegal Immigrants

To the Editor:

Re “Immigration Hardball” (editorial, Nov. 15):

America has a wonderful tradition of welcoming newcomers. We admit more than one million legal immigrants every year, almost as many as all other countries combined. But immigration policy should put Americans first. Enforcing current immigration laws does just that.

Your editorial states that an enforcement-minded approach to preventing illegal immigration “mocks American values,” but the opposite is true. In fact, enforcing the current laws against illegal immigration is consistent with the ultimate American value — the rule of law.

And doing so will reduce taxpayer costs for health care, education, social services and criminal justice. And it could open up the seven million jobs currently held by illegal immigrants for American workers and legal immigrants.

Paying less in taxes and providing additional jobs for Americans hardly “mocks American values.”

Lamar Smith

Washington, Nov. 17, 2010

The writer, Republican of Texas, is the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.

*

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 rejection of any serious jobs program is part of a conscious class war policy. Two years after the financial crisis and the multi-trillion dollar bailout of the banks, the administration is spearheading a campaign by corporations to sharply increase the exploitation of the working class, using the “new normal” of mass unemployment to force workers to accept lower wages, longer hours, and more brutal working conditions.” WSWS.ORG



White House Does Not Want to Enforce Immigration, BY HEATHER MAC DONALD

Heather Mac Donald: White House doesn't want to enforce immigration

By: Heather Mac Donald

OpEd Contributor

August 4, 2010

The real motivation for the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona's new immigration statute was the only one not mentioned in the department's brief: The Obama administration has no intention of enforcing the immigration laws against the majority of illegal aliens already in the country.

It is that policy alone which conflicts with SB 1070: Arizona wants to enforce the law; the Obama administration does not. Reasonable minds can differ on whether that conflict puts Arizona in violation of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.

But what is indisputable is that the failure of the federal government to openly acknowledge the real ground for its opposition to SB 1070 has rendered incoherent not just its own public arguments against the law, but the judicial ruling which largely rubber stamps those arguments as well.

The Arizona statute affirms the power of a local police officer or sheriff's deputy to inquire into someone's immigration status, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally, and if doing so is practicable. Under SB 1070, such an inquiry may occur only during a lawful stop to investigate a non-immigration offense.

Both the Justice Department and U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, in striking down most of SB 1070, couched their opposition to the statute exclusively in terms of its effect on legal, as opposed to illegal, aliens. SB 1070, Judge Bolton wrote, would impermissibly burden legal immigrants already in the country by subjecting them to unwarranted immigration checks.

There are two problems with this line of argument: First, it ignores the fact that Congress has already anticipated and approved precisely the sort of local immigration inquiries that Judge Bolton now finds unconstitutional. Second, the argument would make all immigration enforcement impossible.

In 1996, Congress banned so-called sanctuary policies, by which cities and states prohibit their employees from working with federal immigration authorities regarding illegal aliens. It was in the federal interest, Congress declared, that local and federal authorities cooperate in the "apprehension, detention or removal of [illegal] aliens."

In pursuance of that mandate, the federal government operates an immigration clearinghouse, the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), to provide just the sort of immigration-status information to local and state law-enforcement officials that SB 1070 seeks.

It is therefore absurd to now claim, as Judge Bolton and the Obama Administration do, that such local inquiries conflict with the federal immigration scheme. It is even more absurd to argue that the risk that a legal alien will be questioned about his immigration status makes the alleged conflict unconstitutional.

Any immigration enforcement carries the possibility that a legal alien or U.S. citizen will be stopped and questioned. The only way to guarantee that legal aliens are never asked to present their immigration papers is to suspend immigration enforcement entirely. (The same possibility of stopping innocent people for questioning applies to law enforcement generally; that possibility has never been held to invalidate the police investigative power.)

If Congress intended to create such a blanket ban on asking legal aliens for proof of legal residency, it could have revoked the 1952 law requiring aliens to carry their certificate of alien registration. Such a requirement makes sense only on the assumption that legal aliens will upon occasion be asked to prove their legal status.

Such unpersuasive reasoning suggests that something else is going on. That something is the fact that SB 1070 would have put the Obama administration in the uncomfortable position of repeatedly telling Arizona's law enforcement officers that it is not interested in detaining or deporting the illegal aliens that they have encountered in the course of their duties; the law, in other words, would have exposed the administration's de facto amnesty policy.

And SB 1070 would have shown that immigration-law enforcement can work simply by creating a deterrent to illegal entry and presence. Even before it went into operation, the Arizona law was already inducing illegal aliens to leave the state, according to news reports.

Illegal aliens are virtually absent from the Justice Department's brief or from Judge Bolton's opinion. Despite this studied avoidance, it's time to have a public debate about how much immigration enforcement this country wants and which enforcement policies--the administration's or Arizona's -- best represent the public will.

Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor of City Journal and co-author of The





Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/White-House-doesn_t-want-to-enforce-immigration-1007060-99891419.html#ixzz0w8gI2nha

LA RAZA WHITE HOUSE: Obama to Meet With Narcomex Drunk CALDERON to Kiss Up For More Illegals!

Obama, Calderon to meet amid heightened tensions


By JULIE PACE, Associated Press Thu Mar 3, 3:49 am ET

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon are meeting amid heightened tensions over violence at their shared border, though no major breakthroughs are expected on what's quickly becoming a defining issue in the relationship between the North American allies.

Their meeting, scheduled for Thursday morning at the White House, comes three weeks after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jaime Zapata was shot to death in northern Mexico with a gun smuggled in from the U.S. The incident raised questions in the U.S. about Mexico's ability to control violence and has Obama administration officials considering arming U.S. agents working across the border to ensure their safety.

"We have to make sure that those kinds of incidents are not repeated and to the extent that that involves the potential arming of them, that's something I think we have to consider," Attorney General Eric Holder told a congressional panel this week.

Administration officials said the White House has been working closely with Calderon's government on how to protect U.S. personnel working in Mexico, but they wouldn't say whether Obama would press the Mexican leader to allow U.S. agents to be armed.

