Saturday, December 15, 2018

WHY MEXICO ENDORSED THE OPEN BORDERS CON MAN BETO O'ROURKE

THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR BETO IN HIS LOSING BID FOR THE SENATE 

WERE ILLEGALS ALONG THE TEXAS NARCOMEX BORDER! GUESS THAT MAKES 

HIM QUALIFIED TO LEAD THE LA RAZA SUPREMACY GLOBALIST PARTY FOR 

WIDER OPEN BORDERS!



  • In 2018, a volunteer for the Beto campaign urged followers to transport undocumented aliens to the polls.




Beto: 2020 Will Be ‘Mother of All Tests’ for Democracy



Beto O'Rourke
The Associated Press
832
2:34

Saying “there’s never been a darker moment” in America in his lifetime, Rep. Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke (D-TX), a potential 2020 presidential candidate, said on Friday that President Donald Trump’s reelection campaign will be the “mother of all tests for this democracy.”

Speaking at a town hall event in El Paso, Texas, O’Rourke deflected questions about whether he will run for president, saying the 2020 questions were “interesting, speculative” questions that he wanted to “treat with respect since this is an official town hall that is focused on my responsibilities to you as a member of Congress.”
He said whoever runs against Trump in 2020 “may very well be running against somebody who has not the slightest respect for our norms, traditions, our institutions, civility, dignity, decency in public life.”
“This is the test, this is the mother of all tests for this democracy–whether we can run a campaign and have candidates at all levels from school board to the White House,” O’Rourke added before saying that though he is hopeful that “something good is going to come out of all this at the end of the day,” there has “never been a darker moment, at least in my lifetime, in this country.”
He added that “there’s never been a greater, more open question about rule of law, about whether our democracy can sustain the kind of attacks on our institutions… on our press, our courts, this cynical display of power of 5,400 troops sent to the border in the lead up to the midterm elections.”
O’Rourke even suggested that the Trump administration could have planned crowd control exercises in El Paso, Texas, to suppress his voters in 2018.
The failed Senate candidate spoke about the “crowd control exercises proposed in El Paso by the Border Patrol on election day — in this city that had the greatest turnout trying to perhaps suppress that turnout.”
“Who knows. You never want to ascribe motive, but it’s hard to understand why you would pick that day of all days,” he said, adding that he has lived in the El Paso area for most of his life and did not understand “the need for doing that.”
O’Rourke blasted Trump for saying “anything you want to from the highest perch in power” that had been revered for 242 years and said the true test in 2020 will be whether Democrats can campaign on issues against Trump instead of going for the most “bast impulses, instincts among us.”
He said the challenge in 2020 will be to not “succumb to the smallness, pettiness, and divisiveness” that defines so much of the national conversation under Trump.

The Real Beto O’Rourke



Although he said both before and after losing the Senate race in Texas to Ted Cruz that he had no plan to run for office in 2020, Robert Francis “Beto” O’Rourke recently left the door wide open. And now he has met with Obama at his home in Washington. In that context, I sent a list of questions to his press spokeswoman, but never received an answer. 
The first question dealt with whether O'Rourke has any Hispanic heritage, or whether, as he is in truth, fourth-generation Irish. As a child living in El Paso, O'Rourke was given the nickname "Beto," which is a common Hispanic moniker for Roberto, in order to delineate between him and his maternal grandfather, Robert Williams. When O'Rourke attended Columbia in New York he used "Rob," but his father, then El Paso County Judge Pat O'Rourke, suggested that he once again use "Beto" to increase his chance of winning political office in the heavily Hispanic city of El Paso, which Robert readily agreed to do. 
He graduated from Columbia in 1995, and later that month was arrested for burglary at UTEP (the University of Texas El Paso) along with two others. He has previously explained it as a prank from his college years. I asked his spokeswoman if it was true he had already graduated from Columbia and never attended UTEP; what the purpose of the burglary was; what his relationship with Jose Prieto, Jr. and Jacob Barowsky whom he was arrested with was, and where they were located today. I received no response.   
Concerning O'Rourke's 1998 DWI, I asked his spokeswoman why he never admitted the incident also involved a hit and run until the press obtained the arrest reports last August. O'Rourke now claims it was not a hit and run, but I asked the spokeswoman if the arresting officer and a witness who reportedly chased him were lying after O'Rourke, going at an excessive rate of speed, struck a truck on I-10 west of El Paso and ended up on the other side of the Interstate, and then fled. Again no response.
O'Rourke also now claims that he recently contacted a passenger who was with him that night who verified he did not leave the scene, but has not said who she is. I received no response. I also asked why none of the reports during O'Rourke's arrest and processing mentioned another passenger, but did mention another passenger with the witness who pursued and stopped him. Again, no response.  And I asked why O'Rourke told the police he had only two beers, when his high intoxication level showed he had consumed at least six. 
About his campaign, I asked why he had claimed that the record of more than 70 million dollars raised had mostly come from Texas, when in reality less than a third did, while a staggering 75 percent came from ActBlue, the leftist fundraising group. I asked why O'Rourke promised not to run a negative campaign, but he eventually ran some highly inflammatory and personal attacks ads against Ted Cruz.
Concerning President Trump, on a number of occasions, O'Rourke has said he supports impeachment. I asked if he still supports impeachment and based on what evidence. I also asked the spokeswoman whether, if elected, his previous positions would taint any potential impeachment vote. Current rumors are he might run against Senator John Cornyn and Trump in 2020, which in Texas would be legal. Still no response.
I noted that it's a matter of record that he has heavily used marijuana and alcohol and asked if he still does. I also noted that O'Rourke profusely sweats even under perfect conditions, while at the same time others do not, and if he would be willing to take a complete physical exam. No response. 
And now after saying he may still run for office, as well as meeting personally with Obama, I asked if he has any intention to be on the national ticket in 2020, but still got no response. 
A few days later, I sent a follow-up email to the spokeswoman noting I had received no response and intended to write an article regardless. So I added one more question. O'Rourke used the f-word live on national television in his concession speech, and used it as well at several other points in his campaign. Does O'Rourke think it is appropriate as a leader to behave in such a fashion? Still no response. 
His language, along with his use of skateboards to enter campaign rallies, shows a basic immaturity and lack of seriousness to hold high public office. Considering O'Rourke's misleading claims about his heritage and serious issues concerning his controversial past, as well as his obvious desire to hold political office, these kinds of questions would normally be asked of a potential candidate. 
But so far, his supporters among the mainstream press have failed to do so. And after their recent fawning coverage and the record millions raised for his campaign, O'Rourke still failed to win. Time will tell if the public will learn who the real Robert Francis O'Rourke is.


