Wednesday, March 2, 2011

OBAMA & U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, FRONTING FOR WALL ST. ASSAULT ON AMERICAN WORKERS - US states prepare to axe social spending, attack government workers

US states prepare to axe social spending, attack government workers

US states prepare to axe social spending, attack government workers

By Tom Eley

2 March 2011

States across the US are attacking the wages and jobs of public sector workers, and drastically reducing spending on education, health care, and all other forms of social spending, according to a new study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) that analyzes budget proposals from 41 states for fiscal year 2012.

Both Democratic and Republican governors are demanding the cuts, and in most cases they are collaborating with public sector unions to put them in place. Both parties openly and shamelessly insist that the working class must foot the entire bill for the economic crisis that was triggered by the parasitism of the financial elite.

The CBPP report catalogues the sorts of cuts that are being outlined. Taken together, they foretell a rising tide of human misery and a society in an advanced state of dissolution.

Among 36 states having so far made public the necessary data, 27 will reduce spending levels to lower levels than in 2008, adjusted for inflation, even though “in the 2012 budget year, there will be more children in public schools, more students enrolled in public colleges and universities, and more Medicaid enrollees than there were in 2008,” as the study notes. Aggregate state spending will be about 10 percent less than it was in 2008, and only two sparsely populated states, North Dakota and Alaska, have significantly increased spending since then.

At least 16 states will undertake “identifiable, deep” cuts to public education, according to the study, and at least 15 have proposed severe cuts to higher education funding.

A minimum of 14 states have proposed layoffs or wage and benefit cuts to state workers. These will come on top of the 426,000 job cuts in state and local government that have been put in place since August 2008.

At least 23 states have proposed major cuts to health care spending. Especially targeted is the joint federal-state health insurance coverage for the poor, Medicaid, which the Obama administration envisions absorbing millions of people as part of its “health care reform.” As the study notes, “Some 4 million more people are projected to receive subsidized health insurance through Medicaid in 2012 than were enrolled in 2008, as employers have cancelled their coverage and people have lost jobs and wages.”

Only three states—Minnesota, Illinois, and Connecticut—are combining cuts to social spending and attacks on state workers with modest increases in corporate tax rates and income tax rates for wealthy filers. Elsewhere, tax increases target the income of the working class through sales tax hikes, as well increased license and user fees for state services.

Seven states are exacerbating their budget crises by enacting major new tax breaks for corporations. Florida will lose $459 million in funding by cutting its corporate tax rate nearly in half, to 3.5 percent, if it adopts Governor Rick Scott’s budget proposal. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie’s move to reduce the estate tax on millionaires and slash the corporate tax rate will cost the state $700 million by 2016. Reductions in the estate and corporate tax rates in Maine will reduce revenues by $203 million and widen the two-year budget deficit by 25 percent, if Governor Paul LePage’s budget is enacted in full. In January, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker put in place business and individual tax cuts of $117 million. Michigan’s Governor Rick Snyder has proposed abolishing the state business tax. He intends to pay for this by taxing workers’ pensions and doing away with the state’s Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income working families. The measure will nonetheless increase Michigan’s deficit by $254 million in 2012.

Like the unemployment rate, economists view the fiscal health of states and cities as a “lagging indicator,” as tax revenues remain low even after recoveries in the business cycle. Tax receipts have fallen because of high unemployment and wage cutting, driving down revenues earned through income and sales taxes, the two primary sources of funding for states. At least 31 states have less revenue in 2012 than they had in 2008, by an average of 8 percent. Meanwhile, joblessness and growing poverty place greater demands on state services.

The situation has been exacerbated by the decision of Congress and the Obama administration to cut off even the miserly amount of funding the government had afforded to the states in 2009 and 2010. The CBPP estimates that only about $6 billion in emergency relief will be extended to the states in 2011, a tiny proportion of their combined budget deficit of $125 billion.

Obama’s multi-year freeze on discretionary social spending will also severely impact budget crises, because about one third of this sort of spending is distributed through the states. Republicans have countered Obama’s freeze with a proposal for a 14 percent reduction in discretionary social spending. A “compromise” resulting in a substantial reduction is the likely result.

The CBPP report analyzes budget proposals in a number of states.

Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer’s budget would reduce funding for the university system by 20 percent, bringing funding down nearly 50 percent compared to what it was in 2008. These cuts have already resulted in 2,100 job cuts, spiraling tuition, and the merger or closure of 182 colleges, schools, programs and departments. Brewer is also proposing cutting half of the funding for community colleges. Her proposal eliminates Medicaid coverage for 280,000 people, and imposes a 5 percent cut to fees paid to doctors, clinics and hospitals that treat Medicaid recipients.

California Democratic Governor Jerry Brown is proposing slashing funding for the state Medicaid program, MediCal, by $1.7 billion. To come up with these savings, he would limit access to most prescriptions and certain medical devices, for example hearing aids, and he would reduce the number of covered doctor visits to six from ten. The budget also axes a program that helps elderly people stay in their communities and out of nursing homes. Brown is demanding savage cuts to the joint state-federal CHIP (Children’s Health Insurance Program), which aims to provide health insurance to children above the poverty level, but whose families cannot afford private insurance. He would eliminate eye care, including glasses, from coverage, and increase premiums and co-pays.

Brown’s budget also outlines $1.5 billion in cuts to CalWorks, the state’s “welfare to work” program. He would reduce the number of months families can receive benefits to 48 from 60, and cut the maximum monthly CalWorks stipend for a family of three from $694 to $604.

Brown’s budget would reduce funding to public universities by $1 billion. For the University of California system, “ the cuts would bring nominal spending down to the fiscal year 1999 level—when the system had 31 percent fewer students than it does today,” the study notes. Brown’s budget would also jack up community college fees by 38 percent, an average increase of $300 per student.

Washington Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire proposes cutting $1 billion in education funding and a further $345 million from public universities, which will be made up largely by tuition increases. She would eliminate health care coverage for more than 60,000 people currently insured by the state’s Basic Health Plan, axe a cash assistance program for 28,000 low-income disabled people, end medical assistance for 21,000 poor people with disabilities, cancel a program that provides health assistance to 27,000 children of undocumented workers, and roll back in-home care that benefits 45,000 people.