U.S. and Mexican officials have emphasized that Calderon's visit was planned before Zapata's killing. The leaders are expected discuss a wide range of topics, including economic cooperation and immigration, during a private meeting before taking questions from reporters.

The contentious debate over immigration dominated Calderon's visit to the White House in May, shortly after Arizona passed a law that makes it a state crime to be in the U.S. illegally and requires police to question people about their immigration status if there's reason to suspect they're illegal. Mexico's government strongly opposes the law, and the Mexican Senate this week urged Calderon to again vehemently make their opposition known to Obama.

Obama also opposes the Arizona law; the White House said that comprehensive immigration reform remains high on Obama's agenda and that the president would update Calderon on the state of the immigration debate in the U.S.

Obama and Calderon were also expected to discuss U.S. aid to help support Mexico in the drug war. A senior administration official said the U.S. plans to speed up implementation of the $1.4 billion Merida Initiative, with $900 million to be doled out by the end of the year. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to preview the announcement.

Negotiations also are continuing between the two countries over opening U.S. highways to Mexican trucks, as was agreed to in the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement. U.S. truck drivers oppose allowing Mexican motor carriers access to the U.S., saying the Mexicans have an economic advantage because they don't have to meet as stringent safety and environmental standards.

Mexico has placed higher tariffs on dozens of U.S. products in response to the unresolved dispute.

*



MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

*

Go to http://www.MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com



*



Obama seldom brings anyone into his administration that is not corrupt, a bankster, or LA RAZA PARTY MEMBER.

WITH HIS NEW CHIEF OF STAFF DALEY, OBAMA HAS BOTH! A J.P. MORGAN BANKSTER (J.P.s PROFITS UP THIS YEAR 47%), AND AN OPEN BORDERS ADVOCATE PER THE U.S. CHAMBER of COMMERCE.



*

“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).”



*

THE REASON OBAMA BROUGHT IN DALEY TO BE CHIEF OF STAFF, WAS SO J.P. MORGAN COULD OPERATE THEIR BANKSTER CRIMES OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE, JUST AS CHENEY OPERATED HALLIBURTON OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE, AND GEORGE BUSH OPERATED BIG BUSH SAUDI CARLYLE GROUP OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE!

!AND!.... DALEY, LIKE OBAMA, LA RAZA AND THE U.S. CHAMBER of COMMERCE IS AN ADVOCATE FOR OPEN BORDERS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED WITH HORDES OF ILLEGALS POURING OVER OUR BORDERS!



FROM CREOLE FOLKS



Obama Seeks Brother of "Chicago Mob Boss" for Top White House Post

The roaches and con-artist, fake journalist on cable news are all lying about William Daley being all this and all that, this man is an open borders, down with America, free trade globalist. MSNBC and Gretta "the Scientology" Van Susteren from Fox News are knowingly deceiving the public about D. Issa & his letter to "business owners"=which they made into such a BIG DAM DEAL, but no one says anything when Barrack Hussein Obama, comes around with all of these shady bankers, hedge fund managers and Wall St. Tycoons, which he puts in his cabinet. All of Obama's meeting with Wall Street asking, "What can I do for you?" is never something covered by Keith Oberman or Rachel Maddow.

(Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama is considering naming William Daley, a JPMorgan Chase & Co. executive and former U.S. Commerce secretary, to a high-level administration post, possibly White House chief of staff, people familiar with the matter said.

*



Heather Mac Donald: White House doesn't want to enforce immigration

By: Heather Mac Donald

OpEd Contributor

August 4, 2010

The real motivation for the Justice Department's lawsuit against Arizona's new immigration statute was the only one not mentioned in the department's brief: The Obama administration has no intention of enforcing the immigration laws against the majority of illegal aliens already in the country.

It is that policy alone which conflicts with SB 1070: Arizona wants to enforce the law; the Obama administration does not. Reasonable minds can differ on whether that conflict puts Arizona in violation of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.

But what is indisputable is that the failure of the federal government to openly acknowledge the real ground for its opposition to SB 1070 has rendered incoherent not just its own public arguments against the law, but the judicial ruling which largely rubber stamps those arguments as well.

The Arizona statute affirms the power of a local police officer or sheriff's deputy to inquire into someone's immigration status, if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally, and if doing so is practicable. Under SB 1070, such an inquiry may occur only during a lawful stop to investigate a non-immigration offense.

Both the Justice Department and U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, in striking down most of SB 1070, couched their opposition to the statute exclusively in terms of its effect on legal, as opposed to illegal, aliens. SB 1070, Judge Bolton wrote, would impermissibly burden legal immigrants already in the country by subjecting them to unwarranted immigration checks.

There are two problems with this line of argument: First, it ignores the fact that Congress has already anticipated and approved precisely the sort of local immigration inquiries that Judge Bolton now finds unconstitutional. Second, the argument would make all immigration enforcement impossible.

In 1996, Congress banned so-called sanctuary policies, by which cities and states prohibit their employees from working with federal immigration authorities regarding illegal aliens. It was in the federal interest, Congress declared, that local and federal authorities cooperate in the "apprehension, detention or removal of [illegal] aliens."

In pursuance of that mandate, the federal government operates an immigration clearinghouse, the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), to provide just the sort of immigration-status information to local and state law-enforcement officials that SB 1070 seeks.

It is therefore absurd to now claim, as Judge Bolton and the Obama Administration do, that such local inquiries conflict with the federal immigration scheme. It is even more absurd to argue that the risk that a legal alien will be questioned about his immigration status makes the alleged conflict unconstitutional.

Any immigration enforcement carries the possibility that a legal alien or U.S. citizen will be stopped and questioned. The only way to guarantee that legal aliens are never asked to present their immigration papers is to suspend immigration enforcement entirely. (The same possibility of stopping innocent people for questioning applies to law enforcement generally; that possibility has never been held to invalidate the police investigative power.)