Electoral Fraud: the Real Record




When Donald Trump was running for office, he raised the issue of fraudulent votes. As with everything else Trump has said, it was instantly attacked and ridiculed by the media. Since then, the idea has been dismissed by MSM journalists who have insisted that there have not been any cases of illegal voting.
Recently, though, the novel possibility of fraudulent votes in favor of aRepublican candidate has made the MSM do a 180o while reiterating that such things have never happened favoring Democratic candidates. As with many other topics, MSM journalists have blatantly lied. Here are a few recent instances of illegal voting:
  • In 2014, NBC found dozens of illegal aliens voting in Florida.
  • In Kansas, Victor David Garcia Bebek, a Peruvian national, voted in 2012 and 2014.
  • In November 2016, there were 6,540 same-day registrants in New Hampshire who registered to vote in New Hampshire using out-of-state driver’s licenses to prove their identity.
  • In Sacramento, California, two illegal aliens voted five times in 2016.
  • The Public Interest Legal Foundation found over a thousand persons whovoted illegally in Virginia.
  • In Cincinnati, a poll worker found her dead neighbor's name on an active voter registry.
  • In Maryland, several Democratic city governments are allowing noncitizens to fraudulently vote in elections.
  • In Ft. Worth, Leticia Sanchez formed a mail-in voter fraud ring, which included helping a blind voter. Just prior to being arrested, she warned her minions that a group of “malicious people” were investigating.
  • Broward County Election Supervisor Brenda Snipes refused to turn over voting records on the counting and collection of ballots, despite the law saying she had to. There were many irregularities in that 2018 election, such as there being more voters on rolls than actual citizens. s Some 80,000 individuals filled out blank voting forms. Broward County has seen past instances of voter fraud, always in favor of Democrats, the key beingabsentee ballots. “Irregularities” also occurred in Santa Rosa, Citrus, and Okaloosa counties. To date, no one has been arrested.
  • California turned solid blue in 2018, thanks partly to fraud through “ballotharvesting.”
  • Nine Mexican-Americanswere caught in Edinburg, Texas for engaging in voter fraud.
  • Elsewhere in Texas, the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF), alerted district attorneys in Starr and Hidalgo Counties about altered voter applicationssent by the Texas Democratic Party to South Texas noncitizens.
  • Again in Texas, Marcela Gutierrez, a noncitizen, was indicted by a Hidalgo County for marking a ballotwithout a voter’s consent in a 2016 election.
  • More than 4,500 ballots were cast in Milwaukee than registered voters in the 2018 election.
  • In North Carolina, 24 illegal aliens were caught voting in the 2016 elections. 19 foreign nationals were also charged.
  • “The Public Interest Legal Foundation, a nonprofit specializing in election integrity, found that non-Americans are being added to voter rolls in states such as Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Virginia. The group says that a large portion of the non-citizens even managed to cast their ballots in elections as well. For instance, in 2017, the group found that nearly 5,600 people on the voter rolls in Virginia were deemed as non-citizens, with a third of them voting in previous elections.”
  • This summer, 19 noncitizens were indicted for voting in the 2016 election.
  • More than 3,000 foreign nationals were removed from voter rolls across 13 sanctuary jurisdictions from 2006 to 2018, most of them in Virginia.
  • In 2016, North Carolina saw hundreds of instances of double voting, voter impersonation, and noncitizen voting.
  • Bexar County in Texas, which contains San Antonio, concealed records of noncitizen voting.
  • Meantime, nearby Harris County (Houston), refused to allow inspection of voter rolls.
  • Charges of election fraud and fraudulent application for ballot by mail were leveled at Erika Lozano-Pelayo of Starr County is located west of McAllen, Texas. Starr County is one of 13 counties reporting more than 100% voter registration. At the same time, Ernestina Barron was arrested on three counts of election fraud, and three counts of a fraudulent application for ballot by mail.
  • 5,500 noncitizens discovered on Virginia voter rolls.
  • In 2015, 141 U.S. counties were found to have more registered voters than people.
  • 7.2 million voters are registered in multiple states.
  • In 2016, in Marion County, Indiana, 12 employees of a Democratic-linked voter recruitment organization were caught submitting fake voter registration applications.
  •  Rhode Island was found to have 150,000 names in voter rolls which should not have been there.
  • 2017 report showed that at minimum, there were 45,000 duplicate voters in 2016.
  • The Public Interest Legal Foundation reported that there are more than 100,000 non-U.S. citizens are registered voters in Pennsylvania.
  • In 2018, California's DMV admitted registering 1,500 foreigners to vote in U.S. elections.
  • Habersham County, Georgia’s Mud Creek precinct had 276 registered voters, yet 670 votes were cast in a May 2018 primary.
  • In 2018, a volunteer for the Beto campaign urged followers to transport undocumented aliens to the polls.
  • Again in 2018 in California, there were 23,000 California DMV voter-registration failures.
  • In 2018, a number of Democratic-controlled cities (San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, and others) opened up voting rights to illegal aliens. In fact, San Francisco spent $385,000 to help 61 noncitizens vote illegally.
  • The gadfly Project Veritas filmed a Hispanic poll voter telling someone to bring in illegals to vote. The individual has not been arrested.
  • And speaking of being filmed, Florida Democratic Party attorney Leonard Samuels, declared that destroying ballots is not fraud.
  • In 2017, Jonathan Marks, commissioner for Pennsylvania’s Bureau of Commissions, Elections, and Legislation, confirmed that noncitizens had voted hundreds of times in elections.
  • In 2010, two Democratic officials in Michigan, Jason Bauer and Mike McGuinness, conspired to defraud the election. They were given a slap on the wrist when caught.
  • In California, 194 people voted more than once in the 2016 presidential primary. None were arrested.
  • In Hialeah in 2012, Deisy Penton de Cabrera was found with numerous ballots that didn’t belong to her. The ballots she had belonged to elderly people, most of whom were blind, deaf, or had Alzheimer’s.
  • In Arkansas, Former Democratic State Rep. Hudson Hallum, his father, and a few campaign workers altered ballots and were caught and arrested.
  • The Los Angeles County Registrar dismissed accusations of ballot miscounting in the 2018 election.
Keep in mind also that these are just a tiny portion of detected transgressions. How many more illegal acts have occurred that have gone unnoticed? After all,voting illegally is child’s play, with no checks and balances and a minimum of negative repercussions. Since Republican voters are almost always the victim and the Republican Party is without doubt the Stupid Party, this stomach-churning travesty will continue.


