Thursday, June 30, 2016

AMERICA: The Rich Get Much Richer, Illegals Get Millions in Jobs and Billions in Welfare and Middle America Gets the Shaft

Americans’ concerns about financial security and the risk of losing their job over the next 12 months are rising, according to the Economic Anxiety Index, which tracks financial anxiety during presidential election cycles.

“There’s a broad perception of inequality, a feeling that a small group of people is getting wealthier at the expense of a large group of people who are suffering,” said Larry Rosin, the president of Edison Research, which produces the anxiety survey. “I think that there is an effect that starts to take hold and wear people down, and I think we’re seeing some of that in our poll.”
The May 18 to May 24 survey reached adult Americans via national telephone and online surveys, and found that;
Seventy-one percent of Americans think that the economic system is “rigged” in favor of certain groups. This is true across all demographic groups, including Republicans, Republicans, Independents, and across every income level.
Sixty-two percent of Americans say that good jobs are difficult to find in areas where they live and 24 percent of Americans haven’t gone away to vacation in over five years.
Seventy percent of Americans thought the word “embarrassed” described the Presidential campaign.
Sixty-nine percent said “afraid” was a good way to describe their feeling about the election. Fourteen percent of respondents are “very satisfied” with their choices for president, and forty-seven percent are “very dissatisfied.”
One of the main reasons for anxiety is that the American middle class has not seen a gain in in their standard of living in two decades. With the U.S. median family income of just under $56,853, the average family’s income is about the same as 1996, adjusted for inflation.
But the big negative is how little Americans are paid on their conservative saving. In mid-1996, a one-year bank certificate of deposit yielded 5 percent. But today it only yields o.27 percent. This means that many Americans are being forced to work later in life or take greater risks on their retirement saving. The combination makes most Americans much more anxious about their future.

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

The Democrat Party's LA RAZA FASCIST Party base of invading, looting and murdering Mexicans!

Trump’s proposal to build a big wall on the southern border of the U.S. has been called an exercise of xenophobia and racism. Trump asserts that many of the illegal immigrants are criminals, and the U.S. should act to save the country from t...


BLOG: THIS ARTICLE MAKES ME WANT TO  PUKE! MEXICANS ARE THE MOST VIOLENT CULTURE IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE.

IT ISN'T AMERICAN EXPLOITATION THAT HAS CAUSED THE NARCOMEX CARTELS TO MURDER A HUNDRED THOUSAND OF THEIR OWN PEOPLE

IT IS AMERICAN EXPLOITATION THAT CAUSED MEXICANS TO MURDER MORE THAN 2,000 CALIFORNIANS BEFORE THEY FLED BACK OVER THEIR BORDERS TO AVOID PROSECUTION

IT ISN'T AMERICAN EXPLOITATION THAT CAUSES MEXICANS TO MURDER MORE THAN 90% OF THOSE MURDER  IN MEX-OCCUPIED LOS ANGELES!

GET REAL! MEXICANS ARE VIOLENT, RACIST AND JUMP OUR BORDER TO LOOT AND THEN WAVE THEIR MEX FLAGS AND DEMAND MORE BY VOTING DEM!!!


MEXICAN: AMERICA’S MURDERING UNREGISTERED DEMS
HALF THE MURDERS IN MEX-OCCUPIED CA ARE NOW BY MEX GANGS
CA HAS THE LARGEST AND MOST EXPENSIVE PRISON SYSTEM IN THE NATION, HALF THE INMATES ARE MEXICANS
THERE HAVE BEEN MORE THAN 2,000 CALIFORNIANS MURDERED BY MEXICANS THAT FLED BACK OVER THE BORDER TO AVOID PROSECUTION.
MORE THAN 90% OF THE MURDERS IN MEX-OCCUPIED CITY OF LOS ANGELES ARE MEXICANS.
OF THE TOP 200 MOST WANTED (MURDER) CRIMINALS IN MEX-OCCUPIED LOS ANGELES, 186 ARE MEXICANS.
SEE POLICE IMAGES OF THESE WANTED MEXICANS HERE:



How Trump's Border Wall Will Rescue Illegal Immigrants from Democrat Exploitation



Trump’s proposal to build a big wall on the southern border of the U.S. has been called an exercise of xenophobia and racism.
Trump asserts that many of the illegal immigrants are criminals, and the U.S. should act to save the country from them. But what many refuse to recognize, what is never discussed, is how illegal immigration exploits the immigrants themselves.
The abuses suffered by illegal immigrants caused by the lack of an effective wall have not been humanely discussed. The plain truth is that illegal immigrants are forced to commit crimes in order to cross the border illegally.
The first time someone is caught crossing the U.S. border without going through legal immigration procedures they are guilty of a Federal misdemeanor. The second time they are caught their act is a Federal felony. Because of the cheerleading of illegal immigration done by Democrats and the media, Hispanics are now in Federal prisons in much greater proportion than their population number would suggest. While Hispanics make up only 13% of the U.S. population they are 40% of the Federal prison population.
The majority of those in Federal prison have committed Federal 
crimes that are a direct result of illegal immigration. These include 
drug smuggling and illegal entry. The Mexican drug cartel 
forces young men and women to carry drugs over the border in 
exchange for receiving assistance in their border crossing.