Texas The budget proposal in Texas, advanced by the Legislative Budget Board, would cut rates paid to Medicaid providers by 10 percent, end all funding for three community college campuses, cut funding for public colleges and universities by 16 percent, and eliminate a college scholarship program that benefits 87,000 low-income students. The proposal cuts funding for public education to 23 percent below the state’s own legally mandated level, and it ends funding for a learning program that serves about 40 percent of the pre-kindergarten population. According to the “state’s leading expert on school finance,” the cuts to education proposed in Texas would result in layoffs for as many as 100,000 teachers.

Colorado Democratic Governor John Hickenlooper’s budget proposal would cut public education spending by $497 per pupil and university spending by $878 per student. He would gut more than $13 million from state Medicaid services, mainly by reducing fees paid to medical care providers.

Florida Republican Governor Rick Scott would lay off 8,100 state workers, cut another 2,000 positions, and require $5,000 health insurance contributions from state workers. His budget would also reduce public education funding by 10 percent.

Georgia Republican Governor Nathan Deal would reduce the state workforce by 14,000. He would cut by 5.6 percent funding to public schools and by 10 percent funding to the university system. His budget would slash Medicaid by ending coverage of a number of services, including adult vision, dental, and podiatry services and by cutting payments to health care providers. The plan jacks up co-pays for inpatient hospital services by 400 percent, and by 15 percent for outpatient services. He would also drastically scale back funding for daytime childcare, reducing by as much as 10,000 the number of children served.

Nevada The budget of Republican Governor Brian Sandoval would cut teacher pay by 5 percent, reduce funding for the public schools by $270 per student, cut state funding for higher education by 18 percent, cut by $100 million aid to counties, and end all funding for protective services for the elderly and a program providing treatment for the mentally ill.

New York Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo proposes to slash public education funding by 7.3 percent, funding to the State University of New York (SUNY) system by 9.1 percent, and support for the City University of New York (CUNY) by 5.2 percent. He is demanding nearly $1 billion in cuts to Medicaid funding.

South Dakota Republican Governor Dennis Daugaard is requesting a 10 percent cut in Medicaid provider rates, and a 10 percent cut to funding for public education system. “The cut is so large that the state’s largest school district says it would be unable to satisfy it even if it were to eliminate all school buses and remove all athletic and fine arts programs,” the CBP notes.

New Hampshire Democratic Governor Brian Lynch is pushing for a 23 percent cut in funding for the public universities, equivalent to $750 per student, and a 21 percent cut in state funding for community colleges, or about $400 per student. The budget would cut 1,100 state jobs and force 255 layoffs, and would eliminate state contributions to worker retirement accounts.

Oregon Democratic Governor John Kitzhaber is requesting an 11 percent cut in funding for community colleges and a 4.9 percent cut in support for the universities. He would reduce Medicaid fees by between 16 and 19 percent.

Connecticut Democratic Governor Dan Malloy would cut Medicaid costs by limiting to one per year adult dental exams, cleanings and x-rays. His budget relies on $2 billion in concessions from government workers to be wrung out of the workforce by the unions. Among options Malloy and the unions are considering are: “freezing state employee wages, moving state employees to a health plan similar to that provided to federal workers, extending 3-day-a-year furloughs until the end of the biennium, and raising the retirement age.” If these cuts are not accepted, Malloy is threatening thousands of layoffs.

Kansas Republican Governor Sam Brownback has targeted mental health for major cutbacks. His budget would end funding for community mental health centers that currently provide 24-hour emergency assistance for 70,000 uninsured and underinsured people. He is demanding the end of funding for mental health assistance for 850 families of children “with severe emotional disturbances.” He is also proposing a drastic 6 percent cut in per-pupil funding in the public schools.

Massachusetts Democratic Governor Deval Patrick has proposed a budget that would cut by 7 percent aid to local governments and reduce by $16.4 million aid for mental health services. This “would result in the elimination of 160 beds for mental health patients, a reduction of almost 25 percent.”

Minnesota Democratic Governor Mark Dayton’s budget calls for a 6 percent pay cut for all state workers and reductions of between 2 percent and 4.5 percent for Medicaid providers. He also demands the elimination of a subsidized health care plan that covers 7,200 adults.

Nebraska Republican Governor Dave Heineman is demanding a freeze in both government worker pay and in funding for public education. He would roll back Medicaid by reducing pay rates to providers by 5 percent, jacking up co-payments, and instituting a punitive system that would “bar welfare recipients who do not meet certain work requirements from receiving Medicaid.”

New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie would drastically increase state worker contributions for retirement and health. State workers would have to pay for 30 percent of their health insurance, around $4,500 per worker (instead of the 1.5 percent salary they currently pay), and retirement contributions could double. He is demanding an increase in the retirement age from 60 to 65, and would end cost of living increases for all retirees, current and future. He also calls for cutting Medicaid funding by $300 million.

PAYING FOR THE BANKSTERS' RAPE OF A NATION: Wisconsin governor outlines $1.7 billion in budget cuts

Wisconsin governor outlines $1.7 billion in budget cuts

Wisconsin governor outlines $1.7 billion in budget cuts

By Jerry White

2 March 2011

[Click here to toggle images]

Protesters gather outside the capitol Tuesday

The governor of the Midwestern US state of Wisconsin outlined a plan of draconian budget cuts in an address to the state legislature Tuesday afternoon. Some $1.7 billion will be cut from public spending over the next two years, bankrupting local governments and school districts and decimating services upon which the state’s 5.6 million residents depend.

The budget is an escalation of the class-war policies the Republican governor has pursued on behalf the most powerful corporate interests. It throws down the gauntlet to the hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin public employees and other workers who have demonstrated daily over the last two weeks against the attack on their living standards and workplace rights.

Walker said his disputed “Budget repair bill,” which would strip workers of collective bargaining, would give local governments and school districts the “tools” they needed to implement the planned cuts.

The governor said his budget would reduce spending by 6.7 percent, and cut the state’s structural deficit from over $2.5 billion to $250 million—down 90 percent—to the lowest level in the last decade. The governor declared the state was “broke” and insisted on the need for “frugality” and “sacrifice” on the part of the working population, before proceeding to outline a series of tax cuts for the wealthy. Walker, who has already handed over more than $100 million in tax cuts to corporate interests and wealthy individuals, called for the elimination of capital gains taxes for investors and additional handouts to corporations that invest or hire workers in the state.