OBAMA’S OPEN BORDERS

SOARING DEATH IN AMERICA: MEXICO DELIVERS THE HEROIN.



THE RISE TO POWER OF BANKSTER-OWNED BARACK OBAMA
'Incompetent' and 'liar' among most frequently used words to describe the president: Pew Research Center

The larger fear is that Obama might be just another corporatist punking voters much as the Republicans do when they claim to be all for the common guy.



Obama Granted Soros-Tied Group $310M to Help Migrants Avoid Deportation



Obama, George-Soros
Getty/AP Images
2:19

Former President Barack Obama’s administration rewarded an organization with ties to globalist billionaire George Soros to help Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs) avoid deportation from the United States.

An Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) investigation reveals that between 2015 and 2016, the Obama administration rewarded the Vera Institute of Justice $310 million in contracts to help UACs — young migrants who came to the U.S.-Mexico border unaccompanied — avoid deportation.
The IRLI investigation reveals that the Obama administration rewarded the Vera Justice Institute with millions in American taxpayer-funded contracts to give “direct legal representation” to UACs in deportation proceedings.
“When the federal government pays for illegal alien minors to receive direct legal representation, it does more than flout the law,” IRLI executive director Dale Wilcox said in a statement.
“These unauthorized payments have undoubtedly speeded-up UACs’ release from detention facilities to join their families, relatives, or fellow gang members – or help them reconnect with and pay ‘pandillas,’ the criminal cartels that make enormous profits from controlling human trafficking over the southern border,” Wilcox said. “My guess is that average voters would not be pleased to know that such vast amounts of their tax dollars are being spent in aid of this giant criminal enterprise.”
The Vera Justice Center was previously headed by Christopher Stone, who also served as the president of Soros’s Open Society Foundation between 2012 and 2017. Soros’s Open Society Foundation also previously awarded funding to the Vera Justice Center.
Federal officials have said that UACs pouring into the U.S. are “potential recruits” for violent foreign gangs like MS-13 that have taken a stronghold in American communities. In 2017 alone, more than 40,000 UACs were resettled across the U.S. after they arrived in the country unaccompanied.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder. 


Another Surge of Illegal Immigrants Along the Southwest Border: Is this the Obama Administration’s New Normal?


House Committee on the Judiciary
9:00 a.m., Thursday, February 4, 2016
2141 Rayburn House Office Building



Washington, DC 20515
http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/hearings?ID=9AC016C4-D7CD-44D7-8172-9B81E587D2BD



BARACK OBAMA’S CONSPIRACY FOR A THIRD TERM FOR LIFE

First, destroy Trump and put Hillary away if she doesn’t end up in jail.


HE PARTNERS WITH ZUCKERBERG, SOROS AND LOUIS FARRAKHAN

“Obama would declare himself president for life with Soros really running the show, as he did for the entire Obama presidency.”

“Hillary was always small potatoes, a placeholder as it were. Her health was always suspect. And do you think the plotters would have let a doofus like Tim Kaine take office in the event that Hillary became disabled?”

“Obama has the totalitarian impulse. After all, he went around saying he didn't have Constitutional authority to legalize the illegals, and then he tried anyway. The courts stopped him.”

“The bottom line 2 is this: Barack Obama is a Communist. This was all an Obama operation. Why is anyone surprised that a communist (Obama) tried to subvert an election. That is what Communists do. It is Barack Obama and his people like Brennan and Clapper behaving to type. That's what Maduro does in Venezuela. That's what the Castro brothers did. That's what every communist and socialist nation does. THEY FIX ELECTIONS!!”

Hillary kept a secret server overflowing with national security info which, more than likely, was hacked. June 28, 2016, on a Phoenix tarmac, Bill Clinton met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch to seal a deal insuring Hillary would not be prosecuted.”

Obama, of course, covered up his own role, depicting his presidency as eight years of heroic efforts to repair the damage caused by the 2008 financial crash. At the end of those eight years, however, Wall Street and the financial oligarchy were fully recovered, enjoying record wealth, while working people were poorer than before, a widening social chasm that made possible the election of the billionaire con man and Demagogue in November 2016.”

David Bernstein & The Heritage Foundation - “Lawless: The Obama Administration’s Unprecedented Assault on the Constitution and the Rule of Law.”