It is interesting to consider that the explanation of why blacks are in Federal prison is always that they are exploited by U.S. society and are victims of oppression. But no one states that illegal immigrants are oppressed, that their incarceration is a direct result of racism, even though one may argue that characterizing illegal immigrants as an uneducated, unskilled minority that comes to the U.S. to do low paid jobs no one else will is racist. But it is. Blacks were also brought to the U.S. to work plantations doing low paid work nobody else would do.
If Trump were to build a wall and completely stop illegal immigration, the effect would be that the arrest and incarceration of illegal immigrants for committing Federal crimes while crossing would stop. Americans can decide for themselves if this is a good or bad thing. Furthermore, according to the Pew Research Center's report "Between Two Worlds", Hispanics in the U.S. are now dropping out of high school at twice the rate of blacks. And this is going on throughout the nation. Critics of Trump's wall would need to explain how channeling another minority into a life of poverty is good policy.
Hispanic teenage girls are now becoming single mothers at a higher rate than black teenagers. Single motherhood is the major cause of poverty and crime. How Trump’s wall can be criticized for stopping poverty and crime is also difficult to understand.
Those who criticize Trump for wanting to build a wall never discuss the exploitation of illegal immigrants by drug cartels, do not discuss the incarceration of Hispanics and their presence in Federal prisons, or the high dropout rate of Hispanic high school students. One can only wonder why these signs of oppression, which have been used for decades to prove that blacks are exploited by white society, are not used as proof that Mexicans are exploited.
The political fact is, Democrats established all the sanctuary cities. These acts are violations of the 1996 Immigration Act, so it is fair to argue that Democrats are responsible for the high dropout rate of Hispanics, the high single motherhood rate, and the high rate of Federal incarceration of Hispanics. But somehow if Donald Trump makes an effort to stop this he is called a racist.
Democrats are the only political party that benefits from illegal immigration. They segregated Hispanics into communities in big cities where they can serve the party by filling classrooms for the Democrat-supporting teacher unions, and vote for Democrats in elections.
The resistance to Trump's wall only proves that Democrats resort to name calling, ridicule, and intimidation whenever someone threatens their scheme to maintain political power. Hillary Clinton, who is currently the likely opponent of Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election, is happy to benefit from Hispanic votes, and counts on them, along with black votes, to put her into the White House.
That Hillary can feel confident of the electoral support gained from minorities is a very sad commentary on the Democratic Party and the tactics it has used to stay in power. All the big city black ghettoes have been created by Democrats and have Democrats as representatives in Congress. Their plan to continue this scheme with Hispanics has, unfortunately, been very successful.
Voters can decide for themselves whose actions have the desirable results: Donald Trump, whose wall will reduce the exploitation of Hispanics, or Hillary Clinton, whose party will continue to build up the Hispanic population as their second impoverished voter minority.
Trump’s wall will also stop the destruction of desert habitats in the Southwest. Right now these pristine desert preserves, which have never been developed, arebeing trampled on by illegal immigration perpetrated by Democrats, who claim credit to having started the environmental movement. This environmental issue is never discussed.
The greatest criticism of Trump's comments on the wall is that he labels all Mexicans as criminals. Trump does overstate the issue. But the facts that Hispanics are being segregated by liberals into barrios, single motherhood is on the rise, and Hispanics are being incarcerated in Federal prisons, is not an overstatement.
The one truth in this discussion is that seasonal, unskilled labor is needed by agriculture in many states. However, this need was legally addressed by the Bracero guest worker program, a program stopped by LBJ so the illegal immigration strategy could be pursued.
Anyone who is offended by Trump’s strong, disrespectful language should also consider the strongly offensive words spoken by the Black Lives Mattermovement, Reverend Wright, and the anti-Trump protesters who burn American flags and use abusive language.
Trump's wall will liberate Hispanics from exploitation, Democrats’ words support the exploitation.
Voters should ask themselves if, in 1750, it was possible to build a wall to stop the importation of slaves from Africa, if that would have been the moral choice to make, given the history of the exploitation of blacks. We have that choice now.
Given the history Democrats have in the U.S. of creating segregated minority communities and limiting their participation in the economy, a truly liberal, humanely-minded person may want to reconsider the value of Trump's wall, and reconsider who the party of racists is; the Democrats who exploit illegal immigrants or Donald Trump's Republicans, who freed the slaves and now want to control the abuse of Hispanics by the open border.
Trump's wall will save tens of thousands of innocent Hispanics from rape, murder, and Federal prison. Hillary could speak of a guest worker program but she won't do that. Her party doesn't want that. Her party wants voters and residents. It's another shameful chapter in the history of the exploitation of minorities by Democrats. 