The proposal was immediately embraced by big business. “The governor’s budget gives Wisconsin and its private sector employers a platform of tax relief, education reform, and fiscal discipline, that will help get our state’s financial house in order and make our economy more competitive for the long haul,” said Tim Sheehy, the president of the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce.

Like his counterparts around the country—Republican and Democratic governors alike—Walker is using the bankruptcy of the state—the product of the financial crash of 2008, the resulting loss of state revenue and the multitrillion-dollar cost of the Wall Street bailout—to restructure class and social relations in ways long pursued by the financial and corporate elite.

The cuts will wreak havoc on the public school system, deny health care to the uninsured and, because of skyrocketing tuition costs, deprive young people of the chance to go to college. It will also lead to further attacks on the jobs, wages and benefits of state’s 175,000 teachers, nurses, firefighters and other public employees who Walker claimed are paid “unsustainable benefits out of line with the private sector.”

Among the cuts included in the bill are:

• $1.25 billion in cuts to school aid and local government, including a reduction of more than $900 million in education funding statewide, or about $500 per pupil reduction.

“When you make unprecedented and historic cuts like these to schools, it means teachers are laid off, class sizes are larger, course offerings are reduced, extracurricular activities are cut, and whole parts of what we value in our schools are gone,” state school superintendent Tony Evers said in a statement.

Schools last week started putting teachers on notice that their contracts may not be renewed for next year given the budget uncertainty. More than 2,000 teachers had received nonrenewal notices as of Monday, according to the Wisconsin Education Association Council.

The Milwaukee Public Schools, the state’s largest district, stands to lose $60 million under Walker’s revenue limit reduction alone, and its 8,000 teachers and support staff could have their contract reopened to slash wages, benefits and impose large classroom sizes. Over 82 percent of the MPS students live in poverty and almost 20 percent require more costly special education, which will be cut to the bone if not eliminated outright.

At the same time, Walker is promoting privately run and publicly funded charter schools and other privatization schemes. “We will expand choice and charter programs,” the governor said, adding that he will lift the cap on the number of students who participate in the so-called “Milwaukee parental choice program,” which is being used to convert public schools into charter schools and fire teachers.

• A $500 million cut from Medicaid, which finances the Badger Care and Badger Care Plus programs, which provide health care to more than 1 million residents, including low-income and uninsured adults and families with children.

Making clear his intention to throw hundreds of thousands off the program, Walker declared that the “entitlement reform” would mean “asking some individuals to pay modest co-pays and premiums as they transition from the safety net that these programs provide to gainful employment.”

• A $250 million cut to funding for the University of Wisconsin and the splitting of UW-Madison from the rest of the system—the first step toward the privatization of the institution. Some 17,000 UW workers will be removed from the rolls of state employees through outsourcing.

The cut to UW funding could lead to a 26 percent increase in tuition over the next two years, pricing out large numbers of students from working class and middle class backgrounds, while sharply increasing student loan debts for those who remain.

The budget proposal is galvanizing popular opposition, which began two weeks ago over Walker’s “Budget repair bill.” However, workers are confronted with the treachery of the unions, which have explicitly accepted Walker’s economic demands and austerity measures and are only asking for the preservation of their legal status to implement these concessions.

Responding to the budget proposal Mary Bell, the president of the Wisconsin Education Association Council, said, “Wisconsin’s teachers and school staff acknowledge that these are difficult economic times—and we’ve agreed to the economic concessions Governor Walker asked for to help our state weather these trying times.”

“But the extreme cuts proposed in Governor Walker’s budget go too far,” she complained, adding, “The details of this budget make things worse and further polarize working families against corporate interests. It’s time for Governor Walker to show leadership—and work across party lines to find sensible solutions that reflect the traditions and values of Wisconsin.”

In a lead editorial Tuesday, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel said they were “not surprised union leaders caved so quickly to Walker’s demands,” and urged Walker to “push for more,” including eliminating the right to negotiate benefits and work rules. However, the newspaper warned Walker had gone too far by trying to “bust public-employee unions.” The bill should be altered to spare the unions, the paper said, and Walker should “do so with the help of the Democrats.”

For their part, state Democrats—who have postured as friends of Wisconsin workers—completely support the demand that workers accept a drastic and permanent cut in living standards and the gutting of social programs to reduce the deficit. Their only difference with Walker is that they believe these ends can be achieved more efficiently by utilizing the services of the unions, rather than destroying them.

The Democrats’ so-called alternative budget for this fiscal year calls for $120 million in cuts, including $42 million by slashing state health care for the poor.

Governor Walker gave his budget address in the state capitol, which was in a virtual police lockdown, with thousands of protesters denouncing his measures outside of the building. Over the past two days several thousand workers and young people who had been maintaining a two-week occupation of the state capitol have been driven out under the threat of arrest.

Such undemocratic methods are necessary because the governor’s reactionary agenda is deeply unpopular, despite the claims he is speaking for a broad constituency. A New York Times/CBS poll released Tuesday showed that Americans are opposed to the attack on bargaining rights by a margin of two to one. Those surveyed said they oppose, 56 percent to 37 percent, cutting the pay or benefits of public employees to reduce deficits. Sixty-one percent of all respondents—including just over half of Republicans—think the salaries of public employees were either “about right” or “too low” for the work they do.

This is only a pale reflection of the popular support that could be generated if Wisconsin workers defy the capitulation of the unions and press on with their struggle.




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


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

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


Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform

REALITY ON THE OBAMA “RECOVERY”… Bankster donors profits SOARING! Foreclosures are SOARING! Welfare for illegals SOARING. Unemployment is SOARING! Illegals in our jobs SOARING!

“For the past several weeks, virtually every economic indicator has been worse than economists’ forecasts.”

“However, his only concrete proposal was to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy—the 2 percent of households making more than $250,000 a year.”

“Those “tough decisions” include the multi-trillion-dollar bailout of the banks, the forced bankruptcy of General Motors and Chrysler, liquidation of tens of thousands of auto jobs, and imposition of a 50 percent cut in newly-hired auto workers’ wages, as well as the rejection of any further stimulus measures and focus instead on deeper cuts in social programs.”

