Saturday, August 13, 2011

NARCO TUNNELS - OUR OPEN & UNDEFENDED BORDERS

Mexican soldiers uncover 'narco-tunnel' to U.S.
(CNN) -- Mexican soldiers have discovered a so-called "narco-tunnel" in Baja California that extends under the U.S. border, Mexican military officials said Friday.

The unfinished tunnel is 298 meters (977 feet) long, two meters (6.5 feet) high and about half that wide, and is thought to be intended for smuggling drugs, the National Defense Secretariat said.

Ten people, including one woman, were arrested as they carried out excavation work, the agency said. Tools were also confiscated from the site.

The tunnel, which has lighting and ventilation, is thought to have started a year ago and reaches 100 meters (328 feet) under the U.S. border.

It was discovered in a neighborhood near the airport in the border city of Tijuana after a resident raised the alarm, military officials said. According to Efe news agency, the tunnel started in a room of a house.

Mexico's Baja California neighbors the U.S. state of California.

CNN's Elizabeth Joseph contributed to this report.

DEMS: PARTY OF ILLEGALS & LA RAZA SUPREMACY - Obama says GOP blocking path to immigration reform

Obama says GOP blocking path to immigration reform



THE DEMOCRAT PARTY – Now Party For the LA RAZA SUPREMACIST MOVEMENT to put a “cheap” labor illegal in every American job!

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/08/democrat-party-party-controlled-by-la.html



THIS IS AN ARTICLE FOR MEXICAN-OWNED NEW YORK TIMES, NOW MOUTHPIECE FOR LA RAZA SUPREMACY.
THE ARTICLE WRITES ABOUT MORE DEMS SABOTAGING OUR BORDERS, JOBS AND SECURITY BY HISPANDERING TO LA RAZA’S INTERESTS. THE DEMS ARE NOW THE PARTY OF ILLEGALS DESPITE THE STAGGERING COST OF THE MEXICAN WELFARE STATE IN OUR BORDERS, JOBS TO ILLEGALS AND THE STAGGERING CRIME TIDAL WAVE THAT FOLLOWS THE LA RAZA OCCUPATION (IN CA ALONE, THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL DECLARES THAT NEARLY HALF OF ALL MURDERS ARE BY MEXICAN GANGS).
ALL THE DEMS FROM LA RAZA ENDORSED OBAMA, FEINSTEIN, BOXER, PELOSI, REID, A PATHEION OF CORRUPTION WHAT AMNESTY, OPEN BORDERS, NO E-VERIFY, GRINGO PAID DREAM ACTS, NO BORDERS, NO WALL, NO ENGLISH ONLY, AND NO I.D. REQUIREMENT FOR ILLEGALS TO VOTE!
THERE IS NO GREATER THREAT TO THIS NATION THAT MEXICO’S INVASION AND CREATION OF THE MEXICAN OCCUPATION IN OUR BORDERS! CALIFORNIA ALONE PUTS OUT $20 BILLION IN SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS, $1.5 BILLION IN PRISON COSTS, AND “FREE” HOSPITAL COSTS OF $1.25 BILLION… so much for all that “cheap” Mexican labor!
*
LA RAZA FEINSTEIN & BOXER TAKE BIG BRIBES FROM BIG AG BIZ DONORS THAT DEMAND MEX SLAVE LABOR. APPROXIMATELY ONE-THIRD OF ALL “CHEAP” LABOR ILLEGAL FARM WORKERS END UP ON WELFARE, WHICH DELIGHTS THE EMPLOYERS OF ILLEGALS! PELOSI HIRES ILLEGALS TO WORK HER NAPA WINERY, AND FEINSTEIN TO WORK HER S.F. HOTEL, ONLY MILES FROM HER $16 MILLION WAR PROFITEER MANSION! IT’S NOT HARD TO CONNECT THE DOTS ON THESE SCUM POLITICIANS!

Lou Dobbs Tonight Friday, May 16, 2008
Some in Congress are once again trying to push piecemeal immigration reform through the back door. Sen. Diane Feinstein of California attached a farm worker program to the multibillion dollar Iraq war funding bill yesterday which would grant temporary amnesty to 1.3 million farm workers and their families over the next five years.

*
“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."

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

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.
*
"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!

ON THE GROWIN POWER OF “LA RAZA” FASCISM FOR MEX SUPREMACY
EMAIL THIS LINK:

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/04/history-of-mexican-fascist-party-of-la.html

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."

*
ANCHORING AN OCCUPATION WITH HEAVY LA RAZA BREEDING AT LEGALS’ EXPENSE – LOS ANGELES COUNTY, UNDER LA RAZA OCCUPATION, PUTS OUT $600 MILLION PER YEAR IN WELFARE TO PREGNANT MEXICANS THAT CROSS OUR BORDERS TO LOOT.


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

*
THESE FIGURES ON WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY ARE DATED. IT NOT EXCEEDS $600 MILLION PER YEAR!!! (source: Los Angeles County & JUDICIAL WATCH)
*
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949085/posts

Now you sound off. Should the United States taxpayer be funding the National Council of La Raza? THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA FOR MEXICAN SUPREMACY
By Dave Gibson (09/17/2006) http://americandaily.com/article/15577 (THESE FIGURES ARE DATED. SEE MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com for 2011 figures of American tax money handed over to advance Mexico’s occupation!
In 2005, the Latino group known as La Raza (The Race) was given $15.2 million in U.S. federal grants.


*


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."

*
WHILE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE DEMANDED OUR BORDERS BE PROTECTED FROM MEXICAN TERRORIST AND LOOTERS, THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS IN THE BACKROOM HAMMERING OUT MORE BIT BY BIT BY BIT AMNESTY UNTIL THERE ARE ENOUGH ILLEGALS VOTING DEM THAT OUR NATION WILL FLY THE MEXICAN FLAG…BUT THEN IF YOU VISITED CALIFORNIA YOU WILL SEE THE MEX FLAG FLY MUCH MORE THAN THE AMERICAN ALREADY!