Barack Obama, Hillary and Billary Clinton and the 9-11 Invading Saudis - Are the Saudis the real paymasters of this political crime dual?.

THE PRO-MUSLIM REGIME OF BARACK OBAMA

HILLARY AND BILLARY SUCK IN THE MUSLIM BRIBES!

The attack on a gay Orlando nightclub should have been a wakeup call to American gay people. Thanks to the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton, this is not the case. Since the attack happened, the White House pro-Islamic propaganda machine ...

hillary clinton and her muslims…. Will they murder, rape and loot like her LA RAZA party base of Mexicans?



Islamism is the great evil of our age….

Instead, with the aid of our media and Internet, we greet each new act of
Islamic murder with a show of lies and anger. The Left is in charge of the lies. They tell us, in Hillary Clinton’s absurd words, that “Muslims . . . have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

THE 9-11 INVADING SAUDIS AND THEIR WAHHABI ARE THE GLOBAL FINANCIERS OF TERRORISM AND GENEROUS BRIBSTERS TO THE BILLARY PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARY AND THE PHONY CLINTON FOUNDATION.

THE PHONY CLINTON FOUNDATION SLUSH FUND

HILLARY CLINTON AND WALL STREET BUY ELIZABETH WARREN - NOW HILLARY'S OFFICIAL BULLSHITTERIX

HILLARY'S CRONY BANKSTERS KNOW THAT 

ELIZABETH WARREN IS NO LESS DEDICATED 

TO THEIR INTERESTS THAN THE GREAT 

PSYCHOPATH OBAMA!

Elizabeth Warren campaigns with Clinton as possible running mate

By Josh Varlin 
28 June 2016
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, a self-styled “progressive” Democrat, campaigned with Hillary Clinton Monday in Ohio, in what amounted to a tryout for the position of vice-presidential running mate.
Warren was talked up last year as a potential challenger to Clinton for the Democratic nomination, but she eventually passed on the race and remained neutral in the protracted contest between Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

BLOG: CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS? WARRENS SAYS
HILLARY, OBVIOUSLY NOT THE ONE WE KNOW, IS: 
 “someone who gets up every single day and fights for us. 
Someone who has spent her whole life fighting for children. 
Spent her life fighting for women. Spent her life fighting for 
families. Fighting for health care. Fighting for human rights. 
Fighting for a level playing field. Fighting for those who need 
her most.”

She served as the warm-up act for Clinton at a Cincinnati rally, portraying her in glowing terms as “someone who gets up every single day and fights for us. Someone who has spent her whole life fighting for children. Spent her life fighting for women. Spent her life fighting for families. Fighting for health care. Fighting for human rights. Fighting for a level playing field. Fighting for those who need her most.”
There was no mention of the Hillary Clinton 
whom Warren had criticized as a shill for 
Wall Street in one of her best-selling books on the growing financial crisis of two-income working class families. Instead, she blasted the Republican presidential candidate, saying, “Donald Trump believes poor, sad little Wall Street bankers need to be free to defraud anyone they want. Hillary Clinton believes that we need strong rules to prevent another financial crisis. Yes, Hillary fights for us!”
While Warren is willing to let bygones be bygones, and validate Clinton’s candidacy to the supporters of Bernie Sanders, Clinton evidently has a long memory. At one point in her own speech, after Warren’s effusive introduction, she remarked to the audience, “And just like Elizabeth, I could go on and on.”
Warren is reportedly one of three people on Clinton’s shortlist, with the other two being Virginia Senator Tim Kaine (currently favored in media reports) and Julián Castro, secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
All three potential vice presidents are trusted and vetted servants of the US ruling elite who were nominated by Obama for top positions: Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Board (although her nomination was blocked by Senate Republicans), Kaine to head the Democratic National Committee, and Castro for the cabinet position, after a term as mayor of San Antonio.
If Clinton were to pick Warren to be her running mate, this would be widely seen as a gesture toward supporters of Sanders. His campaign has focused on economic inequality and the political dominance of Wall Street, issues which have likewise propelled Warren into the Senate and the national spotlight.
The Wall Street Journal wrote that Warren’s “populist politics line up closely with Mr. Sanders.” Reuters called Warren “a leading progressive voice among Democrats.” The Washington Post noted, “Warren enjoys strong support with many of the Democratic constituencies passionate about Sanders.”
For that reason, Warren is a much less likely choice than Kaine, who stands on the right wing of the Democratic Party, and, as a former Catholic lay missionary in Central America, can appeal to sections of the Republican Party and the religious right who are dubious about Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. Clinton’s strategy for the general election is based on making just such a connection.