 “The Lawlessness of the Obama Administration: A never-ending story.” Michael Barone – American Historian – Washington Examiner

 TRAITOR BARACK OBAMA and the MEX FASCIST MOVEMENT of LA RAZA “The Race”

Reconquistas Muñoz, Solis present at Obama sovereignty sellout session ...Obama was joined at the meeting [about a push to amnesty millions of border-hopping job thieves] by Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs Phil Schiliro, and White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs [and former 'Tan Klan' minion] Cecilia Muñoz...
*"Of course none of this comes as any surprise considering that Obama's point person on illegal immigration, Cecilia Munoz, once worked for the ultra-radical National Council of La Raza [aka the Tan Klan], a racist group that is committed to staging a takeover of the American Southwest and returning it to Mexico...."

GLOBALIST FOR BANKSTERS, THE SUPER RICH and OPEN BORDERS

ADVOCATES TO FINISH OFF THE AMERICAN MIDDLE-CLASS.

There’s a reason why Soros, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Bloomberg, Gates and the Koch Brothers love the Obomb!

 

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/09/barack-obama-and-his-muslim-style.html

 

“Democrats Move Towards ‘Oligarchical Socialism,’ Says Forecaster Joel Kotkin.”

JUDICIAL WATCH’S TEN MOST CORRUPT LIST
President Barack ObamaDuring his presidential campaign, President Obama promised to run an ethical and transparent administration. However, in his first year in office, the President has delivered corruption and secrecy, bringing Chicago-style political corruption to the White House. JUDICIAL WATCH

MULTI-CULTURALISM and the creation of a one-party globalist country to serve the rich in America’s open borders.

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2017/12/em-cadwaladr-impending-death-of.html

“Open border advocates, such as Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg, claim illegal aliens are a net benefit to California with little evidence to support such an assertion. As the CIS has documented, the vast majority of illegals are poor, uneducated, and with few skills. How does accepting millions of illegal aliens and then granting them access to dozens of welfare programs benefit California’s economy? If illegals were contributing to the economy in any meaningful way, CA, with its 2.6 million illegals, would be booming.” STEVE BALDWIN – AMERICAN SPECTATOR

GEORGE SOROS PARTNERS WITH BARACK OBAMA and ERIC HOLDER TO CREATE A GLOBALIST REGIME FOR THE BILLIONAIRE CLASS and CRONY BANKSTERS…. Open borders and endless hordes of illegals will make it happen!

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/04/monica-showalter-soros-banksters-and.html

YOU WONDERED WHY OBAMA-HOLDER WORKED SO HARD TO SABOTAGE AMERICAN VOTING FOR MORE ILLEGALS???

Those are the subliterate, low-skill, non-English-speaking indigents whose own societies are unable or unwilling to usefully educate and employ them. Bring these people here and they not only need a lot of services, they are putty in the hands of leftist demogogues as Hugo Chavez demonstrated - and they are very useful as leftist voters who will support the Soros agenda.

JAMES WALSH

BARACK OBAMA’S HISPANICAZATION of AMERICA… first ease millions of illegals over our borders and into our voting booths!

 How the Democrat party surrendered America to Mexico:
                                                                                          

“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.”  Washington Times

"This is 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!

The “zero tolerance” program was dismantled by Attorney General Erc Holder once it had successfully cut the transit of migrants by roughly 95 percent. Initially, officials made 140,000 arrests per year in the mid-2000s, but the northward flow dropped so much that officials only had to make 6,000 arrests in 2013, according to a 2014 letter by two pro-migration Senators, Sen. Jeff Flake and John McCain.

The cost of the Dream Act is far bigger than the Democrats or their media allies admit. Instead of covering 690,000 younger illegals now enrolled in former President Barack Obama’s 2012 “DACA” amnesty, the Dream Act would legalize at least 3.3 million illegals, according to a pro-immigration group, the Migration Policy Institute.”

Heather Mac Donald: OBAMA’S SABOTAGE of HOMELAND SECURITY


“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.”  Washington Times

The “zero tolerance” program was dismantled by Attorney General Erc Holder once it had successfully cut the transit of migrants by roughly 95 percent. Initially, officials made 140,000 arrests per year in the mid-2000s, but the northward flow dropped so much that officials only had to make 6,000 arrests in 2013, according to a 2014 letter by two pro-migration Senators, Sen. Jeff Flake and John McCain.

WIKILEAKS EXPOSES THE OBAMA CONSPIRACY TO FLOOD AMERICAN WITH DEM VOTING ILLEGALS

“The watchdogs at Judicial Watch discovered documents that reveal how the Obama administration's close coordination with the Mexican government entices Mexicans to hop over the fence and on to the American dole.”  Washington Times

Obama Funds the Mexican Fascist Party of LA RAZA “The Race”… now calling itself UNIDOSus.


"This is 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!

Previous generations of immigrants did not believe they were racially superior to Americans. That is the view of La Raza Cosmica, by Jose Vasconcelos, Mexico’s former education minister and a presidential candidate. According to this book, republished in 1979 by the Department of Chicano Studies at Cal State LA, students of Scandinavian, Dutch and English background are dullards, blacks are ugly and inferior, and those “Mongols” with the slanted eyes lack enterprise. The superior new “cosmic” race of Spaniards and Indians is replacing them, and all Yankee “Anglos.” LLOYD BILLINGSLEY/ FRONTPAGE mag


DURING OBAMA'S 8 YEAR BANKSTER REGIME, HE OPERATED LA RAZA (NOW CALLING ITSELF UNIDOSus FROM THE WHITE HOUSE UNDER LA RAZA V.P. CECILIA MUNOZ. HE FUNDED THE MEX FASCIST PARTY WITH U.S. TAX DOLLARS. 