August 13, 2011
Resistance Widens to Obama Initiative on Criminal Immigrants

By JULIA PRESTON

BOSTON — Mayor Thomas Menino, who often invokes his heritage as the grandson of an Italian immigrant, was one of the first local leaders in the country to embrace a federal program intended to improve community safety by deporting dangerous immigrant criminals.
But five years after Boston became a testing ground for the fingerprinting program, known as Secure Communities, Mr. Menino is one of the latest local officials to sour on it and seek to withdraw. He found that many immigrants the program deported from Boston, though here illegally, had committed no crimes. The mayor believed it was eroding hard-earned ties between Boston’s police force and its melting-pot mix of ethnic neighborhoods.
Last month, Mr. Menino sent a letter to the program with a blunt assessment. “Secure Communities is negatively impacting public safety,” he wrote, asking how Boston could get out.
On Aug. 5, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which runs the program, gave an equally blunt response. Its director, John Morton, announced he was canceling all agreements that 40 states and cities had signed to start Secure Communities. Their assent was not legally required, he said, and he planned to move ahead anyway to extend the program nationwide by 2013.
So Boston’s mayor, together with a growing number of other state and local officials, is stuck.
Mr. Menino’s disenchantment illustrates the widening resistance from cities and states that is troubling one of President Obama’s most far-reaching programs to toughen enforcement against illegal immigration.
Administration officials are pressing ahead, saying that information-sharing laws passed after the Sept. 11 attacks mandate the program. The clash will gain a higher profile this month, when a task force Mr. Morton named to recommend fixes is to hold public hearings in a half-dozen cities.
In an interview, Mr. Menino was alternately worried and indignant about the program.
“We need those community folks to tell us what is going on out there,” said the mayor, a Democrat who has run Boston for 18 years. As a result of Secure Communities, he said, word is out in Boston that patrol officers are working with federal agents to deport immigrants for offenses as minor as traffic violations.
“What’s happening is, we’re losing the trust of the immigrant community in Boston,” he said.
Obama administration officials vigorously defend Secure Communities, saying it is essential for identifying immigrant gang members and other violent criminals arrested by the local police, so federal agents can focus on deporting them. Officials say they are taking steps to avoid deporting foreigners detained for immigration violations, which generally are civil, not criminal, offenses.
In a July 25 letter defending his strategy, Mr. Obama said that deportations of convicted criminals over all increased by 70 percent in 2010 over 2008, while the share of noncriminals among deportees was declining. “The increase in the proportion of criminal removals demonstrates that this strategy is having a real impact,” the president wrote.
Under Secure Communities, the fingerprints of anyone booked into jail are checked against the F.B.I.’s criminal databases — long a routine police practice — and forwarded to the Department of Homeland Security to be run through its databases, which record immigration violations. If an immigration check yields a match, the immigration agency decides whether to detain the foreigner for deportation.
After several pilot projects like the one Boston started in 2006, the agency formally inaugurated Secure Communities in Houston in October 2008. It quickly expanded, with little fanfare or protest, to about 1,500 counties or other jurisdictions, about half the 3,181 jurisdictions in the nation.
But this year three governors — including Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, as well as Pat Quinn of Illinois and Andrew M. Cuomo of New York, all Democrats — announced that they wanted to pull out, as did officials in Los Angeles and San Francisco. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus and more than 200 immigrant groups have asked Mr. Obama to suspend the program.
Mr. Morton has addressed some complaints. In June, he issued new guidelines giving immigration agents broad discretion to halt deportations of noncriminal illegal immigrants. He traveled to places of dissent, including Boston, working to eliminate confusion — which he acknowledged the immigration agency had created — over whether jurisdictions could opt out.
Mr. Morton set up the task force, which includes police chiefs, immigration lawyers and representatives of immigration agent unions. Its chairman, Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, said the group quickly set aside Mr. Morton’s assignment to deliver recommendations in 45 days. Its first hearing was this week in Dallas; others scheduled so far will be in Los Angeles; Chicago; Arlington, Va.; and Boston.
In Boston, where about 200,000 immigrants make up one-quarter of the population, Mr. Menino said he was originally attracted to Secure Communities because immigrant leaders liked the sound of it. “A person with a homicide or major crime, immigrants don’t want them in their community either,” he said.
Problems started earlier this year when advocacy groups released immigration data showing that more than half of 313 immigrants deported from Boston under the program had no criminal convictions. Many had been detained in traffic stops.
Boston’s police commissioner, Edward Davis, had been a Secure Communities supporter, because his records showed that it had removed many violent criminal immigrants from Boston jails. But he concluded from the new figures that immigration officials had misled him.
They specifically told us they would not be removing people with traffic offenses,” Mr. Davis said. “They said they wouldn’t and now they have.”
Mr. Davis said he was taken aback by the indifference of immigration officials to his questions. “This is a throwback to the bad old days of the federal agencies before 9/11, when we did not have cooperation,” he said. “It is really disconcerting that they are not at all concerned about our precarious situation with immigrant communities.”
At the end of the school year, Mr. Menino held a lunch for about 30 valedictorians graduating from Boston high schools. He discovered that six of the city’s highest-ranking students were illegal immigrants. Then he began to hear stories of immigrants snared by Secure Communities.
One was Leonardo Machado, 35, an illegal immigrant and a construction worker from Brazil who was stopped by a traffic officer because a rear brake light was out. He did not have a valid driver’s license. Immigration agents went to traffic court and led him away in ankle and foot chains.
Mr. Machado agreed to leave for Brazil, along with his Brazilian wife and 5-year-old-son, a Boston-born American citizen. “I am not fighting against the laws,” Mr. Machado said as he prepared his departure. “But I am not a criminal, and my wife and my little son are not criminals. They did not have to humiliate us like that.”
Heloisa Galvao, executive director of the Brazilian Women’s Group here, said: “People listen to these stories. Lately the people are scared of the police because they think the police are involved in immigration.”
Mr. Menino said a July 7 meeting he held with immigrant leaders had persuaded him to try to cancel the program. He did not hide his anger when immigration officials said it would continue.
“People will start to say the police are gestapos,” the mayor said. “My police aren’t gestapos. You can’t be a bureaucrat in Washington and just say, ‘We don’t care.’ ”
*
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.

*
latimes.com
Opinion
California must stem the flow of illegal immigrants
The state should go after employers who hire them, curb taxpayer-funded benefits, deploy the National Guard to help the feds at the border and penalize 'sanctuary' cities.

Illegal immigration is another matter entirely. With the state budget in tatters, millions of residents out of work and a state prison system strained by massive overcrowding, California simply cannot continue to ignore the strain that illegal immigration puts on our budget and economy. Illegal aliens cost taxpayers in our state billions of dollars each year. As economist Philip J. Romero concluded in a 2007 study, "illegal immigrants impose a 'tax' on legal California residents in the tens of billions of dollars."

*
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.

ILLEGALS IN OUR JOBS - Legal taxis ferry illegal immigrants to work in Georgia

Legal taxis ferry illegal immigrants to work in Georgia

Homeland Security sued over immigrant detention - THE GROWING POWER OF LA RAZA SUPREMACY OVER OUR LAWS AND BORDERS

Homeland Security sued over immigrant detention

Rep. Xavier Becerra - LA RAZA SUPREMACIST & PELOSI OBAMA'S LA RAZA MAN TO EXPAND LA RAZA PARTY BASE

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/08/rep-xavier-becerra-la-raza-supremacist.html



BECERRA IS PELOSI OBAMA’S LA RAZA SUPREMACIST IN MEXICAN OCCUPIED LOS ANGELES, WHERE 95% OF THE MURDERS ARE BY ILLEGALS AND 176 OF THE TOP 200 MOST WANTED CRIMINALS ARE MEXICANS!

A BIT ON REP. BECERRA (LA RAZA SUPREMACIST PARTY)


http://www.MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com


“WE WILL TAKE CONTROL OF OUR COUNTRY (U.S.) BY VOTE IF POSSIBLE AND VIOLENCE IF NECESSARY!”

Agendas of MEChA, La Raza, MALDEF, and Southwest Voter Registration Projects These are transcripts of live, recorded statements by elected U.S. politicians, college professors, and pro-illegal alien activists whose objective is to take control of our country "by vote if possible and violence if necessary!" 1. Armando Navarro, Prof. Ethnic Studies, UC Riverside at Latino Summit Response to Prop 187, UC Riverside, 1/1995
"These are the critical years for us as a Latino community. We're in a state of transition. And that transformation is called 'the browning of America'. Latinos are now becoming the majority. Because I know that time and history is on the side of the Chicano/Latino community. It is changing in the future and in the present the balance of power of this nation. It's a game - it's a game of power - who controls it. You (to MEChA students) are like the generals that command armies. We're in a state of war. This Proposition 187 is a declaration of war against the Latino/Chicano community of this country. They know the demographics. They know that history and time is on our side. As one community, as one people, as one nation within a nation as the community that we are, the Chicano/Latino community of this nation. What this means is a transfer of power. It means control."


“THE NEW LEADERSHIP OF THE AMERICAS... IS MEXICAN!”
“REMEMBER: (PROPOSITION) 187 IS THE LAST GASP OF WHITE AMERICA IN CALIFORNIA!”

BECERRA TO HISPANDERING OBAMA:

Here’s Becerra’s quote from the same article in Congressional Quarterly:

But the wound was exacerbated earlier this week when Rep. Becerra, one of Obama’s most prominent Hispanic supporters, told Politico that he advised the Obama campaign that he could wrap up Hispanic backing by saying “Just give him to me for a week, and I will deliver the Latino vote” WHAT THE LA RAZA SUPREMACIST DID NOT SAY WAS THAT MEANS THE ILLEGALS’ VOTES!
Joshua Rhett Miller
- FOXNews.com
- February 23, 2010
Congressman Derided for Laughing at Suggestion to Recite the Pledge of Allegiance
A Republican candidate for Congress in California is calling on U.S. Rep. Xavier Becerra to "clarify his reaction" after the Democrat was caught on a YouTube video laughing at a suggestion that the Pledge of Allegiance be recited prior to a union meeting in Los Angeles.
If the Pledge of Allegiance is a laughing matter, then the joke may be on a California congressman.
A Republican candidate for Congress in California is calling on U.S. Rep. Xavier Becerra to "clarify his reaction" after the Democrat was caught on a YouTube video laughing at a suggestion that the Pledge of Allegiance be recited prior to a union meeting in Los Angeles.
The 46-second video was captured by an unidentified staffer who accompanied candidate Ari David to a Service Employees International Union meeting on Saturday. By early Tuesday, the video had been viewed roughly 10,000 times.
David will not be opposing Becerra in November; he is running to replace Democratic U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman in a neighboring district. He said he attended the meeting in Becerra's district in hopes of meeting with Waxman, who he said was an invited guest.
On the video, a man off camera can be heard saying: "I'm here for Ari David for Congress. Can we start this meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance?"
Hilarity ensues, most notably on behalf of an unidentified woman standing behind a lectern. Becerra, seated on stage, can be seen smiling and stifling his laughter as he bends slightly forward in his chair.
"No, I'm serious," David's staffer continues. "Congressman, shouldn't we say the Pledge of Allegiance if we all want to be citizens? Wouldn't that be appropriate to say the Pledge of Allegiance?"
"Sure, of course," the woman on stage replies. "OK, let's go for it -- you lead."
The pledge is then recited by everyone in the room, followed by raucous applause.
David told Fox News he found Becerra's reaction "completely inappropriate," adding: "I was stunned as an American that one of our members of Congress would act that way.
"Considering these people want immigration reform, shouldn't they say the national anthem before a public meeting with their elected official there?"
If Becerra thought the situation was comical, it was the congressman's "prerogative" to laugh, David said.
"Is it that offensive of a notion to be asked to say the Pledge of Allegiance?" the candidate continued.
Becerra defended the reaction in a statement to Fox News, saying:
"On the morning of February 20th, I was invited to address some 500 people gathered to discuss the human tragedy of a broken immigration system and the need to fix it. At some point during that meeting, a political operative for a congressional campaign asked if we could recite the pledge of allegiance. The meeting was already under way and the question was unexpected. It took us all by surprise. When the speaker explained that he was serious and asked me specifically if we could say the pledge, I said yes and gestured to the moderator, who then led the entire gathering in reciting the pledge."
*
DHS Says it Doesn't Need State Cooperation to Execute Secure ... (77,000 illegal aliens DEPORTED)