If Congress intended to create such a blanket ban on asking legal aliens for proof of legal residency, it could have revoked the 1952 law requiring aliens to carry their certificate of alien registration. Such a requirement makes sense only on the assumption that legal aliens will upon occasion be asked to prove their legal status.

Such unpersuasive reasoning suggests that something else is going on. That something is the fact that SB 1070 would have put the Obama administration in the uncomfortable position of repeatedly telling Arizona's law enforcement officers that it is not interested in detaining or deporting the illegal aliens that they have encountered in the course of their duties; the law, in other words, would have exposed the administration's de facto amnesty policy.

And SB 1070 would have shown that immigration-law enforcement can work simply by creating a deterrent to illegal entry and presence. Even before it went into operation, the Arizona law was already inducing illegal aliens to leave the state, according to news reports.

Illegal aliens are virtually absent from the Justice Department's brief or from Judge Bolton's opinion. Despite this studied avoidance, it's time to have a public debate about how much immigration enforcement this country wants and which enforcement policies--the administration's or Arizona's -- best represent the public will.

Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor of City Journal and co-author of The





Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/White-House-doesn_t-want-to-enforce-immigration-1007060-99891419.html#ixzz0w8gI2nha



MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

FAIRUS.org

JUDICIALWATCH.org

ALIPAC.us

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 Quietly Erasing Borders (Article)





Article Link:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=240045





CONTACT THE HISPANDERING LA RAZA PARTY PRESIDENT HERE:



You can contact President Obama and let him know of your opposition to amnesty for illegal aliens:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/



*

UCLA PROFESSOR CALLS FOR MEXICAN REVOLT IN UNITED STATES

http://video.yahoo.com/watch/7165215?fr=yvmtf



*

Wake up America!!! Illegal Immigration has to be stopped. Take a look at this website and see where all your tax dollars are going: http://immigrationcounters.com/



See: CFR’s Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20050816.htm The Great Alien Invasion - What's Happening Now http://www.rense.com/general69/inva.htm

*

"Bush Secret Border Wars" Mayhem and terror in Southern states to protect government drug cartels

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2005/140805borderwars.htm Mexican/Bush Crime

*

“Through love of having children, we are going to take over.” AUGUSTIN CEBADA, BROWN BERETS, THE LA RAZA FASCIST PARTY



http://www.aztlan.net/anchor_baby_power.htm

OBAMA PROMISES HIS BANKSTER DONORS NO PRISON AND NO REGULATION - Isn't That What The Banksters Told Him To Do???

OBAMA’S JUSTICE IS TOO BUSY ASSAULTING LEGALS IN ARIZONA TO TAKE ON OBAMA’S BANKSTER DONORS!


“I’m not here to punish banks!” THE BANKSTER-BOUGHT PRESIDENT



US Justice Department drops investigation of sub-prime mortgage mogul Angelo Mozilo

By Andre Damon

3 March 2011

The US Department of Justice has quietly dropped its investigation of Angelo Mozilo, the former head of mortgage lender Countrywide Financial, the largest originator of the subprime mortgages that were instrumental in the financial collapse of 2008.

According to the Los Angeles Times, which broke the story last week based on interviews with a confidential source, the Justice Department concluded that Mozilo’s activities “did not amount to criminal wrongdoing.”

The action puts a seal on the official response to the financial crisis: there will be no criminal prosecutions of the top executives responsible for the meltdown and the untold misery it has brought.

The office of US Attorney Stephen A. Cazares, which headed the criminal investigation, did not return phone calls.

The Justice Department decision not to pursue criminal charges follows the decision by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) last October to forgo a trial and settle civil fraud charges against Mozilo. Under the agreement, Mozilo did not admit guilt but agreed to pay $67.5 million in penalties.

The mortgage banker pocketed over $500 million in compensation between 2000 and 2008, largely by making high-interest subprime loans to low-income borrowers and selling the loans to Wall Street banks, which packaged and sold them to investors around the world in the form of collateralized debt obligations.

The SEC accused Mozilo of selling nearly $140 million of his own shares in the run-up to the company’s near-collapse and purchase in 2008 by Bank of America. While Mozilo was dumping his own holdings he told shareholders that the company was healthy and organized buybacks to prop up the stock price.

The agency further accused Mozilo of failing to share with investors his own knowledge, documented in email exchanges with fellow executives, that Countrywide’s loan assets were “toxic.”

Mozilo co-founded Countrywide Financial in 1969 and presided over it for almost 40 years. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, Countrywide led the race by mortgage companies to transition from lending and holding mortgages to maturity, to lending to virtually anyone who would sign a contract and then selling the debt to Wall Street speculators in the form of mortgage-backed securities.

By aggressively lowering lending standards, Countrywide expanded rapidly during the housing bubble and by 2006 was originating one out of every six mortgages.

“The definition of a good loan changed from ‘one that pays’ to ‘one that could be sold,’” Patricia Lindsay, a former finance fraud specialist, told the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which published its report to congress on January 27. The commission said in its report that “Countrywide’s essential business strategy was ‘originating what was salable in the secondary market.’ The company sold or securitized 87 percent of the $1.5 trillion in mortgages it originated between 2002 and 2005.”

The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission report contains a section on Countrywide with sufficiently incriminating information to prosecute Mozilo and many other Countrywide executives and send them to prison. The report concludes that “As early as September 2004, Countrywide executives recognized that many of the loans they were originating could result in ‘catastrophic consequences.’”

“Less than a year later,” the report continues, “they noted that certain high-risk loans they were making could result not only in foreclosures, but also in ‘financial and reputational catastrophe’ for the firm. But they did not stop.”

The report also quotes internal emails sent by Mozilo that clearly demonstrate he knew his company was trafficking in fraudulent securities that would collapse in value at any major downturn in the housing market, bringing the company down along with it.

On March 28, 2006, Mozilo wrote to a fellow executive that subprime mortgage-backed securities are “the most dangerous product in existence and there can be nothing more toxic.”