BOTH OF OBAMA’S SECRETARY of (ILLEGAL) LABOR WERE LA RAZA SUPREMACIST. THESE WERE HILDA SOLIS AND TOM PEREZ.
The “zero tolerance” program was dismantled by Attorney General Erc Holder once it had successfully cut the transit of migrants by roughly 95 percent. Initially, officials made 140,000 arrests per year in the mid-2000s, but the northward flow dropped so much that officials only had to make 6,000 arrests in 2013, according to a 2014 letter by two pro-migration Senators, Sen. Jeff Flake and John McCain.

Jose Angel Gutierrez, professor, University of Texas, Arlington and founder of La Raza Unida political party screams at rallies: "We have an aging white America. They are d ying. They are s hitting in their pants with fear! I love it! We have got to eliminate the g ringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to k  ill him!"

Previous generations of immigrants did not believe they were racially superior to Americans. That is the view of La Raza Cosmica, by Jose Vasconcelos, Mexico’s former education minister and a presidential candidate. According to this book, republished in 1979 by the Department of Chicano Studies at Cal State LA, students of Scandinavian, Dutch and English background are dullards, blacks are ugly and inferior, and those “Mongols” with the slanted eyes lack enterprise. The superior new “cosmic” race of Spaniards and Indians is replacing them, and all Yankee “Anglos.” LLOYD BILLINGSLEY/ FRONTPAGE mag

HERE'S WHAT YOUR OPEN BORDERS FOR CHEAP LABOR DELIVERS

1.      SECOND ONLY TO MEXICO CITY IN MEX KIDNAPPING.
2.      PHOENIX IS U.S. FIRST PLACE FOR MEX HOME INVASION
3.      PHOENIX IS U.S. FIRST PLACE FOR MEX CAR THEFT.
4.      MILLIONS PAID OUT TO MEX ANCHOR BABY BREEDERS

The Mexican fascist separatist movement of M.E.Ch.A's goal is even more radical: an independent ''Aztlan,'' the collective name this organization  gives to the seven states of the U.S. Southwest – Arizona,  California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas and Utah."
*
The “zero tolerance” program was dismantled by Attorney General Erc Holder once it had successfully cut the transit of migrants by roughly 95 percent. Initially, officials made 140,000 arrests per year in the mid-2000s, but the northward flow dropped so much that officials only had to make 6,000 arrests in 2013, according to a 2014 letter by two pro-migration Senators, Sen. Jeff Flake and John McCain.

*
More than half a million illegal immigrants of several dozen nationalities have been apprehended on John Ladd’s sprawling cattle ranch in southeastern Arizona. Ladd has also found 14 dead bodies on his 16,500-acre farm, which has been in his family for well over a century and sits between the Mexican border and historic State Route 92.

*
 We’ve got an even more ominous enemy within our borders that promotes “Reconquista of Aztlan” or the reconquest of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas into the country of Mexico.

*

“While the Obama Administration downplays violence along the U.S.-Mexico border, authorities in Texas reveal that Mexican have transformed parts of the state into a war zone where shootings, beheadings, kidnappings and murders are common.


FIFTEEN THINGS YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT LA RAZA “THE RACE”

by Michelle Malkin
Only in America could critics of a group called "The Race" be labeled racists. Such is the triumph of left-wing identity chauvinists, whose aggressive activists and supine abettors have succeeded in redefining all opposition as "hate."

JUDICIAL WATCH

OBAMA HANDS TAX DOLLARS TO LA RAZA MEXICAN SUPREMACIST:


Previous generations of immigrants did not believe they were racially superior to Americans. That is the view of La Raza Cosmica, by Jose Vasconcelos, Mexico’s former education minister and a presidential candidate. According to this book, republished in 1979 by the Department of Chicano Studies at Cal State LA, students of Scandinavian, Dutch and English background are dullards, blacks are ugly and inferior, and those “Mongols” with the slanted eyes lack enterprise. The superior new “cosmic” race of Spaniards and Indians is replacing them, and all Yankee “Anglos.” LLOYD BILLINGSLEY/ FRONTPAGE mag


MICHAEL BARONE
“The Lawlessness of the Obama Administration: A never-ending story.”
THE PSYCHOPATH WHO WOULD BE DICTATOR FUNDED BY HIS
CRIMINAL CRONY BANKSTERS AND REELECTED FOR A THIRD TERM BY
MEXICO

SURGE OF ILLEGALS POUR OVER AMERICA’S OPEN and UNDEFENDED BORDERS FOR OBAMA’S IMPERIAL AMNESTY, AMERICAN JOBS and WELFARE!

Mucho gringo welfare just over the border!



MEX WITH 37 CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS FINALLY DEPORTED… wonder if he’s back looting already???

more at this link:




In FY 2012, ICE says it removed 409,849 illegal aliens. Fifty-five percent of them (or 225,390) were convicted criminal aliens, the largest number of criminal aliens removed in agency history, ICE said.



MICHELLE MALKIN: another brutal murder by another illegal criminal long on the loose in our open borders!


Non-deportation rate drops — to 99.2 percent


Saturday, May 18, 2013

The Homeland Security Department has granted legal status to 99.2 percent of all illegal immigrants who have applied under President Obama's new non-deportation policy for young adults, according to the latest numbers released Friday.



more at this link – post on your Facebook and email broadcast





 We’ve got an even more ominous enemy within our borders that promotes “Reconquista of Aztlan” or the reconquest of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas into the country of Mexico.


“While the Obama Administration downplays violence along the U.S.-Mexico border, authorities in Texas reveal that Mexican  have transformed parts of the state into a war zone where shootings, beheadings, kidnappings and murders are common.



THE CARTELS NOW OPERATE IN MORE THAN 2,500 AMERICAN CITIES INCLUDING OBAMA’S CHICAGO!

more at this link – post on your Facebook and email broadcast


Known for mounting the severed heads of its rivals on poles or hanging their

dismembered bodies from bridges in cities throughout Mexico, Los Zetas easily

 has become the most feared criminal gang in Mexico.