“Neither the Obama administration nor its Republican opponents are proposing any serious measures to create jobs or provide relief for the more than 20 million workers who are either unemployed or underemployed. The Democrats and Republicans differ only on the most effective tactics for imposing the full burden of the capitalist crisis on the working class.”


HERE’S Rep. Lamar Smith’s comment on OBAMA’S endless sellout to illegals:


“We could cut unemployment in half simply by reclaiming the jobs taken by illegal workers,” said Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, co-chairman of the Reclaim American Jobs Caucus. “President Obama is on the wrong side of the American people on immigration. The president should support policies that help citizens and legal immigrants find the jobs they need and deserve rather than fail to enforce immigration laws.”


“The principal beneficiaries of our current immigration policy are affluent Americans who hire immigrants at substandard wages for low-end work. Harvard economist George Borjas estimates that American workers lose $190 billion annually in depressed wages caused by the constant flooding of the labor market at the low-wage end.” Christian Science Monitor




July 13, 2010

Former Secretary of Labor, Professor at Berkeley

Posted: July 13, 2010 12:16 PM

The Root of Economic Fragility and Political Anger

Missing from almost all discussion of America's dizzying rate of unemployment is the brute fact that hourly wages of people with jobs have been dropping, adjusted for inflation. Average weekly earnings rose a bit this spring only because the typical worker put in more hours, but June's decline in average hours pushed weekly paychecks down at an annualized rate of 4.5 percent.

In other words, Americans are keeping their jobs or finding new ones only by accepting lower wages.

Meanwhile, a much smaller group of Americans' earnings are back in the stratosphere: Wall Street traders and executives, hedge-fund and private-equity fund managers, and top corporate executives. As hiring has picked up on the Street, fat salaries are reappearing. Richard Stein, president of Global Sage, an executive search firm, tells the New York Times corporate clients have offered compensation packages of more than $1 million annually to a dozen candidates in just the last few weeks.

We're back to the same ominous trend as before the Great Recession: a larger and larger share of total income going to the very top while the vast middle class continues to lose ground.

And as long as this trend continues, we can't get out of the shadow of the Great Recession. When most of the gains from economic growth go to a small sliver of Americans at the top, the rest don't have enough purchasing power to buy what the economy is capable of producing.

America's median wage, adjusted for inflation, has barely budged for decades. Between 2000 and 2007 it actually dropped. Under these circumstances the only way the middle class could boost its purchasing power was to borrow, as it did with gusto. As housing prices rose, Americans turned their homes into ATMs. But such borrowing has its limits. When the debt bubble finally burst, vast numbers of people couldn't pay their bills, and banks couldn't collect.

Each of America's two biggest economic downturns over the last century has followed the same pattern. Consider: in 1928 the richest 1 percent of Americans received 23.9 percent of the nation's total income. After that, the share going to the richest 1 percent steadily declined. New Deal reforms, followed by World War II, the GI Bill and the Great Society expanded the circle of prosperity. By the late 1970s the top 1 percent raked in only 8 to 9 percent of America's total annual income. But after that, inequality began to widen again, and income reconcentrated at the top. By 2007 the richest 1 percent were back to where they were in 1928--with 23.5 percent of the total.

We all know what happened in the years immediately following these twin peaks--in 1929 and 2008.

Yes, China, Germany and Japan have contributed to America's demand-side problem by failing to buy as much from us as we buy from them. But to believe that our continuing economic crisis stems mainly from the trade imbalance--we buy too much and save too little, while they do the reverse--is to miss the biggest imbalance of all. The problem isn't that typical Americans have spent beyond their means. It's that their means haven't kept up with what the growing economy could and should have been able to provide them.

A second parallel links 1929 with 2008: when earnings accumulate at the top, people at the top invest their wealth in whatever assets seem most likely to attract other big investors. This causes the prices of certain assets--commodities, stocks, dot-coms or real estate--to become wildly inflated. Such speculative bubbles eventually burst, leaving behind mountains of near-worthless collateral.

The crash of 2008 didn't turn into another Great Depression because the government learned the importance of flooding the market with cash, thereby temporarily rescuing some stranded consumers and most big bankers. But the financial rescue didn't change the economy's underlying structure -- median wages dropping while those at the top are raking in the lion's share of income.

That's why America's middle class still doesn't have the purchasing power it needs to reboot the economy, and why the so-called recovery will be so tepid--maybe even leading to a double dip. It's also why America will be vulnerable to even larger speculative booms and deeper busts in the years to come.

The structural problem began in the late 1970s when a wave of new technologies (air cargo, container ships and terminals, satellite communications and, later, the Internet) radically reduced the costs of outsourcing jobs abroad. Other new technologies (automated machinery, computers and ever more sophisticated software applications) took over many other jobs (remember bank tellers? telephone operators? service station attendants?). By the '80s, any job requiring that the same steps be performed repeatedly was disappearing--going over there or into software. Meanwhile, as the pay of most workers flattened or dropped, the pay of well-connected graduates of prestigious colleges and MBA programs--the so-called "talent" who reached the pinnacles of power in executive suites and on Wall Street--soared.

The puzzle is why so little was done to counteract these forces. Government could have given employees more bargaining power to get higher wages, especially in industries sheltered from global competition and requiring personal service: big-box retail stores, restaurants and hotel chains, and child- and eldercare, for instance. Safety nets could have been enlarged to compensate for increasing anxieties about job loss: unemployment insurance covering part-time work, wage insurance if pay drops, transition assistance to move to new jobs in new locations, insurance for communities that lose a major employer so they can lure other employers. With the gains from economic growth the nation could have provided Medicare for all, better schools, early childhood education, more affordable public universities, more extensive public transportation. And if more money was needed, taxes could have been raised on the rich.

Big, profitable companies could have been barred from laying off a large number of workers all at once, and could have been required to pay severance--say, a year of wages--to anyone they let go. Corporations whose research was subsidized by taxpayers could have been required to create jobs in the United States. The minimum wage could have been linked to inflation. And America's trading partners could have been pushed to establish minimum wages pegged to half their countries' median wages--thereby ensuring that all citizens shared in gains from trade and creating a new global middle class that would buy more of our exports.