A professor of bankruptcy law

Warren’s image of “progressivism” is based largely on her work as a law professor researching and writing about personal bankruptcies and the struggle of middle-income American families, as well as her subsequent roles in regulatory bodies, including the Congressional Oversight Panel, which oversaw the Troubled Asset Relief Program—that is, the bailout of Wall Street banks.
The former Harvard professor came to liberalism rather late in her life and was a registered Republican until 1996, when the administration of Democratic President Bill Clinton was working to appeal to Republicans as the Democratic Party moved rapidly to the right.
Over the course of her career, Warren’s politics seem largely determined by her academic milieu and a general careerist outlook. While she lived and worked as a law professor in Texas and Pennsylvania, she was a Republican. Shortly after moving to Massachusetts to take a position at Harvard Law School, she registered as a Democrat.
Warren’s research into bankruptcy law began in the 1980s, when she and two colleagues used an empirical-statistical approach to determine who applied for bankruptcy. They found that it was mostly “middle-class workers whose finances were sunk by a single catastrophic event, like a heart attack, divorce or layoff” who filed for bankruptcy. This undermined the assumptions of theoretical legal scholarship, which assumed that most people filing for bankruptcy would be the very poor and unemployed, supposedly “lazy.”
In an interview with the Boston Globe, she said that she 
became a Democrat in 1996 because she “felt like the parties 
were moving and the conversation was moving.” In other 
words, the Democrats had moved far enough to the right that
 some Republicans could cross over, while the Republicans 
had moved so far to the right that there was no room for a 
Harvard professor with moderate, pro-market views and a 
professed sympathy for working families.
During the 1990s and early 2000s, Warren became more prominent in academia and the wider public for her discussion of bankruptcy and the effects it has on the average American family. Under the Clinton administration, she was recruited as reporter/counselor for the National Bankruptcy Review Commission, which paved the way to further restrictions on the right of individuals to file for bankruptcy.
Warren claims her aversion to the influence of the major banks dates back to her experience with their manipulation of the findings of the commission, although she has always upheld a traditional “free-market” approach to economic policy questions.
In 2001 she co-authored an influential article in the New York University Law Review, which found that “[n]early half of all bankruptcies involved a medical problem,” of which about 80 percent had insurance (emphasis in the original).
Warren’s 2003 book, The Two Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Going Broke, further solidified her reputation as a bankruptcy expert and liberal intellectual. It also confirmed her support for the Democratic Party’s favored method for undermining public education, with a proposal for the introduction of a universal school voucher that would allow any family to send children to any public school. This would mean the immediate shutdown of many inner-city public schools.

From TARP to the Senate

Warren’s sudden rise in politics began in November 2008, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid—the Democrats then controlled both houses of Congress—appointed her to the Congressional Oversight Panel that oversaw the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, the formal name of the legislation that authorized the Wall Street bailout.
The oversight panel, with a 3-2 Democratic majority, chose Warren as its chair. In that capacity, she received widespread publicly as the panel made mild criticisms of the bank bailout over the next year. She gained an inflated reputation as an opponent of Wall Street, although the criticisms never went so far as outright opposition to handing over trillions to the banks.
Warren was an early advocate of the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to regulate financial products sold to consumers, which was eventually created by the Dodd-Frank Act. President Barack Obama appointed her to establish the CFPB after it was created in 2010. Because of opposition by Senate Republicans, Obama left the position of director of CFPB vacant for a year, naming her instead an assistant to the president and special adviser to the secretary of the Treasury.
The CFPB from the beginning was essentially
a fig leaf for the toothless response of the 
Obama administration to the 2008 financial 
crisis. Warren’s role in the establishment of 
the CFPB lent it and the Obama
administration an undeserved reputation for 
protecting consumers and standing up to 
Wall Street. But during her year as the de facto head of the agency, she did not call for prosecuting the banking executives responsible for the criminal fraud that contributed to the financial crisis.
There was also opposition within the Obama administration to naming Warren as the permanent head of the CFPB. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, a former president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, was reportedly uncomfortable with Warren’s rhetorical sallies against Wall Street. Obama eventually abandoned her in favor of former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray when he appointed a formal, permanent head of the CFPB in 2011.
Warren successfully ran for the US Senate in Massachusetts in 2012, leveraging her “progressive” credentials and notoriety as a target of the banks and Senate Republicans to portray herself as an advocate for the embattled “middle class.”
While in the Senate, Warren has reliably supported the Obama administration. For example, in 2014, she, along with nearly every Senate Democrat and then-independent Senator Sanders, voted to confirm David Barron to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Barron drafted the legal justification for the administration’s program of drone assassinations. As the senior senator from Massachusetts, part of the First Circuit, Warren could have blocked the nomination simply by withholding her support. Her silence on the issue allowed Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky to posture on the Senate floor as a defender of civil liberties against the Barron appointment.
Warren also defends the Obama administration’s record, even as she obliquely criticizes the effects of its anti-worker policies. At a January 2015 AFL-CIO meeting, she said, “I think the president and his team deserve credit for the steps they’ve taken to get us here,” even as all net job growth over the past decade was in temporary or part-time work.
In the end, Warren’s “progressivism” boils down to empty 
left-sounding oratory. One revealing example is her 2014 
appearance on MSNBC’s “Hardball with Chris Matthews,” 
during which the host pressed her to explain what the 
Democratic Party was actually going to do regarding job 
creation. Warren was unable to do anything except blame the
Republicans. “We need people across the country to help 
push on the Republicans,” she said lamely.
After her yearlong neutrality in the presidential contest, Warren announced June 9 on the “Rachel Maddow Show” on MSNBC that she was “ready” to endorse Clinton. “I am ready to get in this fight and work my heart out for Hillary Clinton to become the next president of the United States—and to make sure that Donald Trump never gets anyplace close to the White House,” Warren said.
Warren’s role is to use her “progressive” credentials to appeal to workers and youth attracted to Sanders due to his claims to be a socialist, thereby ensure that they vote for Clinton in November. Whether this nets Warren a spot as Clinton’s running mate, or a less prominent role, remains to be seen.
It is a measure of the putrefaction of American politics in general, and the Democratic Party in particular, that a thoroughly conventional, bourgeois politician like Warren can be held up as a torchbearer for the Democrats’ “liberal” or “progressive” wing. Her “left” rhetoric has even less substance than Sanders’ claims to be a “democratic socialist.”