DHS Says it Doesn't Need State Cooperation to Execute Secure Communities
Tuesday, August 9, 2011, 11:55 AM EDT - posted on NumbersUSA


Elected Officials Who...

Voted on Amendment to Detain Illegal Aliens who are Violent Criminals While Awaiting Deportation
Updated Friday, June 3, 2011, 11:36 AM EDT - posted on
NumbersUSA


Voted YES Count: 289 Voted NO Count: 131

June 2, 2011 -- Voted for Cravaack Amendment to H.R.2017
A "Yes" vote was to ensure that illegal aliens who are violent criminals are detained while awaiting deportation




Baca (CA-D) THANK YOU
McNerney (CA-D)
Richardson (CA-D)
Schiff (CA-D)
Sherman (CA-D)
Bilbray (CA-R)
Calvert (CA-R)
Campbell (CA-R)
Denham (CA-R)
Dreier (CA-R)
Gallegly (CA-R)
Herger (CA-R)
Hunter (CA-R)
Issa (CA-R)
Lewis (CA-R)
Lungren (CA-R)
Mack (CA-R)
McCarthy (CA-R)
McClintock (CA-R)
McKeon (CA-R)
Miller, Ga. (CA-R)
Nunes (CA-R)
Rohrabacher (CA-R)
Royce (CA-R)


A "No" vote would allow illegal aliens who are violent criminals to not be detained while awaiting deportation


Bass (CA-D) SHAME - PUTTING THE PUBLIC AT RISK.
Becerra (CA-D) SHAME - HOW SAVE ARE YOU?
Berman (CA-D) SHAME
Capps (CA-D)
Cardoza (CA-D)
Chu (CA-D)
Costa (CA-D)
Davis (CA-D)
Eshoo (CA-D)
Farr (CA-D)
Filner (CA-D)
Garamendi (CA-D)
Honda (CA-D)
Lee (CA-D)
Matsui (CA-D)
Napolitano (CA-D)
Pelosi (CA-D)
Roybal-Allard (CA-D)
Sanchez (CA-D)
Sanchez (CA-D)
Speier (CA-D)
Stark (CA-D)
Thompson (CA-D)
Waters (CA-D)
Waxman (CA-D)
Woolsey (CA-D)


Cravaack Amendment -- H.R.2017 The Department of Homeland Security has told the nation's governors that the agency doesn't need their approval to run Secure Communities in their states. Secure Communities is a program managed by DHS that identifies criminal illegal aliens who have been booked into state and local prisons.

When criminals are fingerprinted, their prints are shared with the FBI. The FBI then shares the fingerprints with DHS who checks the immigration status of the criminal. If a criminal is identified as an illegal alien, DHS begins the removal process.

Several state governors, including New York's Andrew Cuomo and Massachusetts Deval Patrick, have said they would not cooperate with Secure Communities. In response to those governors, DHS sent the following letter to more than 40 governors last Friday.

"No agreement with the state is legally necessary for one part of the federal government to share it with another part ... . This change will have no effect on the operation of Secure Communities in your state."

The Department of Homeland Security says it has identified and deported more than 77,000 illegal aliens convicted of crimes over the last three years through the program. DHS currently has agreements with 1,400 jurisdictions including the entire Southwest.

For more information, see the Los Angeles Times.



Washington state candidate won't back down on illegals comments | McClatchy - FIGHTING LA RAZA SUPREMACY IN WASHINGTON STATE

Washington state candidate won't back down on illegals comments | McClatchy


THE DEMOCRAT PARTY – Now Party For the LA RAZA SUPREMACIST MOVEMENT to put a “cheap” labor illegal in every American job!


http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/08/democrat-party-party-controlled-by-la.html

THE DEMOCRAT PARTY - Party Controlled By LA RAZA SUPREMACIST?

THIS IS AN ARTICLE FOR MEXICAN-OWNED NEW YORK TIMES, NOW MOUTHPIECE FOR LA RAZA SUPREMACY.

THE ARTICLE WRITES ABOUT MORE DEMS SABOTAGING OUR BORDERS, JOBS AND SECURITY BY HISPANDERING TO LA RAZA’S INTERESTS. THE DEMS ARE NOW THE PARTY OF ILLEGALS DESPITE THE STAGGERING COST OF THE MEXICAN WELFARE STATE IN OUR BORDERS, JOBS TO ILLEGALS AND THE STAGGERING CRIME TIDAL WAVE THAT FOLLOWS THE LA RAZA OCCUPATION (IN CA ALONE, THE STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL DECLARES THAT NEARLY HALF OF ALL MURDERS ARE BY MEXICAN GANGS).

ALL THE DEMS FROM LA RAZA ENDORSED OBAMA, FEINSTEIN, BOXER, PELOSI, REID, A PATHEION OF CORRUPTION WHAT AMNESTY, OPEN BORDERS, NO E-VERIFY, GRINGO PAID DREAM ACTS, NO BORDERS, NO WALL, NO ENGLISH ONLY, AND NO I.D. REQUIREMENT FOR ILLEGALS TO VOTE!
THERE IS NO GREATER THREAT TO THIS NATION THAT MEXICO’S INVASION AND CREATION OF THE MEXICAN OCCUPATION IN OUR BORDERS! CALIFORNIA ALONE PUTS OUT $20 BILLION IN SOCIAL SERVICES TO ILLEGALS, $1.5 BILLION IN PRISON COSTS, AND “FREE” HOSPITAL COSTS OF $1.25 BILLION… so much for all that “cheap” Mexican labor!
*
LA RAZA FEINSTEIN & BOXER TAKE BIG BRIBES FROM BIG AG BIZ DONORS THAT DEMAND MEX SLAVE LABOR. APPROXIMATELY ONE-THIRD OF ALL “CHEAP” LABOR ILLEGAL FARM WORKERS END UP ON WELFARE, WHICH DELIGHTS THE EMPLOYERS OF ILLEGALS! PELOSI HIRES ILLEGALS TO WORK HER NAPA WINERY, AND FEINSTEIN TO WORK HER S.F. HOTEL, ONLY MILES FROM HER $16 MILLION WAR PROFITEER MANSION! IT’S NOT HARD TO CONNECT THE DOTS ON THESE SCUM POLITICIANS!

Lou Dobbs Tonight Friday, May 16, 2008
Some in Congress are once again trying to push piecemeal immigration reform through the back door. Sen. Diane Feinstein of California attached a farm worker program to the multibillion dollar Iraq war funding bill yesterday which would grant temporary amnesty to 1.3 million farm workers and their families over the next five years.

*
“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."

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

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.
*
"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!

ON THE GROWIN POWER OF “LA RAZA” FASCISM FOR MEX SUPREMACY
EMAIL THIS LINK:

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/04/history-of-mexican-fascist-party-of-la.html

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."