But starting in the late 1970s, and with increasing fervor over the next three decades, government did just the opposite. It deregulated and privatized. It increased the cost of public higher education and cut public transportation. It shredded safety nets. It halved the top income tax rate from the range of 70-90 percent that prevailed during the 1950s and '60s to 28-40 percent; it allowed many of the nation's rich to treat their income as capital gains subject to no more than 15 percent tax and escape inheritance taxes altogether. At the same time, America boosted sales and payroll taxes, both of which have taken a bigger chunk out of the pay of the middle class and the poor than of the well-off.

Companies were allowed to slash jobs and wages, cut benefits and shift risks to employees (from you-can-count-on-it pensions to do-it-yourself 401(k)s, from good health coverage to soaring premiums and deductibles). They busted unions and threatened employees who tried to organize. The biggest companies went global with no more loyalty or connection to the United States than a GPS device. Washington deregulated Wall Street while insuring it against major losses, turning finance--which until recently had been the servant of American industry--into its master, demanding short-term profits over long-term growth and raking in an ever larger portion of the nation's profits. And nothing was done to impede CEO salaries from skyrocketing to more than 300 times that of the typical worker (from thirty times during the Great Prosperity of the 1950s and '60s), while the pay of financial executives and traders rose into the stratosphere.

It's too facile to blame Ronald Reagan and his Republican ilk. Democrats have been almost as reluctant to attack inequality or even to recognize it as the central economic and social problem of our age. (As Bill Clinton's labor secretary, I should know.) The reason is simple. As money has risen to the top, so has political power. Politicians are more dependent than ever on big money for their campaigns. Modern Washington is far removed from the Gilded Age, when, it's been said, the lackeys of robber barons literally deposited sacks of cash on the desks of friendly legislators. Today's cash comes in the form of ever increasing campaign donations from corporate executives and Wall Street, their ever larger platoons of lobbyists and their hordes of PR flacks.

The Great Recession could have spawned another era of fundamental reform, just as the Great Depression did. But the financial rescue reduced immediate demands for broader reform.

Obama might still have succeeded had he framed the challenge accurately. Yet in reassuring the public that the economy will return to normal he has missed a key opportunity to expose the longer-term scourge of widening inequality and its dangers. Containing the immediate financial crisis and then claiming the economy is on the mend has left the public with a diffuse set of economic problems that seem unrelated and inexplicable, as if a town's fire chief deals with a conflagration by protecting the biggest office buildings but leaving smaller fires simmering all over town: housing foreclosures, job losses, lower earnings, less economic security, soaring pay on Wall Street and in executive suites.

Much the same has occurred with efforts to reform the financial system. The White House and Democratic leaders could have described the overarching goal as overhauling economic institutions that bestow outsize rewards on a relative few while imposing extraordinary costs and risks on almost everyone else. Instead, they have defined the goal narrowly: reducing risks to the financial system caused by particular practices on Wall Street. The solution has thereby shriveled to a set of technical fixes for how the Street should conduct its business.

What we get from widening inequality is not only a more fragile economy but also an angrier politics. When virtually all the gains from growth go to a small minority at the top -- and the broad middle class can no longer pretend it's richer than it is by using homes as collateral for deepening indebtedness -- the result is deep-seated anxiety and frustration. This is an open invitation to demagogues who misconnect the dots and direct the anger toward immigrants, the poor, foreign nations, big government, "socialists," "intellectual elites," or even big business and Wall Street. The major fault line in American politics is no longer between Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, but between the "establishment" and an increasingly mad-as-hell populace determined to "take back America" from it.

When they understand where this is heading, powerful interests that have so far resisted fundamental reform may come to see that the alternative is far worse.

This post originally appeared at






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



Lou Dobbs Tonight

And there are some 800,000 gang members in this country: That’s more than the combined number of troops in our Army and Marine Corps. These gangs have become one of the principle ways to import and distribute drugs in the United States. Congressman David Reichert joins Lou to tell us why those gangs are growing larger and stronger, and why he’s introduced legislation to eliminate the top three international drug gangs.



400,000 and they’re just waiting for OBAMA’S LA RAZA AMNESTY!

There are currently over 400,000 unaccounted for illegal alien criminals with outstanding deportation orders. Those are just the ones apprehended. At least one fourth of these are hard core criminals. Nobody knows how many more there are, but they are numerous and roaming your neighborhoods, preying on you and your family. Read more about it here.

Many of these heinous crimes are against children. How many children are being molested, raped, and murdered by illegal aliens? Nobody knows for sure but the numbers are staggering. To give you some idea of the prevalence of the crime, peruse the ICE Public Information News Releases.

While there are numerous reports of individual sexual predators such as Mexican Sex Offender and Six-Time Deportee in ICE Custody or Man Deported Following Conviction For Molesting 6-year-old, you will see many reports of multiple child predators being caught and deported. Some of them over the last two years are as follows:

• 45 child predators arrested in New York City,,

• 36 convicted Orange County child sex offenders face deportation

• ICE arrests 52 child predators in NYC operation

• Four Child Predators Arrested In Rhode Island

• ICE Arrests 16 predators in Westchester County Operation

• ICE Agents Arrest 8 Child Sex Predators In Washington, DC And Virginia

• 18 Predators Nabbed By ICE In Nassau County

• ICE Arrests 25 Child Sex Offenders in Chicago Area

• ICE Arrests 7 in Rockland County, NY

• 12 Child Sex Predators Arrested in Santa Clara County

• ICE Arrests 27 Sexual Predators in Suffolk County

In case you are interested, that is 250 illegal alien child molesters. And that is just the tip of the iceberg.

When we talk about the costs to secure our borders, we need to ask "How many crimes against children is acceptable collateral damage?" Isn't that what it is all about? Cheap lettuce versus molested, raped and murdered children - a cost/benefit tradeoff.

Occasionally, the Federal Government decides to actually do something about some of the more violent illegal alien criminals - after they are already here and have committed mayhem! Operation Predator evolved out of ICE's mission to find and deport illegal aliens with the more heinous criminal records. The majority of the arrests under Operation Predator - roughly 85% - involved foreign nationals in this country whose child sex crimes made them removable from the United States. By matching immigration databases with state Megan's law directories, ICE agents have arrested more than 1,800 registered sex offenders.