Afterward, in a September 26, 2006 email, Mozilo concluded, “The bottom line is that we are flying blind on how these loans will perform in a stressed environment of higher unemployment, reduced values and slowing home sales.”

After expressing these doubts privately, Mozilo quickened the pace at which he sold his own shares, all the while insisting publicly that the company was in good health.

It is notable that this report, which exhaustively documents the fraud and criminality of the figures responsible for the financial crisis, has been buried by both the government and the media.

The Justice Department’s action comes just months after it dropped its investigation of Joe Cassano, the former chief financial officer of American International Group’s financial products unit. Cassano was among the principle architects of the company’s downfall, which ultimately led to a government bailout totaling $100 billion.

Only two Wall Street figures have been prosecuted in connection with the 2008 financial meltdown: Matthew Tannin and Ralph Cioffi, both mid-level executives at Bear Stearns who headed internal hedge funds that collapsed in 2007. They were acquitted of all charges.

*

FINANCIAL CRISIS PANEL URGES PROSECUTIONS OF INDUSTRY FIGURES



By Greg Gordon
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — The congressional panel examining the root causes of the nation's financial crisis voted to refer to state and federal prosecutors a wide range of potential criminal wrongdoing by financial industry figures and corporations, people involved in the deliberations said Tuesday.

The politically divided Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission is likely to detail the referrals on Thursday in releasing its final report, based on testimony from more than 700 people in coast-to-coast hearings and a review of millions of pages of documents.

The Huffington Post website first reported on the commission's referrals Monday evening.

It couldn't be learned which financial executives and companies were subject of the referrals to the Justice Department and state attorneys general. The panel investigated the roles of, among others, subprime mortgage brokers and lenders; Wall Street giants that bought, repackaged and resold the loans; bond ratings agencies; and a huge insurer that wrote protection on dicey bonds, enabling a U.S. housing bubble to swell until it burst, crashing the global economy.

Two people who had roles in the deliberations, speaking on condition of anonymity because the report is still confidential, said that the panel voted on a number of the Justice Department referrals months ago.

"And we've done some more," one of these individuals said.

The legislation creating the commission, signed by President Barack Obama on May 20, 2009, charged the 10-member panel to refer to the U.S. attorney general and appropriate state attorneys general "any person that the commission finds may have violated the laws of the United States in relation to (the) crisis."

"We did our duty," said one of the two involved in the process.

However, the other knowledgeable person stressed that the panel's thin investigative staff didn't attempt to compile evidence for solid criminal cases, but rather referred information that raised serious legal issues.

The panel sought to model itself after the hard-hitting Pecora Commission, the Depression-era panel that compiled evidence leading to prosecutions of high officials of some of the nation's biggest banks.

However, the Crisis Inquiry Commission's six Democrats and four Republicans split ideologically in the months after their appointment. The divisions showed up when Republicans chose to release their own findings in December, the original deadline for the final report, and blamed much of the crisis on the "national home ownership strategy" begun under President Bill Clinton and on secondary mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for jumping into the subprime market.

Commission members and staff signed agreements to keep details of the final report confidential until its release.

However, the New York Times reported late Tuesday that it had obtained a copy of the 576-page report, which it said concluded that the financial disaster was "avoidable" and laid blame on a range of actors from federal regulatory failures to shoddy mortgage lending and reckless risk taking.

Commission spokesman Tucker Warren said the report will be released Thursday and declined to comment further.

(Tish Wells contributed to this article.)





Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/25/107430/in-report-financial-crisis-panel.html#storylink=omni_popular#ixzz1CFd8kkpP



• Posted on Monday, January 24, 2011

Wall Street firms earn high profits with Uncle Sam's backing





Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/24/107342/wall-street-firms-earn-high-profits.html#ixzz1CFhXylu6



By Greg Gordon
McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and other Wall Street giants that played roles in the subprime mortgage debacle are reporting huge profits and awarding hefty bonuses again even as the government remains on the hook for tens of billions of dollars of their debt.

Banking behemoths are among the scores of lenders and insurers that floated as much as $345.8 billion in federally guaranteed bonds under a program that's widely credited with helping to keep money flowing at the height of the financial crisis, when businesses had nowhere to turn for capital.

Now, with the crisis in the rearview mirror, banks that escaped tough federal pay restrictions by retiring more than $200 billion in direct loans from the Treasury Department are still benefiting from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s less-conspicuous debt guarantee program, which has no such strings attached.

Some of the Wall Street firms that are getting the guarantees are expected to draw criticism from the congressionally appointed Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission this week when the panel issues its final report on the root causes of the subprime mortgage meltdown, which crashed the global economy.

Under the FDIC program, federal guarantees ensured that bonds that dozens of lenders, investment banks and insurers issued — including Goldman, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and General Electric — got gold-plated ratings that drew investors and drove down the cost of financing the debt.

The FDIC's bank insurance fund, which backs the bonds, has reaped more than $10 billion in fees from firms using the guarantees, while the outstanding debt declined to $267 billion as of Dec. 31.

The program doesn't expire until the end of 2012, and the agency says that most of the bonds don't expire until next year.

Robert Pozen, the chairman of Boston-based MFS Investment Management, argues that the government shouldn't have released firms from executive pay restrictions until they'd paid off the Treasury Department's Troubled Asset Relief Program and the FDIC program.

"Any bank that gets out of TARP, it's basically saying that it's now 'good to go' in the private market," said Pozen, the author of the 2010 book "Too Big to Save?" "They shouldn't be continuing to have this big guaranteed subsidy."

However, the agency put tight restrictions on banks' ability to refinance the bonds. Further hampering refinancing is the fact that the market for unsecured bank debt is just beginning to thaw. Morgan Stanley only recently completed a $5.25 billion bond offering, the largest by a U.S. bank in 20 months.

Banking industry consultant Bert Ely said that the adequacy of the fees in the FDIC program, known as the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, was "the kind of thing that will be debated for years."

"If you don't charge enough, then that's what creates moral hazard" and the presumption that risky behavior won't be penalized, he said. "If you charge too much, you may end up sinking institutions that you need."