Hillary Clinton vows to Republicans that she will continue to pursue the Republican party’s   interests as President Bill Clinton did.




SEN. SANDERS SURRENDERS TO HER CORRUPTNESS… Will he serve her Wall Street Paymasters also?


SO MUCH FOR BERNIE’S POPULIST CRAP!

HOW MUCH HAS HILLARY AND BILLARY SUCKED IN FROM MUSLIM DICTATORS?

Islamism is the great evil of our age….

Instead, with the aid of our media and Internet, we greet each new act of
Islamic murder with a show of lies and anger. The Left is in charge of the lies. They tell us, in Hillary Clinton’s absurd words, that “Muslims . . . have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

Massive rally in Mexico City condemns massacre of Oaxaca teachers

Massive rally in Mexico City condemns massacre of Oaxaca teachers

Massive rally in Mexico City condemns massacre of Oaxaca teachers

By Rafael Azul 
28 June 2016
One week following the police massacre of teachers and their supporters in the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca, and with many of the CNTE teachers union leaders in jail, people all across Mexico continue to express their anger in waves of demonstrations, occupations and interruptions of highway traffic.
On Sunday, hundreds of thousands marched along Mexico City’s main boulevard, the Paseo de La Reforma, in a “march of silence” that had been called by Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the bourgeois nationalist, former Mexico City mayor (2000-2005) who now heads the Morena Party (Movimiento de Reconstrucción Nacional).
The enormous demonstration was composed of students, teachers and workers. It extended for many blocks ending at the Angel for Independence monument. At the same time, in parallel with the Morena rally, hundreds rallied at the “Anti Monument,” erected in April 2015 for the Ayotzinapa 43, the 43 teaching students who disappeared are believed to have been massacred in Guerrero state in September 2014.
In both acts, demands linking the massacre in the Oaxacan village of Nochixtlán with the 43 disappeared students were present on many banners, along with calls for the resignation of Mexico’s president, Enrique Peña Nieto.
In his speech, the Morena leader compared the current regime, headed by President Peña Nieto’s Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI)—of which Lopez Obredor was himself a former leading member—with that of Porfirio Diaz, overthrown by the Mexican Revolution (1910-1917). According to Lopez Obrador, the Peña Nieto administration is neo- porfirista, neo-liberal, and dictatorial. He accused the administration of giving away communal resources (a reference, in part, to the privatization of oil and state-owned utilities).
“The greatest of irrationality,” declared Lopez Obrador, “is to use fraud and violence to further economic policies and a regime of corruption that are rejected by the people, which is dictatorship.”
That “face of dictatorship,” said Lopez Obrador, “was what appeared with the terror in Nochixtlán. That is why we are here to call on the government: Refrain, authoritarian regime! Refrain, government hawks!, We will not allow dictatorship and authoritarianism in México!”
Lest anyone think that Lopez Obrador intended to make himself out as Peña Nieto’s Madero —the man whose opposition to Porfirio Diaz triggered the civil war in 1910—his rhetorical denunciation of the current government was quickly followed by the request that the government of President Peña Nieto reform itself. He proposed that it make use of the last two years left in its six-year mandate to undertake cosmetic measures aimed at staving off a social revolution.