Digressing for a moment, what the hell was a convicted, illegal alien sex offender even doing out of jail or not immediately deported – even if 63% do come right back - let alone roaming around the neighborhoods while on a registry! Has the judicial system in this country gone insane?

In any case, Operation Predator began on July 9, 2003, and resulted in 6,085 child predator arrests throughout the country - an average of roughly 250 arrests per month and eight arrests per day. While arrests have been made in every state, the most have occurred in these states: Arizona (207), California (1,578), Florida (255), Illinois (282), Michigan (153), Minnesota (190), New Jersey (423), New York (367), Oregon (148) and Texas (545).

While Operation Predator was a noble effort and ICE is to be commended, it only made a small dent in the criminal activity and number of horrific crimes being committed by illegal alien child sexual predators.

It is worth noting that some pedophile statistics report that each pedophile molests average of 148 children. If so, that could be as many as 900,580 victims from just the 6,085 illegal alien predators that were caught. Regardless, how many children being molested is acceptable collateral damage?

In fact, the criminal activity in the illegal alien community is now so bad that illegal aliens are being held for ransom and as slaves by other illegal aliens and smugglers are kidnapping illegal aliens from other smugglers! Then there is the fast growing "sex slave" problem as reported in The Girls Next Door, SEX TRAFFICKING - San Francisco Is A Major Center For International Crime Networks That Smuggle And Enslave, Raid in Tennessee ends girl's captivity as a sex slave Profiling Sex Trafficking: Illegal Immigrants At Risk, Latina Sex Slavery, and Police sting in Colorado shuts down Pacifica brothel

For more crimes committed by illegal aliens and the personal impact it has had on individual citizens see Immigrations Human Cost, Victims of Illegal Aliens, Crime Victims of Illegal Aliens, Escaping Justice, Predatory Aliens, Crimes involving immigrants from around the world, both legal and otherwise, and Victims of Illegal Aliens Memorial. Go to Fallen Heroes for information on a few more cops killed by illegal aliens.

When visiting any of the links and sites, keep in mind that nobody is tracking and reporting the crimes on a national basis and these are just the tip of the iceberg.

While it is a fact that most illegal aliens are law abiding, except for breaking immigration laws, it is also a fact that a significant percentage of illegal aliens have no respect for the rule of law and our legal customs. Many come with anti-American attitudes and philosophies that are totally alien to our culture, a subject addressed later in this paper. The end result is an ever-growing lawlessness among large portions of the illegal alien communities. It only makes sense that illegal alien criminals come to the United States - this is where the money is and our jails are a whole lot nicer than what they have in their home countries.

As previously noted, this report does not go into the property crimes being committed by illegal aliens. However, like the activities of other equal opportunity criminals, many property crimes are drug related, an activity that many illegal aliens, especially illegal alien gangs, are involved in. While violent crimes against one's person are the most serious, if your identity or car is stolen by an illegal alien you won't be too happy about it.

As a small example of property crimes, in 2003, according to the Arizona Department of Motor Vehicles, 57,600 cars were stolen in Phoenix alone. The owner losses are estimated to exceed $864 million. Most of the stolen cars ended up in Mexico and were never recovered. How many of those cars were stolen by illegal alien criminals versus resident criminals is unknown but you can rest assured that illegal aliens had a large part of it..

Next Section: Impacts of Illegal Immigration: Gangs

Previous Section: Impacts of Illegal Immigration: Sex Crimes

OBAMA'S SECRET MOVES FOR AMNESTY or continued non-enforced


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


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

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


Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform



Obama Quietly Erasing Borders (Article)

Article Link:


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




Amnesty In Disguise

Posted 08/10/2010 06:51 PM ET

Border: After suing Arizona to assert federal supremacy over states on immigration, it turns out that ICE, Washington's immigration cop on the beat, isn't enforcing the law at all. This is amnesty by another name.

Oh, what a hullabaloo the Justice Department made last month over Arizona's SB 1070, arguing before a federal district judge that the law must be struck down because the federal government has "pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters."

Arizona's effort was depicted as some sort of secessionist usurpation of federal prerogatives, despite the fact that SB 1070 mirrored federal law.

Incredibly, Judge Susan Bolton, an appointee of President Clinton, agreed and issued an injunction on those grounds.

In practical terms, her decision means that Arizona's 15,000 lawmen could not help federal agents enforce the law on America's largest and most dangerous immigrant-smuggling corridor.

Now it's obvious why: The Justice Department isn't interested in enforcing the law.

Last week, 259 representatives of the union that represents 7,000 Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents handed down a unanimous vote of "no confidence" in ICE leaders, whose policies keep them from doing their job.

Based on those policies, agents can no longer arrest illegal immigrants even if they announce their status on a sandwich board.

According to a June 29 memo from ICE Assistant Secretary John Morton, ICE must now "prioritize the apprehension and removal of aliens who only pose a threat to national security and/or public safety, such as criminals and terrorists."

Given that all police agencies look for such targets, such a premise is absurd. Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, after all, was arrested by a traffic cop, not a fancy anti-terror strike force, in 1995.

And aside from wondering why terrorists are being released at all across a border they'll have no trouble recrossing, Morton's policy effectively means no one is looking for illegal immigrants once they make it past the Border Patrol.

This is taking pick-and-choose law enforcement to an extreme and runs counter to best police practices, such as James Q. Wilson's "broken window" theory of criminology. This holds that enforcement against minor crimes in an area helps prevent an escalation into more serious crime.

ICE's Morton claims the agency has limited resources, so it can deport only 400,000 illegal immigrants a year. From a government agency with a $2.6 billion detention and removal budget, that comes to about $6,500 per deportee, a de facto statement of government inefficiency and waste. And it affects only 4% of all illegal border-crossers.



Former HPD police chief takes job with ICE



June 23, 2010, 8:53PM

Mayra Beltran Chronicle

Former HPD Chief Harold Hurtt, 63, said Wednesday that he accepted the position as director of ICE's Office of State and Local Coordination.

Former Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt, who has been a vocal critic of a controversial program at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has taken a high-profile job at the federal agency.