On Monday, the FDIC, which hadn't identified the participants in its program, gave McClatchy a list of the institutions involved.

Three of the nation's biggest banks — Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Charlotte-based Bank of America — account for more than a third of the outstanding debt. Citigroup owes $58.2 billion, JPMorgan $36.1 billion and Bank of America $27.4 billion.

The biggest initial issuer, however, was GE Capital Corp., General Electric's financing arm, which reported nearly $74 billion in FDIC-backed debt as of March 2009, a figure that's since declined to $53.4 billion. Ally Financial, formerly the financing arm for General Motors, has $7.4 billion in guaranteed debt outstanding.

Ely said the banks "are clearly profiting by virtue of having this relatively low-cost funding in place, even though it's in this runoff mode. The question is, to the extent they're making money, how much of that is going into the bonuses? ... There's no way to figure that out."

Goldman, which is doling out $15 billion in employee bonuses for 2010, borrowed as much as $29.8 billion under the FDIC program. It still owes $18.8 billion.

Goldman became something of a pariah in Washington before it settled an SEC civil fraud suit last summer for $550 million that stemmed from its controversial sales of subprime mortgage securities. It's sought to restore its image by announcing an array of internal revisions.

Last week, perhaps symbolizing a return to normalcy, Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein was among U.S. corporate chiefs invited to attend a White House luncheon with President Barack Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao, followed by a state dinner.

Some skeptics have suggested that firms such as Goldman and Morgan Stanley could easily have used the proceeds of the guaranteed bond sales to pay off their TARP loans.

A spokesman for Goldman, which repaid a $10 billion TARP loan in the summer of 2009, declined comment on its government-backed debt.

Spokeswoman Sandra Hernandez of Morgan Stanley, which also repaid a $10 billion TARP tab from Treasury, said the money didn't come from the proceeds of its government-backed bonds, on which it still owes $21.3 billion.

MORE FROM MCCLATCHY





Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/24/107342/wall-street-firms-earn-high-profits.html#ixzz1CFdcr7D4

OBAMA'S WALL ST AGENDA: NO BANKSTER REGULAITON - WAGES DEPRESSED WITH MORE ILLEGALS AMNESTY

MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com


*

Go to http://www.MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com

*



Obama's 'Where's Waldo?' presidency

By Ruth Marcus

Wednesday, March 2, 2011; 12:00 AM

For a man who won office talking about change we can believe in, Barack Obama can be a strangely passive president. There are a startling number of occasions in which the president has been missing in action - unwilling, reluctant or late to weigh in on the issue of the moment. He is, too often, more reactive than inspirational, more cautious than forceful.

Each of these instances can be explained on its own terms, as matters of legislative strategy, geopolitical calculation or political prudence.

He didn't want to get mired in legislative details during the health-care debate for fear of repeating the Clinton administration's prescriptive, take-ours-or-leave-it approach. He doesn't want to go first on proposing entitlement reform because history teaches that this is not the best route to a deal. He didn't want to say anything too tough about Libya for fear of endangering Americans trapped there. He didn't want to weigh in on the labor battle in Wisconsin because, well, it's a swing state.

Yet the dots connect to form an unsettling portrait of a "Where's Waldo?" presidency: You frequently have to squint to find the White House amid the larger landscape.

This tough assessment from someone who generally shares the president's ideological perspective may be hard to square with the conservative portrait of Obama as the rapacious perpetrator of a big-government agenda. If the president is being simultaneously accused of overreaching ambition and gutless fight-ducking, maybe he's doing something right.

Maybe, or else Obama has at times managed to do both simultaneously. On health care, for instance, he took on a big fight without being able to articulate a clear message or being willing to set out any but the broadest policy prescriptions. Lawmakers, not to mention the public, were left guessing about what, exactly, the administration wanted to see in the measure and where it would draw red lines.

That was not an isolated case. Where, for example, is the president on the verge of a potential government shutdown - if not this week, then a few weeks from now?

Aside from a short statement from the Office of Management and Budget threatening a presidential veto of the House version of the funding measure, the White House - much to the frustration of some congressional Democrats - has been unclear in public and private about what cuts would and would not be acceptable.

By contrast, a few weeks before the shutdown in 1995, Clinton administration aides had dispatched Cabinet members and other high-ranking officials to spread the message that cuts in education, health care and housing would harm families and children. Obama seems more the passive bystander to negotiations between the House and Senate than the chief executive leading his party.

He performs best on a stage that permits the grandest sweep. He rises to the big occasion, from his inspiring introduction to the public in his 2004 Democratic convention speech to his healing words in the aftermath of the Tucson shootings.

The president has faltered, though, when called on to translate that rhetoric to more granular levels of specificity: What change, exactly, does he want people to believe in? How, even more exactly, does he propose to get there? "Winning the future" doesn't quite do it.

My biggest beef is with the president's slipperiness on fiscal matters. Obama has said he agrees with some of his fiscal commission's recommendations and disagrees with others. Which ones does he disagree with? I asked this question the other day of Austan Goolsbee, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers.

Here's what I got: "The view espoused by some of the . . . commission that we ought to do Social Security 100 percent off of benefit cuts for sure he doesn't agree with." But of course, the plan that 11 of the commission members endorsed did nothing of the sort.

I was unfair to Goolsbee because I asked him a question he didn't have the leeway to answer. You can't blame the aide for ducking when the boss fudges.

Where's Obama? No matter how hard you look, sometimes he's impossible to find.

*

OBAMA SPENT HIS FIRST TWO YEARS IN OFFICE SERVICING HIS BANKSTER DONORS! THEY’VE DONE FINE BY HIM! EVERY PENNEY THEY INVESTED IN OBAMA HAS REAPED BILLIONS!