In particular, he is demanding that Peña Nieto fire those responsible for the Noxhixtlán massacre, namely his chief of staff, Osorio Chong, and that he appoint a cabinet of national reconciliation to ensure a smooth democratic transition to the 2018 elections. As he was speaking, many in his massive audience were chanting for the removal of Education Secretary Agustín Nuño and of Peña Nieto himself. Many of the banners demanded the president’s ouster.
“It is necessary today to overthrow the Pact for Mexico Regime and its hangers-on, as Porfirio Díaz was overthrown, but without violence, through the revolution in people’s minds that has already begun,” Lopez Obrador declared.
The Pact for Mexico was an agreement between the three main bourgeois political parties that paved the way for so-called reforms to privatize energy, public utilities and education in Mexico. The PRD (Democratic Revolutionary Party), which Lopez Obrador formerly led, was one of the pact’s signatories.
Lopez Obrador’s movement represents a section of the national bourgeoisie, and it reflects both its timidity with respect to US imperialism and its fear of the Mexican working class. He seemed to implore the CNTE teachers to continue to engage in dialogue with the government “to resolve your demands and to avoid repression and violence,” suggesting perhaps that the June 19 massacre was in part the teachers’ own fault. At other times, he implored Peña Nieto himself to “avoid a reckless collapse, ruinous and prejudicial for all.”
Negotiations with CNTE leaders, which have been taking place on and off for several years, have restarted and now appear to hinge more on how to “find a place at the table” for the CNTE and its bureaucracy, rather than on any genuine defense of education or the rights of teachers.
Other than calling for a greater input on education reform by the CNTE, CNTE bureaucrats so far have been rather vague about what the results of these negotiations should be. A report on the march that appeared in the Mexico City daily La Reforma quoted a letter from a CNTE leader that was read at the Morena rally: “Our struggle is that of all Mexicans,” said the letter by CNTE leader Rubén Núñez, “unity and defense of what is ours is our banner.”
It is not known if Peña Nieto, currently on a state visit to Canada, heard Lopez Obrador’s appeal. However, he emphatically made clear once more that his administration in its negotiations with the CNTE leaders has no intention of abandoning the education reform measures that are at the center of the dispute.
In a pro-forma statement dripping with cynicism issued on Monday from Canada, the Mexican president declared that his government “lamented the differences on education reform, deeply lamented that something had happened during which, lamentably, human lives were lost.” Peña Nieto further asserted that this is not the first incident in which the state had used force to maintain “social order and social peace.” He added, “Very lamentably this led to the Oaxaca events; this will result in an investigation and in the punishment of those that are responsible.”
The probability that a credible investigation will take place is nil. On the same day Peña Nieto made his statement, the Mexican courts issued their decision not to release army files to the press and human rights groups on the Tlatlaya massacre of June 2014, in which the army summarily executed 22 civilians and altered the scene of the crime to make it look like a shoot-out with a drug gang.
Two months later, the 43 students from Ayotzinapa were forcibly kidnapped with the involvement of the army and the federal police; it is expected that no one will be held accountable.
Demonstrations in support of the CNTE teachers took place over the weekend across Mexico. There were also protests and rallies at Mexican consulates throughout the world, in Los Angeles, Chicago, Buenos Aires, Madrid, Berlin, and many other cities.