At ICE, Hurtt will act as the new director in charge of outreach with local and state law enforcement and non-governmental organizations.

Hurtt, 63, said Wednesday that he accepted the position as director of ICE's Office of State and Local Coordination, which is primarily tasked with outreach efforts, not oversight of ICE's partnerships with local law enforcement. He will officially start the job, which he said pays about $180,000 a year, on July 6.

Hurtt, who served as chief in Houston until he resigned in December, criticized one of ICE's key programs involving local law enforcement during his tenure here and in his former role as head of the Major Cities Chiefs Association.

He said in his new role, he plans to focus on providing accurate information on illegal immigration to law enforcement partners to "avoid emotional responses" to the issue. He also said he hopes to create a stakeholder group to help improve ICE's outreach efforts.

Hurtt and former Mayor Bill White faced harsh criticism during their tenures over the city's role in immigration enforcement. Much of the conflict during the past year focused on HPD's participation — or lack thereof - in ICE's 287(g) program, which trains local law enforcement to assist ICE with immigration screening.


Backlash to policy

Hurtt and the former mayor announced in spring 2009 that the city would participate in 287(g), provided it was confined to the city's jails. Hurtt steadfastly opposed having Houston officers question people in the field about their immigration status.

That decision resulted in backlash from some members of the police union and anti-illegal immigrant advocates but won him praise of leaders in Houston's immigrant community.

Hurtt said Wednesday that his reluctance stemmed in part from HPD's "resource capabilities."

"I had concerns about officers in the field concentrating their efforts and resources on the enforcement of immigration," Hurtt said.

He also said he feared that having officers question suspects in the field could result in fewer members of immigrant communities coming forward to report crime.

"I think that was a legitimate concern and still is," Hurtt said.

The city eventually backed away from participating in 287(g) and instead chose another ICE partnership, called Secure Communities, which runs fingerprint-based immigration history checks on all suspects booked into the local jails and notifies ICE automatically of any "hits" in the system.

Hurtt said that in his new role, he will support local law enforcement agencies' decision to participate in any ICE program of their choosing, even if it involves questioning suspects on the street about their status.

"That's a decision that needs to be made at a local level," he said.


'Extremely hypocritical'

Curtis Collier, with the Spring-based U.S. Border Watch, said it was "extremely hypocritical" for Hurtt to take the position.

"There's no way you can head up an office if you don't believe in what the office is supposed to do," Collier said. "Immigration and Customs Enforcement's primary mission is to protect the American people. If this guy believes any of these programs should not be enforced, he's certainly going to be a very weak advocate for them."

Cesar Espinosa, a Houston immigrant advocate, said Hurtt was always "welcoming and open" to the concerns of immigrant advocates.

"We felt that as chief, he actually believed that the main focus of police should be to protect the community as a whole, regardless of immigration status," Espinosa said.

John Morton, Homeland Security assistant secretary for ICE, praised Hurtt's appointment.

"Chief Hurtt is a respected member of the law enforcement community and understands the concerns of local law enforcement leaders," Morton said.


Before heading up the 7,000-strong HPD in 2004, Hurtt served as the police chief in Phoenix, Ariz.




illegals vs crime

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??




* Did you know illegals kill 12 Americans a day?

* FBI Crime Statistics - Crimes committed by illegals.



The Administration's Phantom Immigration Enforcement Policy

According to DHS’s own reports, very little of our nation’s borders (Southwestern or otherwise) are secure, and gaining control is not even a goal of the department.

By Ira Mehlman

Published on 12/07/2009

The setting was not quite the flight deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln with a “Mission Accomplished” banner as the backdrop, but it was the next best thing. Speaking at the Center for American Progress (CAP) on Nov. 13, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared victory over illegal immigration and announced that the Obama administration is ready to move forward with a mass amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens already living in the United States.

Arguing the Obama administration’s case for amnesty, Napolitano laid out what she described as the “three-legged stool” for immigration reform. As the administration views it, immigration reform must include “a commitment to serious and effective enforcement, improved legal flows for families and workers, and a firm but fair way to deal with those who are already here.”

Acknowledging that a lack of confidence in the government’s ability and commitment to effectively enforce the immigration laws it passes proved to be the Waterloo of previous efforts to gain amnesty for illegal aliens, Napolitano was quick to reassure the American public that those concerns could be put to rest.

“For starters, the security of the Southwest border has been transformed from where it was in 2007,” stated the secretary. Not only is the border locked up tight, she continued, but the situation is well in-hand in the interior of the country as well. “We’ve also shown that the government is serious and strategic in its approach to enforcement by making changes in how we enforce the law in the interior of the country and at worksites…Furthermore, we’ve transformed worksite enforcement to truly address the demand side of illegal immigration.”

If Rep. Joe Wilson had been in attendance to hear Secretary Napolitano’s CAP speech he might well have had a few choice comments to offer. But since he wasn’t, we will have to rely on the Department of Homeland Security’s own data to assess the veracity of Napolitano’s claims.

According to DHS’s own reports, very little of our nation’s borders (Southwestern or otherwise) are secure, and gaining control is not even a goal of the department. DHS claims to have “effective control” over just 894 miles of border. That’s 894 out of 8,607 miles they are charged with protecting. As for the other 7,713 miles? DHS’s stated border security goal for FY 2010 is the same 894 miles.

The administration’s strategic approach to interior and worksite enforcement is just as chimerical as its strategy at the border, unless one considers shuffling paper to be a strategy. DHS data, released November 18, show that administrative arrests of immigration law violators fell by 68 percent between 2008 and 2009. The department also carried out 60 percent fewer arrests for criminal violations of immigration laws, 58 percent fewer criminal indictments, and won 63 percent fewer convictions.

While the official unemployment rate has climbed from 7.6 percent when President Obama took office in January to 10 percent today, the administration’s worksite enforcement strategy has amounted to a bureaucratic game of musical chairs. The administration has all but ended worksite enforcement actions and replaced them with paperwork audits. When the audits determine that illegal aliens are on the payroll, employers are given the opportunity to fire them with little or no adverse consequence to the company, while no action is taken to remove the illegal workers from the country. The illegal workers simply acquire a new set of fraudulent documents and move on to the next employer seeking workers willing to accept substandard wages.