*

New York Times columnist worries over Obama’s “credibility gap”

By Jerry White

27 January 2010

New York Times editorial page writer Bob Herbert penned a column Tuesday entitled “Obama’s Credibility Gap.” Written a week after the Democrats’ electoral debacle in Massachusetts, Herbert, a liberal supporter of the president, expresses concern over growing popular opposition to the administration. He warns that its new rhetoric about “fighting for the middle class” will do little to dampen anger over the economic crisis and the president’s embrace of Wall Street.

Herbert begins by asking, “Who is Barack Obama?” If Americans don’t get the answer soon, or don’t like the answer, he warns, “the president’s current problems will look like a walk in the park.”

What follows is a concise summary of the contrast between the expectations encouraged by Obama’s “campaign mantra of change” and the reality of the first year in office.

Herbert writes: “The anti-Iraq war candidate who escalated the war in Afghanistan; the opponent of health insurance mandates who made a mandate to buy insurance the centerpiece of his plan; the president who stocked his administration with Wall Street insiders and went to the mat for the banks and big corporations, but who is now trying to present himself as a born-again populist.”

The president, Herbert warns, is “creating a credibility gap for himself, and if it widens much more he won’t be able to close it.”

During the election campaign, the Times columnist writes, there was widespread belief that Obama would be “far more in touch with the economic needs of ordinary Americans” and reverse the pro-corporate policies of his Republican predecessor. Upon election, Herbert complains, the president “put together an economic team that would protect, above all, the interests of Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the health insurance companies, and so on.”

With his poll numbers plummeting and the Democrats facing the prospect of electoral rout in the November congressional elections, Herbert continues, Obama is “trying again to position himself as a champion of the middle class.” Every other utterance from the president, he says, is about “fighting for the middle class,” for jobs and “against the big bad banks.” These pronouncements, Herbert warns, ring hollow, especially since the president is about to announce a new budget plan that will freeze spending on vital social programs and exclude any serious expenditures to create jobs.

The Times columnist ends with a plea to the president, saying the most important thing about the upcoming State of the Union address Wednesday night is not its content, but “whether the president really means what he says.” Americans, he continues, “want to know what he stands for, where the line in the sand is, what he’ll really fight for, and where he wants to lead this nation. They want to know who their president really is.”

This is rather banal stuff. Nevertheless, Mr. Herbert’s question merits an answer.

Obama is a representative of the American ruling elite. His reactionary policies are no surprise, but rather the inevitable result of the social and class interests he has defended throughout his political career. Early on, Obama made his services available to the financial and corporate establishment in Chicago, along with the Democratic Party machine, and groomed himself to use his persona and background to better serve their interests.

Obama was picked up in the 2000s by important sections of the foreign policy establishment, including former Carter national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, along with powerful financial backers, who were dissatisfied with the Bush administration and wanted to give US imperialism a new brand image, while intensifying the attack on the working class. Except for the color of his skin he is and always has been a thoroughly conventional bourgeois politician who has no compunction about carrying out the most right-wing policies against the working class at home and the oppressed masses around the world.

While Herbert expresses shock and disappointment, Obama’s evolution comes as no surprise to the World Socialist Web Site and our readers. The WSWS has been making an analysis of the forces behind Obama since the beginning of the 2008 election campaign.

Whether or not the Times columnist was naïve enough to swallow Obama’s campaign lies or not, the fact is he helped promote the fiction that the Democratic president represented a fundamental break with the militarist and pro-business policies of Bush and the Republicans.

Even as he acknowledges that Obama lied to the American people time and again, Herbert tries to argue that the president is a progressive and reformer at heart, but somehow he has gotten entangled with the wrong crowd of economic advisors. Thus, he asks, “How can you look out for the interests of working people with Tim Geithner whispering in one ear and Larry Summers in the other?”

This is absurd. Obama chose Treasury Secretary Geithner and chief White House economic advisor Summers―who were both involved in the financial deregulation carried out under the Clinton administration in the 1990s―to protect the financial interests he was selected to serve.

From the multi-trillion bailout of Wall Street, to the attack on GM and Chrysler workers, to the rejection of any serious relief to the unemployed, to the demand for fiscal austerity, Obama has pursued the single-minded aim of making the working class pay for the parasitism and bankruptcy of American capitalism.

Herbert further suggests that Obama’s problems stem from the supposed “mistake” of focusing on health care instead of job creation. The fact is that health care “reform” has been central to the entire right-wing agenda of the administration, from slashing costs for US corporations, to reining in deficits and the national debt, to preparing to gut Medicare and Medicaid. Moreover, the ruling class as a whole has used mass unemployment as a hammer to impose wage and benefit cuts and drastically increase the productivity of workers.

Herbert presents the president’s repeated lies as incidental or the unfortunate product of political expediency. In fact, such duplicity is in the political DNA of the Democratic Party, which has long been tasked by the ruling class with presenting itself as a party of ordinary working people, while upholding the interests of the financial oligarchy. In the end, however, the interests of “Main Street” and Wall Street are not the same―despite the claims of the president―but irreconcilably opposed.

In the final analysis, Herbert’s meek protest and hand-wringing advice are part of an increasing chorus from the president’s liberal supporters who are desperate to find something they can point to, so that they can continue boosting illusions in this right-wing administration.

The problem for them―and, more importantly, for the ruling class―is that Obama’s credibility has already been chiefly shattered. Tens of millions of workers and young people know he is a fake, a con man and a stooge of Wall Street. Herbert and others are now warning that the administration's newly found pseudo-populism will have little effect other than further inflaming public anger and opposition.



*

Obama’s 2010 campaign: Fake populism and right-wing policies

By Patrick Martin

22 October 2010

President Barack Obama began his longest campaign swing of the 2010 elections Wednesday, a four-day tour of the West Coast and Nevada to urge a vote for beleaguered Democratic Party candidates. At each stop, he warned that the outcome of the November 2 congressional election would set the direction of the country “for the next 20 years,” making dire predictions of the right-wing policies that a Republican-controlled Congress would carry out.

While his pseudo-populist rhetoric against Wall Street won applause at large rallies in Oregon and Washington, packed with college students, there is little practical difference between the policies the Obama administration is already implementing and the measures the Republicans would carry out if they return to power.