The Oaxaca massacre and the eruption of class struggle in Mexico

25 June 2016
On Sunday, June 19, a force of heavily-armed Mexican federal police fired automatic weapons into a crowd of 500 striking teachers and their supporters blocking a highway in the impoverished town of Nochixtlán in the southern state of Oaxaca, killing at least thirteen and wounding dozens more.
The massacre reveals the brutal lengths to which the Mexican ruling class will go to impose its attacks on Mexican workers. Opposition will not be brooked.
Those who lost their lives, mostly young people, were protesting in defense of public education. Teachers across Mexico, most forcefully in Mexico’s deeply impoverished southwest, have demonstrated against efforts by President Enrique Peña Nieto to privatize education and impose authoritarian methods of testing and hiring teachers.
In the wake of last Sunday’s massacre, a groundswell of opposition has emerged nationally against state repression and right-wing “reforms,” part of Peña Nieto’s “Pact for Mexico,” aimed at slashing social services. Thousands of workers, youth and peasants attended funeral processions for the dead in Nochixtlán. Residents have since rebuilt the barricades taken down in the police operation.
On Wednesday, 200,000 doctors and nurses struck in sympathy with the teachers and against attempts to privatize the federal social security and health systems. Students at major Mexican universities boycotted classes this week to protest Sunday’s attack and ongoing efforts by the government to impose higher education costs.
Parents of the 43 Ayotzinapa student teachers “disappeared” by the Mexican government in September 2014 continue to tour the country in protest, after the Peña Nieto administration shut down the only independent investigation of the attack.
Through the Pact for Mexico, the Mexican oligarchy, backed by US imperialism, seeks to implement a massive transfer of wealth from the Mexican working class to the banks and corporations.
The US ambassador to Mexico, Roberta Jacobson, met with Peña Nieto the day after the attack in Oaxaca to express support for his reforms. After a perfunctory and insincere expression of regret over the slaughter in Nochixtlán, Jacobson emphasized that the “opportunities for bilateral cooperation have never been better” between the US and Mexico, and that “only through alliances on education can we succeed in training the Twenty-First Century labor force.”
It is likely that the federal police who opened fire in Nochixtlán were US-trained officers using weapons provided by the Obama administration. Through the Merida Initiative, the US has spent over $2.3 billion arming and training Mexico's police and armed forces since 2008, providing them with deadly weapons, drones, surveillance equipment and airplanes.
In addition, the US Northern Command has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on separate training programs that, unlike under the Merida Initiative, are not subject to any human rights withholding provisions. Nearly 5,000 Mexican police and military personnel were trained at US military bases in 2015 alone.
The educational reforms of the Pact for Mexico have their origins in similar programs being implemented in the United States and around the world. In cities such as Detroit and Chicago, the Obama administration has worked closely with the trade unions to impose pension and wage cuts, school closures and antidemocratic testing policies on millions of teachers.
The resurgence of class struggle and, in particular, the struggle of teachers, is not only a Mexican, but rather an international phenomenon. In Detroit, thousands of teachers staged “sickouts” to protest the dilapidated condition of the city’s schools. Similar strikes and protests have taken place in Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle and Atlanta. A strike wave of teachers and professors has swept across five Brazilian states in recent weeks, as opposition grows to counter-reforms undertaken by Interim President Michel Temer.
The Mexican ruling class has responded to the growth of social opposition and the reemergence of the class struggle not only by employing state violence. As a backup, it has also brought to the forefront various self-proclaimed “left” or even “socialist” groups in an attempt to disarm social protests and prevent working-class opposition from taking an independent, revolutionary form.
Key is the role of former Mexico City mayor and ex-Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who now heads the National Regeneration Movement (MORENA) party. He founded this new party in 2014 after splitting with the supposedly “left” PRD. López Obrador, who will run for president in 2018, pledges to “transform Mexico through the electoral process.”
In the wake of this week's signs of a broadening movement of strikes and protests, López Obrador posted a video calling for a national protest march for Sunday, June 26 against the “political mafia” and “hypocritical conservatives.” In the video, López Obrador says the demonstration will be directed against corruption and will pose the question: “Why not choose humanism? Why not search for reconciliation and peace?” As for the teachers’ work stoppage, he calls for a “dialogue” with a state that has ruled out compromise.
MORENA is being groomed to play a similar role as SYRIZA in Greece and Podemos in Spain. The party won a majority of seats in the Mexico City Constituent Assembly in the June 5 elections. It is being widely hailed as Mexico's foremost “broad left” party after the collapse in support for the PRD. The latter has been thoroughly exposed as a right-wing party by its vote for the Pact for Mexico, its role in carrying out and covering up the Ayotzinapa massacre, and its electoral alliances with the right-wing National Action Party (PAN).
Like its counterparts in Greece and Spain, MORENA is a nationalist, pro-capitalist, anti-socialist party. Its radical phraseology is designed to tie the Mexican working class to the blood-soaked Mexican state. If brought to power, MORENA will play the same role as SYRIZA in Greece. It will enforce the Pact of Mexico in conjunction with US imperialism, and, if necessary, respond to opposition in the working class with violence and repression.
The Mexican working class cannot solve the severe problems plaguing Mexican society by tying itself to bourgeois parties such as MORENA and proceeding on a nationalist basis. It can do so only in a united revolutionary struggle with its class brothers and sisters worldwide, including in the United States.
Neil Hardt

Saturday, June 25, 2016

AMERICA: No Damned Legal Need Apply!



SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER


The Washington Post is reporting that U.S. might not be able to follow in the U.K.’s footsteps in reclaiming its economic independence because of the nation’s demographic makeup, which is the result of four decades of record high green card issuances to foreign nationals.