In Janet Napolitano’s alternative reality a mere 10 percent of our borders under “effective control” and sharp declines in arrests and prosecutions of immigration lawbreakers may be construed as confidence builders, but it is hard to imagine that the American public is going to see it that way. If anything, the administration’s record has left the public less confident that promises of future immigration enforcement would be worth the government paper they’re printed on.

As Americans scrutinize the administration’s plans to overhaul immigration policy, they are likely to find little in the “three-legged stool” being offered that they like or trust. The first leg – enforcement – the administration has all but sawed off. The second – increased admissions of extended family members and workers – makes little sense with some 25 million Americans either unemployed or relegated to part-time work. And the third – amnesty for millions of illegal aliens – is anathema to their sense of justice and fair play.

As Americans well know, declaring “Mission Accomplished” and actually accomplishing a mission are two completely different things. When it comes to enforcing immigration laws, the only message the public is receiving from this administration is “Mission Aborted.”



Lou Dobbs Tonight

Monday, September 28, 2009

And T.J. BONNER, president of the National Border Patrol Council, will weigh in on the federal government’s decision to pull nearly 400 agents from the U.S.-Mexican border. As always, Lou will take your calls to discuss the issues that matter most-and to get your thoughts on where America is headed.





March 1, 2011

Hundreds Arrested in Gang Crackdown


An anti-gang dragnet has led to the arrest of 678 gang members and their associates, most of them immigrants, in 168 cities, federal officials announced Tuesday. The three-month-long operation focused on groups with ties to international drug trafficking, said officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an arm of the Department of Homeland Security. Some 447 of the defendants were charged with crimes while the rest were arrested for administrative immigration violations, officials said. The offensive was part of a five-year campaign by immigration officials to combat violent street gangs by prosecuting and deporting their members.



Lou Dobbs Tonight

And there are some 800,000 gang members in this country: That’s more than the combined number of troops in our Army and Marine Corps. These gangs have become one of the principle ways to import and distribute drugs in the United States. Congressman David Reichert joins Lou to tell us why those gangs are growing larger and stronger, and why he’s introduced legislation to eliminate the top three international drug gangs.



Enforcement On ICE

Posted 08/27/2010 07:03 PM ET

Politics: If there's one agency that's been made useless by its leaders, it's Immigration and Customs Enforcement. If, under a new policy, being here illegally is no longer reason enough for deportation, why does it still exist?

The Obama administration has effectively declared open borders to millions of would-be illegal immigrants — not through legislation, but with a sneaky policy move.

On Aug. 20, its man at ICE, John Morton, wrote a memo stating that being in the U.S. illegally is no longer sufficient reason to send someone home. An illegal immigrant now has to be a security threat or else commit a crime — and a violent one at that. To everyone else, ICE turns the blind eye.

Director Morton says it's a matter of priorities. But make no mistake: This is amnesty by another name.

Adding insult to injury, ICE will empty its costly, just-built detention centers of 17,000 existing deportation cases as long as an illegal can show that he or she has applied to become legal.

This, says the New York Times, will "pare huge case backlogs." And to ICE bureaucrats, it's proof they're doing their jobs.

In fact, it's an astonishing abrogation of duty. The policy turns ICE into a $6 billion border-jitney service for the subset of illegals who were picked up by other law enforcement agencies, convicted of violent crime and have served their time, and whose jailers didn't forget to put them on an "immigration hold" list.

Any others can make themselves at home.

That goes for the Mexican Zeta cartel members who are busy recruiting assassins in barrooms around Phoenix, as Fox News reported Friday.

Nothing violent about recruiting, you know — and that goes for illegal immigrants who've illegally voted in U.S. elections.

In the latter case, Fox reported that ICE itself helpfully sent a form letter to an illegal who admitted doing that, coaching him to take his name off the voter rolls first so his application could go through smoothly. ICE didn't mind that the man had admitted to committing a felony. The bureaucrats just wanted to issue him his U.S. citizenship so they could clear the backlog.

It also goes for the Mexican cartel members who may be buying off city governments like that of Cudahy, Calif., which is under FBI investigation. It also goes for illegal immigrants who invade rural properties at night in Arizona, terrifying ranchers.

Not surprisingly, there's no one angrier about this mission-nullification than ICE agents themselves. Last June their union issued a letter expressing a membership consensus of "no confidence" in Morton and Assistant Director Phyllis Coven.

They have "abandoned the agency's core mission of enforcing United States immigration laws and providing for public safety, and have instead directed their attention to campaigning for programs and policies related to amnesty," the agents declared.

By extension, no one's happier than the Mexican cartels that have muscled into the immigrant-smuggling business, making about a third of their income from fees charged for such assistance.

Morgan's no-deport policy is just the enticement they need to bring in new business that will fatten up the fee income they use to make war on the Mexican state.

Last Monday's discovery of a massacre of 72 would-be illegals in Tamaulipas, Mexico, on their way to Los Angeles makes clear what lies ahead. Human smuggling is an evil ICE should not encourage.

The cartels are monopolies that make $500,000 or so per human "load" into the U.S., but they also press many illegals into becoming foot soldiers. Some are forced into sex slavery, and others — as the sole survivor of the Tamaulipas massacre claimed — are ordered to become cartel assassins in the U.S. — or else.

The fact that the U.S. no longer enforces immigration laws for anyone except those with violent criminal or terrorist convictions will draw would-be immigrants into this racket like a magnet.

At a time when U.S. diplomats' families have been ordered to evacuate the consulate in Mexico's second-biggest city, Monterrey — as happened Friday — any encouragement of illegal immigration works at cross purposes to the real national security mission of defeating cartels.

ICE leaders talk smugly about "priorities," but they've effectively abandoned their agency's core law-enforcement mission and become servants of the immigration lobby. ICE should be allowed to do the job it's tasked with. Failing that, it should be disbanded.


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



NCLR: Agents for the Government of Mexico?

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


LaRaza Calls For Boycott Against Free Speech


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

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


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


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

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

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

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




illegals vs crime


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??




* Did you know illegals kill 12 Americans a day?

* FBI Crime Statistics - Crimes committed by illegals.


* 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.



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.