Obama suggested that the Republicans would “cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires,” “cut rules for special interests, including polluters” and “cut middle-class families loose to fend for themselves.” These charges would be a fair summary of the domestic policies of his own administration.

Continuing the bailout of Wall Street that was begun under Bush, the Obama administration has carried the largest handout of public funds to the wealthy in American history. This was followed up by the enactment last summer of a financial system “reform” bill so toothless that it punishes no one for the greatest outbreak of swindling in history.

The White House assiduously protected oil giant BP from the repercussions of the greatest environmental disaster in US history and last week lifted its moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

As for leaving ordinary families “to fend for themselves,” the Obama administration has imposed the burden of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression on working class families, rejecting any serious action as mass unemployment, mass poverty and mass foreclosures have become permanent features of American life.

In the month leading up to the November 2 election, Obama has alternated speeches bashing the Republicans as tools of Wall Street with actions that demonstrate that the Democrats are no less committed to the defense of the financial aristocracy.

On the same day Obama boarded Air Force One to travel to the West Coast, the top administration official in the foreclosure crisis, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Shaun Donovan, held a White House briefing to declare that “we have not found any evidence at this point of systemic issues” in the manufacture of hundreds of thousands of false legal documents by mortgage bankers.

Donovan rejected any blanket moratorium on foreclosures, claiming, “We are focused on the process early, to keep people in their homes, rather than focusing late, when it is much less likely that people will be able to stay in their homes.” Translated into plain English, the administration policy is to pressure homeowners not to fall behind on their payments, rather than to rescue those who face eviction.

In a column in the New Republic magazine, liberal commentator John B. Judis observed that on the question of home foreclosure, “President Obama’s approach more closely mirrors Herbert Hoover’s than FDR’s.” This was disastrous economically, he argued: “A recovery will depend on increasing consumer demand, not boosting bank capital. And to do that, the administration needs an effective program that will allow working Americans to liquidate their debts without being thrown out on the streets.”

The administration’s indifference was also disastrous politically, he complained, given that the states hardest hit by foreclosures include such electoral battlegrounds as Nevada, Florida, California, Michigan and Ohio. Judis concluded: “It’s the working-class voters who reluctantly backed Obama in 2008, but have been turned off by the impression that the administration cares more about the banks than about them. And there’s little in the administration’s rhetoric to persuade them otherwise.”

In his West Coast speeches, Obama sought to address the mounting economic discontent that is the driving force of the political debacle facing the Democratic Party. He admitted, “There’s no doubt this is a difficult election. It’s because we have been through an incredibly difficult time as a nation.”

This argument fails to explain, however, why the Republican Party has been able to make a political comeback—something it could not do in 1934, two years into the first term of Franklin Roosevelt, although unemployment was far higher than today and living conditions for broad masses of people were far worse.

Obama pointed to the record of the Republican administration of George W. Bush in the eight years that culminated in the Wall Street crash of 2008, but did not explain how, only two years later, this thoroughly corrupted and discredited party is on the verge of recapturing control of Congress.

Unlike Roosevelt, Obama has offered nothing in the way of public works programs to restore employment, or significant checks on the most flagrant forms of Wall Street speculation. This is not merely a personal failing, or, to put more it precisely, Obama’s obvious indifference to the plight of millions of working people is not peculiar to him. It is the attitude of the entire social class, the top one percent in American society, which all the Democratic and Republican politicians represent.

American capitalism is no longer able to provide any significant reform measures. It is an economically declining power, the largest debtor nation on the planet. Consequently, there is no constituency in the American financial aristocracy for economic policies that make any concessions to the masses. Hence the spectacle of record profits and bonuses on Wall Street, while the White House rejects any aid to jobless workers facing foreclosure and eviction.

White House officials concede, albeit not publicly and on the record, that they expect the Republican Party to win control of the House of Representatives, and the president’s main electoral focus has been to safeguard Democratic control of the Senate and of governorships of key states.

There are mounting indications that the administration not only expects to share power with the Republicans after November 2, but that the White House positively welcomes this prospect and is preparing a further shift to the right in both domestic and foreign policy.

In his interview with the New York Times magazine published on Sunday, Obama told reporter Peter Baker that Republican gains would not necessarily be a defeat for him. Baker wrote: “Obama expressed optimism to me that he could make common cause with Republicans after the midterm elections. ‘It may be that regardless of what happens after this election, they feel more responsible,’ he said, ‘either because they didn’t do as well as they anticipated, and so the strategy of just saying no to everything and sitting on the sidelines and throwing bombs didn’t work for them, or they did reasonably well, in which case the American people are going to be looking to them to offer serious proposals and work with me in a serious way.’”

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell responded by telling the Associated Press that he hoped to work more closely with Obama on tax cuts, trade agreements and other economic policies.

White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, one of Obama’s closest cronies, told the CBS program “The Early Show” Wednesday that Obama still held out hopes of bipartisan cooperation with the Republicans. “He’s not going to give up on that,” she said. “He’s going to keep trying, no matter who’s in Congress.”

Another area where bipartisan cooperation is already well established is in foreign policy, particularly in Obama’s continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where he has had greater support among congressional Republicans than among some sections of the Democratic Party. Obama retained Bush’s secretary of defense, Robert Gates, and escalated the Afghanistan war as troops became available from Iraq.

Obama was notably silent on foreign policy in his remarks to the first two rallies on the West Coast, where opposition to the Iraq war has been strong. The word “Afghanistan” did not appear in speeches in Portland or Seattle, and there was only one passing reference to Iraq, when he boasted of having withdrawn 100,000 troops from that country—without mentioning that more US troops are now deployed in the two countries than when George W. Bush was president

OBAMA'S HISPANICAZATION OF AMERICA - OR IS IT ONLY PART OF HIS ASSAULT ON AMERICAN WORKERS?

OBAMA’S AMERICA: Open & Undefended Borders!



“What we're seeing is our Congress and national leadership dismantling our laws by not enforcing them. Lawlessness becomes the norm, just like Third World corruption. Illegal aliens now have more rights and privileges than Americans. If you are an illegal alien, you can drive a car without a driver's license or insurance. You may obtain medical care without paying. You may work without paying taxes. Your children enjoy free education at the expense of taxpaying Americans.”





THE LA RAZA PRESIDENT’S SABOTAGE OF OUR COUNTRY’S BORDERS FOR ILLEGALS’ VOTES!



*

“While the declining job market in the United States may be discouraging some would-be border crossers, a flow of illegal aliens continues unabated, with many entering the United States as drug-smuggling “mules.”



*

As the liberal news media, far-left Democrats, and labor unions push for the “Hispanicazation” of U.S. culture, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says the U.S. border has never been more secure.



*

HISPANDERING LA RAZA ENDORSED HILLARY BLAMES AMERICAN AGAIN FOR MEX INVASION SHE AND BILLARY HELPED CREATE!



In Mexico City, she announced that the U.S. appetite for illegal drugs and the easy acquisition of guns from the United States by Mexicans are the root causes of the Mexican crime wave. “Blame America” has become the global agenda of the Democratic Party.

*

Newsmax

Obama's 'Hispanicazation' of America

Monday, January 10, 2011 08:28 AM

By: James Walsh

Casting a shadow on economic recovery efforts in the United States is the cost of illegal immigration that consumes U.S. taxpayer dollars for education, healthcare, social welfare benefits, and criminal justice. Illegal aliens (or more politically correct, “undocumented immigrants”) with ties to Mexican drug cartels are contributing to death and destruction on U.S. lands along the southern border.



While the declining job market in the United States may be discouraging some would-be border crossers, a flow of illegal aliens continues unabated, with many entering the United States as drug-smuggling “mules.”



Increasingly vicious foot soldiers of the Mexican drug cartels are taking control of U.S. lands along the border, especially since U.S. Border Patrol units have been reassigned, some to offices 60 to 80 miles inland.



The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) early last year posted signs warning citizens to avoid Interstate 8 between Casa Grande and Gila Bend, Ariz., because of criminal activity in the area, an area that includes protected natural areas precious to the nation.



In reaction to public outrage over the signs, the BLM removed the offensive wording in October 2010, replacing it with the following: Visitor Information Update—Active Federal Law Enforcement Patrol Area.



As the liberal news media, far-left Democrats, and labor unions push for the “Hispanicazation” of U.S. culture, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano says the U.S. border has never been more secure.



Perhaps she is basing this on the reduced number of apprehensions, which result, of course, from reassigning Border Patrol agents inland.



In a recent New York Times article, Nicholas Kristof criticized U.S. citizens for not speaking a foreign language and suggested that “Every child in the United States should learn Spanish.” He concluded that as the United States increasingly integrates economically with Latin America, Spanish will be crucial for the United States.



For decades, the liberal left has argued that Latin America is essential for U.S. business and trade. Kristof states that Latin America “is finally getting its act together” but fails to mention the Obama administration’s $2 billion loan of U.S. taxpayer money in 2009 to Brazil’s Petrobras oil company for deep off-shore oil drilling. Obama confidant George Soros, through the Soros Fund Management LLC, until recently owned millions of dollars of Petrobras stock.



Kristof suggests that one day Spanish-speaking Americans will be part of daily life in the United States and that workmen such as mechanics will be able to communicate easily with Spanish-speaking customers.



He fails to explain why these customers will not be speaking English. After all, the ability to speak, read, and write English remains a requirement for U.S. citizenship.



President Barack Obama gives lip service to increasing border control resources with limited funding and personnel. Many officials, including the governors of Texas and Arizona, are skeptical regarding the Obama administration’s resolve. They resent that the United States is being blamed for the killing fields on both sides of the Mexico-U.S. Border.



For instance, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in March 2009, during her first official visit to Mexico, placed the blame for the Mexican drug cartels’ vicious murders on the United States.



In Mexico City, she announced that the U.S. appetite for illegal drugs and the easy acquisition of guns from the United States by Mexicans are the root causes of the Mexican crime wave. “Blame America” has become the global agenda of the Democratic Party.



The Obama administration’s plan to resolve the immigration chaos is to offer amnesty to all comers. President Obama re-affirms his support of a “pathway to citizenship” (amnesty) for illegal aliens in 2011.



The administration, however, has announced no plans to control the influx of future waves of illegal aliens or their skyrocketing costs to the nation. The administration, which condones U.S. sanctuary cities and states, has no plans to file charges against them for violations of federal immigration law. Nor does the administration seem concerned about the environmental impact that illegal aliens have on the ecology of the United States.



Many national forests, parks, monuments, wilderness areas, and wildlife refuges — once the pride of the nation — are serving today as marijuana fields for illegal alien gangs.



Former Democratic Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi reportedly said to a gathering of illegal aliens in California in 2009 that U.S. immigration laws were “un-American,” suggesting that they need not be obeyed. Concerned citizens can only trust that the new speaker of the House, John Boehner, as part of congressional oversight of federal agencies, will demand enforcement of existing immigration laws.



When will President Obama recognize that illegal immigration is slowing economic recovery? Can he resolve the chaos while still appeasing his Hispanic base?



To maintain his populist aura, the president is in the habit of saying one thing to one audience and the opposite to another.



One Obama apologist explained, “Campaign rhetoric is one thing,” suggesting that governing is another. The deliberate Hispanicazation of the United States to secure a block of votes is quite another.







*

Immigration Invasion - View From A Border Patrol Officer

*

What we're seeing is our Congress and national leadership dismantling our laws by not enforcing them. Lawlessness becomes the norm, just like Third World corruption. Illegal aliens now have more rights and privileges than Americans. If you are an illegal alien, you can drive a car without a driver's license or insurance. You may obtain medical care without paying. You may work without paying taxes. Your children enjoy free education at the expense of taxpaying Americans.

*