DRUG CARTELS FIND CALIFORNIA A GREAT PLACE TO LOOT!

Street gang that controls ALL of Orange County drug trade taken down: SWAT teams swoop on 120 members of the 'Mexican Mafia' a total of  129 people have been indicted by county and federal grand juries alleging crimes including murder, drug trafficking and extortion
http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-mexican-crime-tidal-wave-mexican.html



CARTELS

OBAMAS OPEN BORDERS and the MEXICAN DRUG CARTELS…. They’re hauling billions back over our open borders!






More Americans Killed by Illegal Aliens than Iraq War, Study Says

more at this link – post on your Facebook and email broadcast



73% DEATHS ON OBAMA’S WATCH – DURING IS TERMS, HOW MANY AMERICANS (LEGALS) WERE MURDERED OR RAPED BY MEXICANS OR CHILDREN MOLESTED?

The 12-Year War: 73% of U.S. Casualties in Afghanistan on Obama's Watch


According to a 2011 report from the Government Accountability Office, there are 70,000 sexual offenses attached to the incarcerated criminal alien population. 
AMERICA’S OPEN BORDERS: 
70,000 LEGALS RAPED!

A Mexican illegal alien allegedly raped a girl in Kansas in September after being deported ten times in the past six years alone, according to reports.

WHO ARE THE LA RAZA MEXICAN INVADERS?


In the July/August version of the Atlantic, columnist Peter Beinart wrote an article titled, “How the Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration.”


“The next Democratic presidential candidate should say again and again that because Americans are one people, who must abide by one law, his or her goal is to reduce America’s undocumented population to zero.”


Peter Beinart, a frequent contributor to the New York TimesNew York Review of BooksHaaretz, and former editor of the New Republic, blames immigration for deteriorating social conditions for the American working class: The supposed “costs” of immigration, he says, “strain the very welfare state that liberals want to expand in order to help those native-born Americans with whom immigrants compete.”

llustration by Lincoln Agnew*


The myth, which liberals like myself find tempting, is that only the right has changed. In June 2015, we tell ourselves, Donald Trump rode down his golden escalator and pretty soon nativism, long a feature of conservative politics, had engulfed it. But that’s not the full story. If the right has grown more nationalistic, the left has grown less so. A decade ago, liberals publicly questioned immigration in ways that would shock many progressives today.

Listen to the audio version of this article:Download the Audm app for your iPhone to listen to more titles.In 2005, a left-leaning blogger wrote, “Illegal immigration wreaks havoc economically, socially, and culturally; makes a mockery of the rule of law; and is disgraceful just on basic fairness grounds alone.” In 2006, a liberal columnist wrote that “immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants” and that “the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear.” His conclusion: “We’ll need to reduce the inflow of low-skill immigrants.” That same year, a Democratic senator wrote, “When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.”

The blogger was Glenn Greenwald. The columnist was Paul Krugman. The senator was Barack Obama.
Prominent liberals didn’t oppose immigration a decade ago. Most acknowledged its benefits to America’s economy and culture. They supported a path to citizenship for the undocumented. Still, they routinely asserted that low-skilled immigrants depressed the wages of low-skilled American workers and strained America’s welfare state. And they were far more likely than liberals today are to acknowledge that, as Krugman put it, “immigration is an intensely painful topic … because it places basic principles in conflict.”

Today, little of that ambivalence remains. In 2008, the Democratic platform called undocumented immigrants “our neighbors.” But it also warned, “We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked,” adding that “those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law.” By 2016, such language was gone. The party’s platform described America’s immigration system as a problem, but not illegal immigration itself. And it focused almost entirely on the forms of immigration enforcement that Democrats opposed. In its immigration section, the 2008 platform referred three times to people entering the country “illegally.” The immigration section of the 2016 platform didn’t use the word illegal, or any variation of it, at all.“A decade or two ago,” says Jason Furman, a former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, “Democrats were divided on immigration. Now everyone agrees and is passionate and thinks very little about any potential downsides.” How did this come to be?

There are several explanations for liberals’ shift. The first is that they have changed because the reality on the ground has changed, particularly as regards illegal immigration. In the two decades preceding 2008, the United States experienced sharp growth in its undocumented population. Since then, the numbers have leveled off.