*
ANCHORING AN OCCUPATION WITH HEAVY LA RAZA BREEDING AT LEGALS’ EXPENSE – LOS ANGELES COUNTY, UNDER LA RAZA OCCUPATION, PUTS OUT $600 MILLION PER YEAR IN WELFARE TO PREGNANT MEXICANS THAT CROSS OUR BORDERS TO LOOT.


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

*
THESE FIGURES ON WELFARE FOR ILLEGALS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY ARE DATED. IT NOT EXCEEDS $600 MILLION PER YEAR!!! (source: Los Angeles County & JUDICIAL WATCH)
*
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1949085/posts

Now you sound off. Should the United States taxpayer be funding the National Council of La Raza? THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA FOR MEXICAN SUPREMACY
By Dave Gibson (09/17/2006) http://americandaily.com/article/15577 (THESE FIGURES ARE DATED. SEE MEXICANOCCUPATION.blogspot.com for 2011 figures of American tax money handed over to advance Mexico’s occupation!
In 2005, the Latino group known as La Raza (The Race) was given $15.2 million in U.S. federal grants.


*


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."

*
WHILE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE DEMANDED OUR BORDERS BE PROTECTED FROM MEXICAN TERRORIST AND LOOTERS, THE DEMOCRAT PARTY IS IN THE BACKROOM HAMMERING OUT MORE BIT BY BIT BY BIT AMNESTY UNTIL THERE ARE ENOUGH ILLEGALS VOTING DEM THAT OUR NATION WILL FLY THE MEXICAN FLAG…BUT THEN IF YOU VISITED CALIFORNIA YOU WILL SEE THE MEX FLAG FLY MUCH MORE THAN THE AMERICAN ALREADY!


August 13, 2011
Resistance Widens to Obama Initiative on Criminal Immigrants

By JULIA PRESTON

BOSTON — Mayor Thomas Menino, who often invokes his heritage as the grandson of an Italian immigrant, was one of the first local leaders in the country to embrace a federal program intended to improve community safety by deporting dangerous immigrant criminals.
But five years after Boston became a testing ground for the fingerprinting program, known as Secure Communities, Mr. Menino is one of the latest local officials to sour on it and seek to withdraw. He found that many immigrants the program deported from Boston, though here illegally, had committed no crimes. The mayor believed it was eroding hard-earned ties between Boston’s police force and its melting-pot mix of ethnic neighborhoods.
Last month, Mr. Menino sent a letter to the program with a blunt assessment. “Secure Communities is negatively impacting public safety,” he wrote, asking how Boston could get out.
On Aug. 5, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which runs the program, gave an equally blunt response. Its director, John Morton, announced he was canceling all agreements that 40 states and cities had signed to start Secure Communities. Their assent was not legally required, he said, and he planned to move ahead anyway to extend the program nationwide by 2013.
So Boston’s mayor, together with a growing number of other state and local officials, is stuck.
Mr. Menino’s disenchantment illustrates the widening resistance from cities and states that is troubling one of President Obama’s most far-reaching programs to toughen enforcement against illegal immigration.
Administration officials are pressing ahead, saying that information-sharing laws passed after the Sept. 11 attacks mandate the program. The clash will gain a higher profile this month, when a task force Mr. Morton named to recommend fixes is to hold public hearings in a half-dozen cities.
In an interview, Mr. Menino was alternately worried and indignant about the program.
“We need those community folks to tell us what is going on out there,” said the mayor, a Democrat who has run Boston for 18 years. As a result of Secure Communities, he said, word is out in Boston that patrol officers are working with federal agents to deport immigrants for offenses as minor as traffic violations.
“What’s happening is, we’re losing the trust of the immigrant community in Boston,” he said.
Obama administration officials vigorously defend Secure Communities, saying it is essential for identifying immigrant gang members and other violent criminals arrested by the local police, so federal agents can focus on deporting them. Officials say they are taking steps to avoid deporting foreigners detained for immigration violations, which generally are civil, not criminal, offenses.
In a July 25 letter defending his strategy, Mr. Obama said that deportations of convicted criminals over all increased by 70 percent in 2010 over 2008, while the share of noncriminals among deportees was declining. “The increase in the proportion of criminal removals demonstrates that this strategy is having a real impact,” the president wrote.
Under Secure Communities, the fingerprints of anyone booked into jail are checked against the F.B.I.’s criminal databases — long a routine police practice — and forwarded to the Department of Homeland Security to be run through its databases, which record immigration violations. If an immigration check yields a match, the immigration agency decides whether to detain the foreigner for deportation.
After several pilot projects like the one Boston started in 2006, the agency formally inaugurated Secure Communities in Houston in October 2008. It quickly expanded, with little fanfare or protest, to about 1,500 counties or other jurisdictions, about half the 3,181 jurisdictions in the nation.
But this year three governors — including Deval Patrick of Massachusetts, as well as Pat Quinn of Illinois and Andrew M. Cuomo of New York, all Democrats — announced that they wanted to pull out, as did officials in Los Angeles and San Francisco. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus and more than 200 immigrant groups have asked Mr. Obama to suspend the program.
Mr. Morton has addressed some complaints. In June, he issued new guidelines giving immigration agents broad discretion to halt deportations of noncriminal illegal immigrants. He traveled to places of dissent, including Boston, working to eliminate confusion — which he acknowledged the immigration agency had created — over whether jurisdictions could opt out.
Mr. Morton set up the task force, which includes police chiefs, immigration lawyers and representatives of immigration agent unions. Its chairman, Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum, said the group quickly set aside Mr. Morton’s assignment to deliver recommendations in 45 days. Its first hearing was this week in Dallas; others scheduled so far will be in Los Angeles; Chicago; Arlington, Va.; and Boston.
In Boston, where about 200,000 immigrants make up one-quarter of the population, Mr. Menino said he was originally attracted to Secure Communities because immigrant leaders liked the sound of it. “A person with a homicide or major crime, immigrants don’t want them in their community either,” he said.
Problems started earlier this year when advocacy groups released immigration data showing that more than half of 313 immigrants deported from Boston under the program had no criminal convictions. Many had been detained in traffic stops.
Boston’s police commissioner, Edward Davis, had been a Secure Communities supporter, because his records showed that it had removed many violent criminal immigrants from Boston jails. But he concluded from the new figures that immigration officials had misled him.
They specifically told us they would not be removing people with traffic offenses,” Mr. Davis said. “They said they wouldn’t and now they have.”
Mr. Davis said he was taken aback by the indifference of immigration officials to his questions. “This is a throwback to the bad old days of the federal agencies before 9/11, when we did not have cooperation,” he said. “It is really disconcerting that they are not at all concerned about our precarious situation with immigrant communities.”
At the end of the school year, Mr. Menino held a lunch for about 30 valedictorians graduating from Boston high schools. He discovered that six of the city’s highest-ranking students were illegal immigrants. Then he began to hear stories of immigrants snared by Secure Communities.
One was Leonardo Machado, 35, an illegal immigrant and a construction worker from Brazil who was stopped by a traffic officer because a rear brake light was out. He did not have a valid driver’s license. Immigration agents went to traffic court and led him away in ankle and foot chains.
Mr. Machado agreed to leave for Brazil, along with his Brazilian wife and 5-year-old-son, a Boston-born American citizen. “I am not fighting against the laws,” Mr. Machado said as he prepared his departure. “But I am not a criminal, and my wife and my little son are not criminals. They did not have to humiliate us like that.”
Heloisa Galvao, executive director of the Brazilian Women’s Group here, said: “People listen to these stories. Lately the people are scared of the police because they think the police are involved in immigration.”
Mr. Menino said a July 7 meeting he held with immigrant leaders had persuaded him to try to cancel the program. He did not hide his anger when immigration officials said it would continue.
“People will start to say the police are gestapos,” the mayor said. “My police aren’t gestapos. You can’t be a bureaucrat in Washington and just say, ‘We don’t care.’ ”
*
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.

*
latimes.com
Opinion
California must stem the flow of illegal immigrants
The state should go after employers who hire them, curb taxpayer-funded benefits, deploy the National Guard to help the feds at the border and penalize 'sanctuary' cities.

Illegal immigration is another matter entirely. With the state budget in tatters, millions of residents out of work and a state prison system strained by massive overcrowding, California simply cannot continue to ignore the strain that illegal immigration puts on our budget and economy. Illegal aliens cost taxpayers in our state billions of dollars each year. As economist Philip J. Romero concluded in a 2007 study, "illegal immigrants impose a 'tax' on legal California residents in the tens of billions of dollars."

*
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.

BARACK OBAMA - One of the Greatest Tragedies In American History

OBAMA’S GRAND PERFORMANCE OF “CHANGE”… or how he punked us big time!
*
OBAMA’S CRONY CAPITALISM, A LOVE STORY BETWEEN THE ACTOR PRESIDENT, AND HIS BANKSTER DONORS!

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).
*

THERE IS A REASON WHY THE BANKSTERS PILED MONEY ON OBAMA, AND WHEY THE WEALTHY AND LA RAZA WANT TO BUY HIM FOUR MORE YEARS OF CORRUPTION, AND THE TRANSFER OF WHAT’S LEFT OF THE ECONOMY INTO WALL ST’S HANDS!
*
OBAMA’S AGENDA: … “but to the fact that those who can afford to buy influence are rewriting the rules so they can cut themselves progressively larger slices of the American pie while paying less of their fair share for it.”
*
AS WE HAVE WITNESSED GO LIMP AT THE NOD OF HIS BANKSTER DONORS, OR ANY SPECIAL INTERESTS, MEXICO OR MUSLIM DICTATORS… CAN YOU EVEN IMAGINE HIM HAVING THE BALLS TO SAY:

“He cites the famous speech in 1936 at Madison Square Garden, when Roosevelt declared, “Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred.”
“I’m not here to punish banks!” Barack Obama from the floor of the Senate.
*
Instead of indicting the people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it. He never explained that decision to the public—a failure in storytelling as extraordinary as the failure in judgment behind it.”
*
OBAMA DOES HAVE A JOB PLAN! IT’S CALLED OPEN BORDERS, SABOTAGE OF E-VERIFY, CONTINUED NON-ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS PROHIBITING THE EMPLOYMENT OF ILLEGALS, LEGAL HARASSMENTS OF STATES LIKE ARIZONA AND ALABAMA ATTEMPTING TO LIMIT LA RAZA OCCUPATION, AND INFESTING HIS ADMIN WITH LA RAZA SUPREMACIST, LIKE SEC. OF LABOR HILDA SOLIS (LA RAZA).
Obama proposed an economic stimulus policy tailored to boosting corporate profitability, not jobs, and rejected any direct job creation by the federal government.
*
“Thus he writes that no administration official would “explain why saving the banks was such a priority, when saving the homes the banks were foreclosing didn’t seem to be.”

OBAMA AND HIS BANKSTERS’ ASSAULT ON AMERICAN HOME OWNERS:

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/06/assault-on-america-by-obama-his.html

As part of the bank bailout, the Treasury Department was given $46 billion to spend on keeping homeowners in their houses; to date, the agency has spent about $1.85 billion.
*
They also say programs to curb foreclosure are voluntary, so they are limited in how far they can push mortgage servicers and investors, who often make more from foreclosures than from offering aid.

*
REALITY BEHIND OBAMA’S CON JOBS AND PERFORMANCES:
This is only because he refuses to take seriously what Obama himself has said in the course of the deficit talks: that he supports massive cuts in entitlement programs, including Social Security, and that he supports the most modest of tax increases on the wealthy in order to provide a patina of “fairness” and “shared sacrifice,” without materially affecting the super-rich.
THE CON JOB
He writes: “Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography…”

*
Once again: Why Obama won’t—and can’t—be Roosevelt
By Patrick Martin
13 August 2011
A lengthy commentary published August 7 in the Sunday Review section of the New York Times makes many criticisms of the policies of President Barack Obama, but collapses in the face of the most vital and compelling issue: which class interests the Obama administration serves.
Under the headline, “What Happened to Obama?” Drew Westen, a professor of psychology at Emory University, expresses the disillusionment of many liberal supporters of Obama, who believed that the election of the first African-American president represented a watershed and an opportunity to revive the liberal reform policies associated with Roosevelt’s New Deal and the Great Society measures of the 1960s.
While couched in the language of post-modernism—Westen complains about Obama’s failure to “tell a story” or provide a compelling “counternarrative” to the Republican ultra-right—the criticisms are sharper than anything that has appeared recently in the Times, especially after the departure of two of the newspaper’s more liberal columnists, Bob Herbert and Frank Rich.
Westen focuses his critique especially on Obama’s refusal to denounce those responsible for the 2008 financial collapse—the bankers and billionaire speculators—and to promote an aggressively liberal alternative to the bank bailout initiated in the final months of the Bush administration and then expanded after the Democratic administration took over.
Pinning the blame for the crisis on the financial elite “would have made clear that the president understood that the American people had given Democrats the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress to fix the mess the Republicans and Wall Street had made of the country, and that this would not be a power-sharing arrangement,” he argues.
“It would have made clear that the problem wasn’t tax-and-spend liberalism or the deficit--a deficit that didn’t exist until George W. Bush gave nearly $2 trillion in tax breaks largely to the wealthiest Americans and squandered $1 trillion in two wars. And perhaps most important, it would have offered a clear, compelling alternative to the dominant narrative of the right, that our problem is not due to spending on things like the pensions of firefighters, but to the fact that those who can afford to buy influence are rewriting the rules so they can cut themselves progressively larger slices of the American pie while paying less of their fair share for it.”
Westen contrasts Obama’s failure to the actions and words of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose New Deal policies used government resources to “put Americans directly to work,” and who made a regular display of hostility to the big bankers, and vice versa. He cites the famous speech in 1936 at Madison Square Garden, when Roosevelt declared, “Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me--and I welcome their hatred.”
While Roosevelt was himself just as committed to the capitalist system as his Wall Street foes, he clearly understood that in order to save capitalism, it was necessary to chastise the capitalists publicly, to appease popular anger, and to place some constraints on their operations in order to prevent a recurrence of the financial manipulations that produced the 1929 stock market crash.
Westen bemoans Obama’s refusal to follow this example. He writes: “In contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. Instead of indicting the people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it. He never explained that decision to the public—a failure in storytelling as extraordinary as the failure in judgment behind it.”
This criticism assumes, of course, that Obama could have provided a credible explanation for his decision to put the lunatics in charge of the capitalist asylum—including, most obviously, his selection of Timothy Geithner, head of the New York Federal Reserve during the 2008 crash and one of three principal organizers of the bank bailout, as his secretary of the treasury. Likewise, he chose to renominate Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke, another key architect of the bailout, for a new four-year term.
More importantly, Obama chose to continue the bailout of the banks begun by Geithner, Bernanke and Bush’s treasury secretary, Henry Paulson, and then to greatly expand it. Every aspect of the new administration’s financial and economic policy was driven by the determination to restore solvency to the investment banks, stock traders and hedge funds, at the expense of the working class.
Obama proposed an economic stimulus policy tailored to boosting corporate profitability, not jobs, and rejected any direct job creation by the federal government. After blocking efforts to limit executive pay at the bailed-out banks, the president demanded a 50 percent wage cut for newly hired auto workers as the price of bailing out General Motors and Chrysler. And his health care “reform” was driven by cost-cutting, not the extension of coverage to the uninsured.
Westen admits that these policies led to widespread confusion and then disillusionment among those voters who had expected a progressive alternative from Obama, and opened the way for the ultra-right Tea Party movement to divert popular discontent and gain influence. But he attributes this to Obama’s failure to motivate his policies, not to the objective content of the policies themselves. Thus he writes that no administration official would “explain why saving the banks was such a priority, when saving the homes the banks were foreclosing didn’t seem to be.”
Such a formulation suggests that such an explanation was possible; in other words, that Obama was pursuing a policy that was ultimately in the interests of working people, but failed to communicate it properly. The truth is far different: Obama’s policies were determined solely by the interests of the banks and corporations, and it proved impossible for him to disguise this fact from the working class. The Madison Avenue techniques and rhetoric of “hope” and “change” employed during the 2008 presidential campaign proved inadequate for gulling the masses indefinitely in the face of continued double-digit unemployment and declining living standards.
Westen concludes by effectively throwing up his hands over the recent confrontation between the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and the Obama administration over raising the federal debt ceiling and cutting the federal deficit. He describes the deficit debate as divorced from the real concerns of the American people about jobs and the ongoing economic slump, but expresses bewilderment about Obama’s role.
“Like most Americans, at this point,” he concludes, “I have no idea what Barack Obama—and by extension the party he leads—believes on virtually any issue.” This is only because he refuses to take seriously what Obama himself has said in the course of the deficit talks: that he supports massive cuts in entitlement programs, including Social Security, and that he supports the most modest of tax increases on the wealthy in order to provide a patina of “fairness” and “shared sacrifice,” without materially affecting the super-rich.
In attempting to explain why Obama made the decisions he did, however, Westen reduces great historical questions to the small change of personality and temperament, citing “lack of experience and a character defect that might not have been so debilitating at some other time in history.”
He writes: “Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president, having never run a business or a state; that he had a singularly unremarkable career as a law professor, publishing nothing in 12 years at the University of Chicago other than an autobiography…”
These aspects of Obama’s biography are significant, but only in demonstrating that his elevation to the presidency was not the result of his personal achievements, but rather a decision by powerful sections of the ruling elite that a change in image and personnel was needed, along with some adjustments in foreign policy after the disasters of the Bush years, and a young African-American Democrat with conservative and solidly pro-capitalist loyalties would fit the bill.
While Westen faults Obama for his failure to indict the Wall Street criminals for causing the 2008 crash, it was precisely his behavior during those critical weeks that reassured the ruling elite that he could be entrusted with the presidency. While Republican John McCain improvised wildly—suspending his campaign, attempting to cancel the first debate, then reversing himself—and congressional Republicans precipitated a stock market collapse by initially voting down the bailout bill, Obama lined up 100 percent behind the Bush administration and the Federal Reserve in mobilizing every possible federal resource to save the banks and speculators.
September 2008 was Obama’s final audition for the White House, and he passed with flying colors. Why should anyone expect anything different from his presidency?
Westen ends his lament with a litany of complaints about the growing economic inequality in America, where “400 people control more of the wealth than 150 million of their fellow Americans… the average middle-class family has seen its income stagnate over the last 30 years while the richest 1 percent has seen its income rise astronomically… we cut the fixed incomes of our parents and grandparents so hedge fund managers can keep their 15 percent tax rates.”
Obama’s failure to challenge this social reality is not a personal one, or the result of individual policy choices. It rather is an objectively determined expression of very different circumstances from those that prevailed when Franklin Roosevelt was in the White House. The major difference is the long-term historical decline of American capitalism.
When Roosevelt took office, the economic conditions were even more dire than those confronting Obama in January 2009, but even in the depths of the Great Depression the United States was still the most powerful capitalist nation, with enormous economic reserves and industrial might. Today, however, the United States is a declining power, with a national debt approaching $17 trillion, an enormous negative balance of trade, and a shrinking industrial base.
Obama’s failure to offer a New Deal or echo the reformist rhetoric of FDR is not merely the product of his failure of imagination. It is an expression of the un-viability of such a policy today and the lack of support for it in the American ruling elite.
In the 1930s, fearful of the recent example of the Russian Revolution, facing immense upheavals from the American working class, the US capitalist class could afford to part with a relatively small portion of its vast wealth to stave off social and political disaster. Today it can neither afford nor envision such a policy. That makes a revolutionary settling of accounts by the American working class all the more necessary and historically inevitable.

*
WHAT IS OBAMA? A WALL ST. OWNED PERFORMER THAT WORKS HARD FOR HIS LA RAZA “THE RACE” PARTY BASE OF ILLEGALS!

WHAT’S WRONG WITH OBAMA?
What's wrong with Obama?
The President's quest for re-election leaves progressives bitterly disillusioned
By Steve Breyman
Published 12:00 a.m., Sunday, August 7, 2011
Progressives are scratching their heads over the seemingly inexplicable political behavior of President Barack Obama.
Supporters are flabbergasted by the President's playbook. Why does he roll over so easily?
How come he let Wall Street off the hook? Why does he leave Main Street to suffer?
Answer: To do otherwise might -- he thinks -- endanger his political future.
Re-election is the usual top priority of national politicians. The President's politics and policies are carefully calculated to appeal to middle-of-the-roaders and swing voters.
The substance of an Obama policy is much less important than the political signals it sends, the flanks it covers and the powerful constituencies it serves. Let's look at some particulars.
Foreign policy:
Obama's opposition to the war in Iraq? A position consonant with public opinion, and with the activist base of his party. Support for the war in Afghanistan? Brilliant flank covering. Obama took away the Republicans' electoral advantage on national security by promising to wage the war more fiercely than George Bush, escalating drone strikes in Pakistan and intensifying covert interventions in Yemen and Somalia.
The aim is to actively wage the War on Terror and reduce the threat to "the homeland" so as to prevent tragedy on his watch. Even if something bad happens between now and November 2012, this is the President who killed Osama bin Laden.
Libya?
Not a single American death, a few billions down the drain, a Libyan opposition in his debt, a Republican opposition unwilling to really challenge him, a novel interpretation of the War Powers Act.
What's not to like from the re-election perspective? Keep your eyes on the prize.
Israel/Palestine?
Netanyahu has been a thorn is Obama's side but worry not. Beyond the issue of illegal settlements, Obama's loyalty to the Israeli right wing appears boundless.
Why? Zionist campaign contributions.
Push the corporate domination schemes also known as "free trade agreements?" Check.
Unprecedented persecution of whistle-blowers ("worse than Nixon" thinks John Dean)? Check.
More money for the nuclear weapons complex? A small price to pay for New START. Another giant defense budget? No problem, we'll cut it in the second term.
Domestic policy:
The debt ceiling "deal"? Does anyone to the left of Michele Bachmann believe it's in the interest of working families?
Got civil liberties? Who cares?
Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare on the chopping block? If slashing benefits for granny will confer political advantage, then so be it. Warehousing millions in jails and prisons? Beats having to find jobs for them.
Immigration reform? Can't do it without the Republicans.
Sustainable agriculture? Don't be a "professional leftist;" only GMOs, plus a lot of oil, crop subsidies, and petrochemicals can feed the world.
Nuclear energy? Fukushima can't happen here.
Clean coal? It's not an oxymoron, it's the key to votes in West Virginia. Fracking? Natural gas is the "bridge" to a green energy future.
Offshore oil drilling? BP's Gulf geyser was a tough couple of months. But we innovated a new regulatory agency, and can now move forward.
Health care reform? The greatest accomplishment of the administration. Medicare for all is simply not the American way, and pharmaceutical and insurance companies were OK with it.
Avoidance of initiatives that look like "black politics"? Check.
Lousy mortgage adjustment program? At least the big banks were saved.
Bush tax cuts? We extended those. A Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that Republicans hate? Appoint a "Jeopardy" champion to run it. High unemployment? Jobs programs are so 1930s.
The politics of re-election:
Obama might lack Bill Clinton's folksiness; he does not lack his political instincts. Triangulation places Obama in the New Center, and much further to the political right than a generation ago. Centrism enables Obama to vacuum up campaign cash at record pace.
Again, politicians will generally do what they think it takes to get re-elected; Obama is no different. This President believes you hit the political sweet spot by ignoring your base. And he knows that you don't succeed in national politics by biting the hands that feed you.
What would it take for Obama to change?
A massive sustained mobilization of angry citizens demanding radical change? Maybe.
In the meantime? Campaign cash. Lots of it.
Steve Breyman teaches at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. His email address is breyms@rpi.edu.
*
Obama campaign raises record sums from the wealthy
By Patrick Martin
15 July 2011
Proving that President Obama is the first choice of Wall Street and the American super-rich, his reelection campaign announced Wednesday that it had broken all previous records for fundraising, raking in $86 million during the second quarter of this year.
The $86 million total dwarfed the previous record for presidential reelection fundraising, the $50 million raised by George W. Bush in the third quarter of 2003. It was far above the $60 million target set by Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina.
Obama for America, the official name of the reelection effort, raised $47 million, while the Democratic National Committee collected $38 million, largely from fundraising events featuring the president, where big donors are allowed to give up to $30,800 apiece. Individual donations to Obama for America are limited under federal election laws to a maximum of $5,000.
By comparison, the leading Republican fundraiser, former Massachusetts governor and investment banker Mitt Romney, raised $18.25 million in the April-June quarter. The total raised by all the Republican presidential hopefuls who have filed reports with the Federal Election Commission came to only $36 million, less than half Obama’s haul.
The Obama reelection campaign will be the most lavishly funded in American history. It is expected to dwarf the $745 million Obama raised in 2008, and could top the $1 billion mark. Only two decades ago, $20 million was sufficient to finance a full-scale presidential campaign.
According to press accounts, the Obama campaign has already opened 60 offices in various states around the country, nearly a year and a half before Election Day, and hired hundreds of full-time operatives.
The vast fund-raising comes in two relatively distinct components: over half a million small donors, reflecting lingering illusions in Obama in sections of the population; and large donors, from the wealthy and the most affluent sections of the upper-middle class.
A total of 552,462 individuals gave money during the second quarter, including 260,000 who made no donations during the 2008 campaign. Of these, 98 percent were of $250 or less, with an average contribution of $69. Based on that average, the small donations accounted for less than half the total raised, about $37 million.
The remainder, about $49 million, came in large-dollar contributions, including thousands who gave the maximum of $35,800—$30,800 to the DNC and $5,000 to Obama for America.
The Washington Post noted, “Much of the tens of millions Obama raised through the Democratic National Committee came from big fundraising events that the president attended throughout the spring. Donors to the DNC can give up to $30,800, and many of those who made the maximum contribution got to attend intimate, invitation-only dinners at which the president took their questions behind closed doors.”
Moreover, the total number of small donors was deliberately inflated by a promotion run by the campaign in which anyone who gave as little as $5 was entered into a lottery for a dinner with Obama and Vice President Biden.
The Obama campaign, clearly concerned about releasing information that would demonstrate corporate America’s enthusiasm for the president’s reelection, declined to say how much Obama for America raised from large donors. These numbers will be buried in the 15,000-page report the campaign files Friday with the FEC.
The report to the FEC will also detail the amount raised by “bundlers,” those who solicit donations from a group of individuals and reach a total set by the campaign, of $350,000 or more, as well as a group called Gen44, consisting of individuals younger than 40 who raise $100,000 or more.
While the 2008 Obama campaign was regularly described as fueled by small donors, the actual figures demonstrate the opposite: Obama did indeed raise $180 million from that source, but that came to less than one-quarter of his overall fundraising. Nearly half of his total—and the bulk of the early money, critical to sustaining his campaign against the initial frontrunner, Hillary Clinton—came from big donors.
Some details of the wooing of big-ticket donors were reported in the Washington press. The Post reported June 29, “Campaign officials are working to broaden Obama’s network of ‘bundlers,’ the well-connected rainmakers tasked with soliciting big checks from wealthy donors, while seeking to preserve the aura of a grass-roots movement by luring back the kind of small Internet donations that helped shatter fundraising records four years ago. Obama has attended 28 fundraisers from coast to coast—a pace that could continue, or even accelerate, over the next several months.”
The Post noted that White House Chief of Staff William Daley, former vice chairman of JP Morgan Chase “has huddled in recent weeks over breakfasts and dinners with business leaders and Wall Street financiers in Chicago, New York and Washington,” while campaign manager Messina “made his pitch during at least two meetings in Manhattan with Wall Street executives.”
Politico described one Wall Street fundraising dinner held at Daniel, a top-drawer restaurant on Manhattan’s Upper East Side: “The tables were filled with moneymen like Marc Lasry, the billionaire founder of the hedge fund Avenue Capital; Robert Wolf, the chief executive of UBS Group Americas; and Mark T. Gallogly, a co-founder of Centerbridge Partners.”
While noting the absence of Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase and Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs, this was said to be by mutual agreement—an effort to avoid photographs of the president shaking hands with the CEOs of the largest recipients of federal bailouts.
“While Wall Street executives still complain about the president’s name-calling and pressure for a regulatory overhaul,” Politico observed cynically, “many say privately that his bark has been worse than his bite.”
The event raised $2.3 million in a single evening, far more than the projected $1.5 million. Politico concluded that “Obama’s campaign set a goal of getting 400 individuals to each help raise $350,000 by year’s end. That may sound like a tall order—especially with much of Wall Street on the sidelines—but early indications suggest the effort is on track, according to people involved in the campaign.”
*
More than 5 million households had their wealth wiped out since 2005
By Andre Damon
28 July 2011
The typical US household lost 28 percent of its wealth during the economic crisis, with one third of these being totally wiped out, according to a recent analysis of Census Bureau data carried out by the Pew Research Center, “Wealth Gaps Rise to Record Highs Between Whites, Blacks and Hispanics”.
While the study headlines racial disparities, the most striking findings concern the general impoverishment of all sections of the population. The percent of US households who have a net worth of zero dollars or below—meaning they have more debts than assets—grew from 15 percent in 2005, to 20 percent in 2009. This means that 5.6 million households, or about 15 million people, had their wealth totally wiped out during the first part of the economic downturn. These figures come from an analysis of Census Bureau survey data for 2005 and 2009.
The study found that, after adjusting for inflation, the median wealth of US households fell from $96,894 in 2005 to $70,000 in 2009, a drop of 28 percent. The majority of this is attributable to the precipitous fall in real estate values, by about 30 percent between 2006 and 2009 and even more since.
The fall in home values has been compounded by falling wages. Between 2005 and 2009, workers’ average hourly earnings fell, on an inflation-adjusted basis, by 5 percent, according to the Labor Department.
*
UNDER OBAMA, THE RICH GET RICHER, AND JOBS GO TO HIS LA RAZA PARTY BASE!
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/07/obamanomics-wall-st-profits-soar-so.html
*
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/07/why-rich-and-illegals-vow-to-reelect.html
*
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/05/obamas-regulatory-reform-sham-continues.html
*