In a piece entitled, “No, Brexit Isn’t A Good Sign For Trump,” Washington Post’s Kim Soffen writes:
“There are certainly similarities between the referendum and the [Trump] campaign. Both are largely driven by immigration… Both are nationalist movements. Both are an instance of the will of the people going against the wishes of the elite… And their demographic support looks quite similar too.”
Yet Soffen writes that Brexit may not be a harbinger for Donald Trump’s future electoral success because the U.S. does not have as many white voters as Britain does.
“Largely at issue here is demographics. The British electorate is overwhelmingly white – 87 percent of its population is, according to its 2011 census. That’s compared to the United States’ 74 percent in 2014. That difference is significant for what direction each country votes.”
Indeed, while establishment media has pushed the narrative that immigration is a much more significant issue in Europe than it is the U.S., the facts do not bear this out. The U.S. has accepted 10 million more migrants from outside its borders than the European Union has absorbed from outside its borders, even though the EU has 200 million more people than the United States. Indeed, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, minority babies now outnumber white babies in the United States.
Soffen reports that polling data suggests non-whites tended to support the globalist position over the nationalist policy.
“Just like more minority-dense areas in the United States, like cities, tend to vote Democrat, minority-dense areas in the United Kingdom tended to vote to stay in the EU. In London, where 60 percent of citizens are non-white according to the 2011 Census, 60 percent of votes went against Brexit, compared to 48 percent nationwide.”
“Since the U.S. is far more diverse than the U.K., Brexit’s predictive power is even weaker,” Soffen concludes.
The Washington Post suggests that in order to have nationalist policies, the U.S. has to have a large population of whites in its country. Perversely, the Washington Post is essentially arguing that foreign nationals do not seem to have a strong enough allegiance to their new country to support a nationalist agenda over a more global, internationalist agenda — an argument, which dramatically undercuts the Washington Post’s general narrative on immigration and contradicts a core theme of its human interests stories, which seem designed to advance legislation that would expand U.S. immigration.
The demographic makeup the United States—which the Washington Post posits is the reason the U.S. could perhaps be incapable of voting in favor of reclaiming its national sovereignty—is the result of a Ted Kennedy-backed 1965 immigration rewrite, which opened up America’s borders to the world.
Kennedy’s immigration law lifted the immigration caps that had been place and opened up U.S. visas to migrants all across the globe.
While about nine in ten of the immigrants who came to the United States during the 19th and 20th century hailed from Europe, the 1965 law inverted that figure. Today about nine out of every ten new immigrants brought into the country on green cards come from non-Western countries in Latin America, Africa, Asia or the Middle East.
Following the law’s passage, 59 million immigrants entered the United States. Including their children, it added 72 million new residents to the U.S. population.
In 1965, according to Pew, the country was 84 percent white, 11 percent black, 4 percent Hispanic and less than 1 percent Asian– i.e. it had a white population that very similar in size to the white population of the U.K. today.
Unless Congress proposes legislation to curb the U.S. autopilot visa issuances, Pew projects that in forty years time as a result of large-scale immigration, “no racial or ethnic group will constitute a majority of the U.S. population,” as “whites are projected to become less than half of the U.S. population by 2055.” Therefore, by 2065, the nation would be 46 percent white, 24 percent Hispanic, 14 percent Asian and 13 percent black.
However, members of the globalist caucus in Washington including House Speaker Paul Ryan, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and President Barack Obama, have all pushed to accelerate this demographic transformation and have championed proposals to dramatically expand the nation’s record high immigration admissions.

Heritage: Amnestied Illegals Will Get $9.4T in Benefits; Increase Debt $6.3T'

what is the REAL cost of all that “CHEAP” Mexican labor? Add it up and then factor in the MEXICAN CRIME TIDAL WAVE and the fact that the MEXICAN  now operate in 2,500 American cities!

OBAMA’S ASSAULT ON AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS IT CALLED “THE OPEN BORDERS PROJECT”



“I estimate that enforcing the law and deporting all illegals would raise real low-skill wages by about 20% to 40% within 6 years, providing immediate relief to the oppressed low-skill citizens of our country.  (See my notes.)  Allowing in more high-skill people and few low-skill people would have long-term benefits that would eventually tower over this short-term benefit.  A more skilled population would increase the historical trend of economic growth in this country.  We might even become the richest per capita country in the world.





WILL THE AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS SELF-DESTRUCT BEFORE OBAMA DESTROYS IT?






OBAMA-CLINTONOMICS: The final death of the American Middle Class and the staggering expansion of the LA RAZA Mexican welfare state




THE “HOPE & CHANGE” HUCKSTER WHO REALLY WAS GEORGE BUSH’S THIRD AND FOURTH TERMS ON STEROIDS!


“The long-term reversal of the social gains made by the working class has

only accelerated in the wake of the 2008 economic crisis. President Obama

has overseen one of the greatest transfers of wealth from the working class

to the rich in world history.”



 LA RAZA-OCCUPATION and LOOTING in MEXIFORNIA…. shocking!
Californians bear an enormous fiscal burden as a result of an illegal alien population estimated at almost 3 million residents. The annual expenditure of state and local tax dollars on services for that population is $25.3 billion. That total amounts to a yearly burden of about $2,370 for a household headed by a U.S. citizen.

MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WITHOUT 

WORK AS OBAMA AND HILLARY EASE 

MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS OVER OUR OPEN

BORDERS



WORST JOB MARKET IN 40 YEARS… and

getting worse!


UNDER OBAMA, TWO-THIRDS OF JOBS GO TO HIS PARTY BASE OF ILLEGALS!



“At the hearing, Dr. Rakesh Kochar,

Associate Director for Research at the Pew

Hispanic Center, testified that in the year

following the official end of the recession

(June 2009), foreign-born workers gained

656,000 jobs while native-born workers lost

an additional 1.2 million jobs.”