But this alone doesn’t explain the transformation. The number of undocumented people in the United States hasn’t gone down significantly, after all; it’s stayed roughly the same. So the economic concerns that Krugman raised a decade ago remain relevant today.What’s Wrong With the Democrats?A larger explanation is political. Between 2008 and 2016, Democrats became more and more confident that the country’s growing Latino population gave the party an electoral edge. To win the presidency, Democrats convinced themselves, they didn’t need to reassure white people skeptical of immigration so long as they turned out their Latino base. “The fastest-growing sector of the American electorate stampeded toward the Democrats this November,” Salon declared after Obama’s 2008 win. “If that pattern continues, the GOP is doomed to 40 years of wandering in a desert.”As the Democrats grew more reliant on Latino votes, they were more influenced by pro-immigrant activism. While Obama was running for reelection, immigrants’-rights advocates launched protests against the administration’s deportation practices; these protests culminated, in June 2012, in a sit-in at an Obama campaign office in Denver. Ten days later, the administration announced that it would defer the deportation of undocumented immigrants who had arrived in the U.S. before the age of 16 and met various other criteria. Obama, The New York Times noted, “was facing growing pressure from Latino leaders and Democrats who warned that because of his harsh immigration enforcement, his support was lagging among Latinos who could be crucial voters in his race for re-election.”
Alongside pressure from pro-immigrant activists came pressure from corporate America, especially the Democrat-aligned tech industry, which uses the H-1B visa program to import workers. In 2010, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, along with the CEOs of companies including Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, Disney, and News Corporation, formed New American Economy to advocate for business-friendly immigration policies. Three years later, Mark Zuckerberg and Bill Gates helped found FWD.us to promote a similar agenda.
This combination of Latino and corporate activism made it perilous for Democrats to discuss immigration’s costs, as Bernie Sanders learned the hard way. In July 2015, two months after officially announcing his candidacy for president, Sanders was interviewed by Ezra Klein, the editor in chief of Vox. Klein asked whether, in order to fight global poverty, the U.S. should consider “sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders.” Sanders reacted with horror. “That’s a Koch brothers proposal,” he scoffed. He went on to insist that “right-wing people in this country would love … an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country.”
Progressive commentators routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits. There isn’t.Sanders came under immediate attack. Vox’s Dylan Matthews declared that his “fear of immigrant labor is ugly—and wrongheaded.” The president of FWD.us accused Sanders of “the sort of backward-looking thinking that progressives have rightly moved away from in the past years.” ThinkProgress published a blog post titled “Why Immigration Is the Hole in Bernie Sanders’ Progressive Agenda.” The senator, it argued, was supporting “the idea that immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs and hurting the economy, a theory that has been proven incorrect.”Sanders stopped emphasizing immigration’s costs. By January 2016, FWD.us’s policy director noted with satisfaction that he had “evolved on this issue.”
But has the claim that “immigrants coming to the U.S. are taking jobs” actually been proved “incorrect”? A decade ago, liberals weren’t so sure. In 2006, Krugman wrote that America was experiencing “large increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production, so it’s inevitable that this means a fall in wages.”
It’s hard to imagine a prominent liberal columnist writing that sentence today. To the contrary, progressive commentators now routinely claim that there’s a near-consensus among economists on immigration’s benefits.(Illustration by Lincoln Agnew. Photos: AFP; Atta Kenare; Eric Lafforgue; Gamma-Rapho; Getty; Keystone-France; Koen van Weel; Lambert; Richard Baker / In Pictures / Corbis)There isn’t. According to a comprehensive new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, “Groups comparable to … immigrants in terms of their skill may experience a wage reduction as a result of immigration-induced increases in labor supply.” But academics sometimes de-emphasize this wage reduction because, like liberal journalists and politicians, they face pressures to support immigration.
Many of the immigration scholars regularly cited in the press have worked for, or received funding from, pro-immigration businesses and associations. Consider, for instance, Giovanni Peri, an economist at UC Davis whose name pops up a lot in liberal commentary on the virtues of immigration. A 2015 New York Times Magazine essay titled “Debunking the Myth of the Job-Stealing Immigrant” declared that Peri, whom it called the “leading scholar” on how nations respond to immigration, had “shown that immigrants tend to complement—rather than compete against—the existing work force.” Peri is indeed a respected scholar. But Microsoft has funded some of his research into high-skilled immigration. And New American Economy paid to help him turn his research into a 2014 policy paper decrying limitations on the H-1B visa program. Such grants are more likely the result of his scholarship than their cause. Still, the prevalence of corporate funding can subtly influence which questions economists ask, and which ones they don’t. (Peri says grants like those from Microsoft and New American Economy are neither large nor crucial to his work, and that “they don’t determine … the direction of my academic research.”)Academics face cultural pressures too. In his book Exodus, Paul Collier, an economist at the University of Oxford, claims that in their “desperate [desire] not to give succor” to nativist bigots, “social scientists have strained every muscle to show that migration is good for everyone.” George Borjas of Harvard argues that since he began studying immigration in the 1980s, his fellow economists have grown far less tolerant of research that emphasizes its costs. There is, he told me, “a lot of self-censorship among young social scientists.” Because Borjas is an immigration skeptic, some might discount his perspective. But when I asked Donald Davis, a Columbia University economist who takes a more favorable view of immigration’s economic impact, about Borjas’s claim, he made a similar point. “George and I come out on different sides of policy on immigration,” Davis said, “but I agree that there are aspects of discussion in academia that don’t get sort of full view if you come to the wrong conclusion.”
None of this means that liberals should oppose immigration. Entry to the United States is, for starters, a boon to immigrants and to the family members back home to whom they send money. It should be valued on these moral grounds alone. But immigration benefits the economy, too. Because immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to be of working age, they improve the ratio of workers to retirees, which helps keep programs like Social Security and Medicare solvent. Immigration has also been found to boost productivity, and the National Academies report finds that “natives’ incomes rise in aggregate as a result of immigration.”
The problem is that, although economists differ about the extent of the damage, immigration hurts the Americans with whom immigrants compete. And since more than a quarter of America’s recent immigrants lack even a high-school diploma or its equivalent, immigration particularly hurts the least-educated native workers, the very people who are already struggling the most. America’s immigration system, in other words, pits two of the groups liberals care about most—the native-born poor and the immigrant poor—against each other.
One way of mitigating this problem would be to scrap the current system, which allows immigrants living in the U.S. to bring certain close relatives to the country, in favor of what Donald Trump in February called a “merit based” approach that prioritizes highly skilled and educated workers. The problem with this idea, from a liberal perspective, is its cruelty. It denies many immigrants who are already here the ability to reunite with their loved ones. And it flouts the country’s best traditions. Would we remove from the Statue of Liberty the poem welcoming the “poor,” the “wretched,” and the “homeless”?