Obama's Regulatory Reform Sham Continues
By Lurita Doan
5/30/2011

President Obama's much-praised efforts at regulatory reform remain a sham. This past week, while the President traveled overseas, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in conjunction with rolled out its review of proposed changes to government regulations.
The reform will affect at least 30 federal agencies and is designed to "always consider costs and ways to reduce burdens for American businesses when developing rules; expand opportunities for public participation and public comment; and ensure that regulations are driven by real science." An elegant White House web page, accompanied by an online, explanatory video, supported by an in-person appearances from OMB Director Jacob Lew and Cass Sunstein, and countless, premature victory laps around Washington cannot disguise the emptiness of many of the proposed reforms. For, what has been released is just the plan for the plan.
*
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 whenBarrack 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.

*
Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses

BY TIMOTHY P CARNEY


Editorial Reviews
Obama Is Making You Poorer—But Who’s Getting Rich?
Goldman Sachs, GE, Pfizer, the United Auto Workers—the same “special interests” Barack Obama was supposed to chase from the temple—are profiting handsomely from Obama’s Big Government policies that crush taxpayers, small businesses, and consumers. In Obamanomics, investigative reporter Timothy P. Carney digs up the dirt the mainstream media ignores and the White House wishes you wouldn’t see. Rather than Hope and Change, Obama is delivering corporate socialism to America, all while claiming he’s battling corporate America. It’s corporate welfare and regulatory robbery—it’s Obamanomics.
Congressman Ron Paul says, “Every libertarian and free-market conservative needs to read Obamanomics.” And Johan Goldberg, columnist and bestselling author says, “Obamanomics is conservative muckraking at its best and an indispensable field guide to the Obama years.”
If you’ve wondered what’s happening to America, as the federal government swallows up the financial sector, the auto industry, and healthcare, and enacts deficit exploding “stimulus packages,” this book makes it all clear—it’s a big scam. Ultimately, Obamanomics boils down to this: every time government gets bigger, somebody’s getting rich, and those somebodies are friends of Barack. This book names the names—and it will make your blood boil.
*
FROM JUDICIAL WATCH

Shaping up to be the most corrupt
administration in American history:
• Obama’s team: Not the “best of the Washington insiders,” as the liberal media style them, but rather, a dysfunctional and dangerous conglomerate of business-as-usual cronies and hacks
• In the first two weeks alone of his infant administration, Obama had made no fewer than 17 exceptions to his “no-lobbyist” rule
• Why the fact that the massive infusion of union dues into his campaign treasury didn’t trouble him in the least reveals Obama’s credibility as a reformer
• The lack of unprecedented pace of withdrawals and botched appointments -- and how getting through the confirmation process was no guarantee of ethical cleanliness or competence, even as Obama’s cheerleaders were glorifying the Greatest Transition in World History
• Inconsistency: How Obama, erstwhile critic of the campaign finance practice known as “bundling,” happily accepted more than $350,000 in bundled contributions from billionaire hedge-fund managers
• How Obama broke his transparency pledge with the very first bill he signed into law -- helping make hostility to transparency is a running thread through Obama’s cabinet
• Michelle Obama: Beneath the cultured pearls, sleeveless designer dresses, and eyelashes applied by her full-time makeup artist, is a hardball Chicago politico
• Joe Biden: It’s not just that he lies, it’s that he lies so well that you think he really believes the stuff he makes up
• Treasury Secretary Geithner: His ineptness and epic blundering -- including how he nearly caused the collapse of the dollar in international trade with a single remark
• The appalling story of Technology Czar Vivek Kundra, the convicted shoplifter in charge of the entire federal government’s information security infrastructure
• Obama’s “Porker of the Month” Transportation Secretary, Roy LaHood: An earmark-addicted influence peddler born and raised on the politics of pay-to-play
• SEIU: Responsible for installing a cabal of hand-chosen officers who exploited their cash-infused fiefdoms for personal gain and presided over rigged elections -- in the process, becoming all that they had professed to stand against as representatives of the downtrodden worker
• How Obama lied on his “Fight the Smears” campaign website when he claimed that he “never organized with ACORN”
• ACORN: How the profound threat the group poses is not merely ideological or economic -- it’s electoral
• ACORN’s own internal review of shady money transfers among its web of affiliates: How it underscores concerns that conservatives have long raised about the organization
• Liar, liar, pantsuit on fire: How Hillary Clinton has already trampled upon her promise not to let her husband’s financial dealings sway her decisions as Secretary of State
• How even a few principled progressives are finally beginning to question the cult of Obama -- even as Obama sycophants in the mainstream media continue to celebrate his “hipness” and “swagga”

*
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2011/06/assault-on-america-by-obama-his.html

As part of the bank bailout, the Treasury Department was given $46 billion to spend on keeping homeowners in their houses; to date, the agency has spent about $1.85 billion.
*
They also say programs to curb foreclosure are voluntary, so they are limited in how far they can push mortgage servicers and investors, who often make more from foreclosures than from offering aid.
*
NEW YORK TIMES
June 4, 2011
For the Jobless, Little U.S. Help on Foreclosure
By ANDREW MARTIN
The Obama administration’s main program to keep distressed homeowners from falling into foreclosure has been aimed at those who took out subprime loans or other risky mortgages during the heady days of the housing boom. But these days, the primary cause of foreclosures is unemployment.
As a result, there is a mismatch between the homeowner program’s design and the country’s economic realities — and a new round of finger-pointing about how best to fix it.
The administration’s housing effort does include programs to help unemployed homeowners, but they have been plagued by delays, dubious benefits and abysmal participation. For example, a Treasury Department effort started in early 2010 allows the jobless to postpone mortgage payments for three months, but the average length of unemployment is now nine months. As of March 31, there were only 7,397 participants.
“So far, I think the public record will show that programs to help unemployed homeowners have not been very successful,” said Jeffrey C. Fuhrer, an executive vice president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
Data released last week suggests that the administration’s task is only growing more difficult as the problems created by unemployment and housing persist. New job growth in May was anemic, and unemployment inched up to 9.1 percent, the Labor Department reported Friday.
Earlier in the week, a widely watched index found that housing prices had dropped to their lowest level in nearly a decade. And while the rate of homes falling into foreclosure has slowed, the reason is delays in processing foreclosures, not a housing recovery, according to RealtyTrac, a company that tracks foreclosures. There were 219,258 foreclosure filings in April, the latest month available.
Critics of the Obama administration’s approach to preventing foreclosures have pressed for two years to get officials to focus more of their attention on unemployed homeowners, with meager results. As part of the bank bailout, the Treasury Department was given $46 billion to spend on keeping homeowners in their houses; to date, the agency has spent about $1.85 billion.
Morris A. Davis, a former Federal Reserve economist, estimates that as many as a million homeowners slipped into foreclosure because of insufficient help for the unemployed.
“The money was there and they didn’t spend it,” said Mr. Davis, an associate real estate professor at the University of Wisconsin. “I don’t mean to sound outraged, but I am pretty outraged.”
Administration officials said their programs have had a positive impact, albeit not as large as they had hoped. But they say that the problems of unemployment and negative equity on homes are not easily solved. They also say programs to curb foreclosure are voluntary, so they are limited in how far they can push mortgage servicers and investors, who often make more from foreclosures than from offering aid.
“We are trying to be careful in designing programs that at the end of the day aren’t just about spending money but getting people back on their feet,” said James Parrott, a senior adviser at the White House’s National Economic Council.
President Obama has been scrambling to curb the number of foreclosures ever since he arrived at the White House.
At the start of 2009, the administration announced its primary foreclosure prevention initiative, the Home Affordable Modification Program. It provides incentives to banks to modify mortgages, reducing monthly payments for eligible homeowners.
The administration said the program would help three million to four million homeowners, but so far, only 670,000 homeowners have received permanent modifications. In addition, the program was primarily meant for homeowners with risky mortgages; jobless owners are often ineligible because some payment, albeit reduced, is required.
Administration officials said the program was helping homeowners whose income had been reduced. Sixty-one percent of homeowners who received permanent modifications listed “curtailment of income” as their reason for applying, though it is not known how many of them are unemployed or simply had their hours or pay reduced.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development received $1 billion as part of the financial regulatory reforms that passed last year to help unemployed homeowners. That money will be used to provide government loans to unemployed homeowners for up to 24 months.
Though the program was announced last fall, so far applications are being accepted in only five states; the others are delayed because of “implementation challenges,” a HUD spokeswoman said.
Critics do acknowledge one bright spot — the Hardest Hit Fund, a federal program that will provide $7.6 billion so that some states can administer their own programs for struggling homeowners. Of that, 70 percent will be directed to unemployed homeowners, said Andrea Risotto, a Treasury spokeswoman.
So far, $455 million has been spent. Over the last several years, academics, housing groups and government economists offered proposals to Treasury officials to help the unemployed avoid foreclosure.
One, which Mr. Fuhrer of the Boston Fed helped write, called on the government to provide loans, or grants, to unemployed or underemployed homeowners to make up for the amount of income they lost. The loan would have to be repaid once the homeowner found a new job.
Another proposal, by a non-profit group called the PICO National Network, a coalition of faith-based community organizations, would have allowed unemployed homeowners to postpone much or all of their mortgage payments for a year or more.
But administration officials have balked, arguing that regulators and “other industry stakeholders expressed strong reservations” about allowing unemployed homeowners to extend payments for longer terms, according to a Dec. 23 letter that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner sent to Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts, who had pressed for measures that would more directly aid the unemployed.
The debate is playing out on the sidelines of partisan Washington politics, since Republican lawmakers have made clear they would like to get rid of anti-foreclosure programs altogether, and would block any new programs. Instead, it is setting homeowner advocates against administration officials over how to spend money already appropriated.
Administration officials maintain that the decision on whether to offer mortgage relief to homeowners ultimately was up to mortgage servicers and investors, not the government, which can provide incentives but not compel action.
“We as an administration have limited levers,” Mr. Parrot said. “We can push them on the margins.”
But Lewis Finfer, a PICO organizer, said he could not understand why the administration had not been more receptive given the extent of unemployment.
“We have a program to deal with this,” he said.
Many unemployed or underemployed homeowners said they would welcome an extended break in mortgage payments.
Mary Ernest, 51, of Blackstone, Mass., lost her job as a school aide and said she had been “reduced to begging, more or less,” to keep her home. Adam Heyman, 41, of Chelsea, Mass., scraped together enough money to pay the mortgage on his condominium for about 18 months. Though he finally got another full-time job, his bank had already foreclosed on his condo.
“If I had a way to slow down the process or stop it for a while, that would have been nice,” Mr. Heyman said, adding, “Now I can certainly afford to pay.”
*
OBAMA’S BANKSTER DONORS DOIN’ GOOD! PROFITS UP! FORECLOSURES UP! BANK NO REGULATION GUARANTEED! BAILOUTS FOR BUYOUTS…. And not a single bankster donor in prison!

WHAT DID THE BANKSTERS KNOW ABOUT OUR ACTOR OBAMA THAT WE DIDN’T KNOW?
Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).
*
“Obama's rhetoric covered the whole financial industry, but the key changes will affect only a few high-profile players, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., while sparing investment banks like Goldman Sachs Group Inc.”
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Thursday, July 9, 2009
And Harvard economics professor JEFFREY MIRON will weigh in on the state of the U.S. economy—and why the only plausible argument for bailing out banks crumbles on close examination.
*
"There is a populist and conservative revolt against Wall Street and financial elites, Congress and government," Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg warned in an analysis this week. "Democrats and President Obama are seen as more interested in bailing out Wall Street than helping Main Street."




KISSING SAUDI ASS - SOMETHING THE CLINTONS, BUSH CRIME FAMILY AND OBAMA DO! Ex-White House counter-terror chief charges CIA shielded 9/11 hijackers

Ex-White House counter-terror chief charges CIA shielded 9/11 hijackers