A better answer is to take some of the windfall that immigration brings to wealthier Americans and give it to those poorer Americans whom immigration harms. Borjas has suggested taxing the high-tech, agricultural, and service-sector companies that profit from cheap immigrant labor and using the money to compensate those Americans who are displaced by it.Unfortunately, while admitting poor immigrants makes redistributing wealth more necessary, it also makes it harder, at least in the short term. By some estimates, immigrants, who are poorer on average than native-born Americans and have larger families, receive more in government services than they pay in taxes. According to the National Academies report, immigrant-headed families with children are 15 percentage points more likely to rely on food assistance, and 12 points more likely to rely on Medicaid, than other families with children. In the long term, the United States will likely recoup much if not all of the money it spends on educating and caring for the children of immigrants. But in the meantime, these costs strain the very welfare state that liberals want to expand in order to help those native-born Americans with whom immigrants compete.
What’s more, studies by the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam and others suggest that greater diversity makes Americans less charitable and less willing to redistribute wealth. People tend to  be less generous when large segments of society don’t look or talk like them. Surprisingly, Putnam’s research suggests that greater diversity doesn’t reduce trust and cooperation just among people of different races or ethnicities—it also reduces trust and cooperation among people of the same race and ethnicity.
Trump appears to sense this. His implicit message during the campaign was that if the government kept out Mexicans and Muslims, white, Christian Americans would not only grow richer and safer, they would also regain the sense of community that they identified with a bygone age. “At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States of America,” he declared in his inaugural address, “and through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other.”Liberals must take seriously Americans’ yearning for social cohesion. To promote both mass immigration and greater economic redistribution, they must convince more native-born white Americans that immigrants will not weaken the bonds of national identity. This means dusting off a concept many on the left currently hate: assimilation.
Promoting assimilation need not mean expecting immigrants to abandon their culture. But it does mean breaking down the barriers that segregate them from the native-born. And it means celebrating America’s diversity less, and its unity more.
Writing last year in American Sociological Review, Ariela Schachter, a sociology professor at Washington University in St. Louis, examined the factors that influence how native-born whites view immigrants. Foremost among them is an immigrant’s legal status. Given that natives often assume Latinos are undocumented even when they aren’t, it follows that illegal immigration indirectly undermines the status of those Latinos who live in the U.S. legally. That’s why conservatives rail against government benefits for undocumented immigrants (even though the undocumented are already barred from receiving many of those benefits): They know Americans will be more reluctant to support government programs if they believe those programs to be benefiting people who have entered the country illegally.
Liberal immigration policy must work to ensure that immigrants do not occupy a separate legal caste. This means opposing the guest-worker programs—beloved by many Democrat-friendly tech companies, among other employers—that require immigrants to work in a particular job to remain in the U.S. Some scholars believe such programs drive down wages; they certainly inhibit assimilation. And, as Schachter’s research suggests, strengthening the bonds of identity between natives and immigrants is harder when natives and immigrants are not equal under the law.The next Democratic presidential candidate should say again and again that because Americans are one people, who must abide by one law, his or her goal is to reduce America’s undocumented population to zero. For liberals, the easy part of fulfilling that pledge is supporting a path to citizenship for the undocumented who have put down roots in the United States. The hard part, which Hillary Clinton largely ignored in her 2016 presidential run, is backing tough immigration enforcement so that path to citizenship doesn’t become a magnet that entices more immigrants to enter the U.S. illegally.
Enforcement need not mean tearing apart families, as Trump is doing with gusto. Liberals can propose that the government deal harshly not with the undocumented themselves but with their employers. Trump’s brutal policies already appear to be slowing illegal immigration. But making sure companies follow the law and verify the legal status of their employees would curtail it too: Migrants would presumably be less likely to come to the U.S. if they know they won’t be able to find work.
In 2014, the University of California listed the term melting pot as a “microaggression.” What if Hillary Clinton had called that absurd?Schachter’s research also shows that native-born whites feel a greater affinity toward immigrants who speak fluent English. That’s particularly significant because, according to the National Academies report, newer immigrants are learning English more slowly than their predecessors did. During the campaign, Clinton proposed increasing funding for adult English-language education. But she rarely talked about it. In fact, she ran an ad attacking Trump for saying, among other things, “This is a country where we speak English, not Spanish.” The immigration section of her website showed her surrounded by Spanish-language signs.Democrats should put immigrants’ learning English at the center of their immigration agenda. If more immigrants speak English fluently, native-born whites may well feel a stronger connection to them, and be more likely to support government policies that help them. Promoting English will also give Democrats a greater chance of attracting those native-born whites who consider growing diversity a threat. According to a preelection study by Adam Bonica, a Stanford political scientist, the single best predictor of whether a voter supported Trump was whether he or she agreed with the statement “People living in the U.S. should follow American customs and traditions.”
In her 2005 book, The Authoritarian Dynamic, which has been heralded for identifying the forces that powered Trump’s campaign, Karen Stenner, then a professor of politics at Princeton, wrote:
Exposure to difference, talking about difference, and applauding difference—the hallmarks of liberal democracy—are the surest ways to aggravate those who are innately intolerant, and to guarantee the increased expression of their predispositions in manifestly intolerant attitudes and behaviors. Paradoxically, then, it would seem that we can best limit intolerance of difference by parading, talking about, and applauding our sameness.
The next Democratic presidential nominee should commit those words to memory. There’s a reason Barack Obama’s declaration at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that “there is not a liberal America and a conservative America … There is not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there’s the United States of America” is among his most famous lines. Americans know that liberals celebrate diversity. They’re less sure that liberals celebrate unity. And Obama’s ability to effectively do the latter probably contributed to the fact that he—a black man with a Muslim-sounding name—twice won a higher percentage of the white vote than did Hillary Clinton.In 2014, the University of California listed melting pot as a term it considered a “microaggression.” What if Hillary Clinton had traveled to one of its campuses and called that absurd? What if she had challenged elite universities to celebrate not merely multiculturalism and globalization but Americanness? What if she had said more boldly that the slowing rate of English-language acquisition was a problem she was determined to solve? What if she had acknowledged the challenges that mass immigration brings, and then insisted that Americans could overcome those challenges by focusing not on what makes them different but on what makes them the same?
Some on the left would have howled. But I suspect that Clinton would be president today.

No comments: