Sunday, January 6, 2019

RICK MORAN - SCOTUS MAY HEAR APPEAL OF INDIANA LAW THAT CHALLENGES ROE - IS THERE NOW HOPE FOR UNBORN CHILDREN?


ABORTION KILLS…. the innocent!
PLANNED PARENTHOOD:
America’s baby murdering factories…. Your tax dollars at work

“I Cut the Vocal Cord So The Baby Can't Scream.”


Dr. Leah Torres, an OB/GYN in Salt Lake City, Utah, said that when she performs certain abortions she cuts the vocal cord of the baby so "there's really no opportunity" for the child to scream. She also described herself as a "uterus ripper outer" because she performs hysterectomies.


SCOTUS may hear appeal of Indiana law that directly challenges Roe



This is an issue that may be taken up by the Supreme Court that hasn't gotten a lot of national attention. It involves an Indiana law, referred to as the "Eguenics Statute," passed in 2016 that makes it  illegal for women to have an abortion on the basis of race or sex or because they learn they will otherwise give birth to a baby with Down syndrome.
The law was declared unconstitutional in the lower courts, but Indiana has appealed to the Supreme Court. The court privately reviewed the case this past Friday and will decide as early as next week whether to hear arguments.
What makes this particular case so significant is that it will be the first major abortion case to come before the court since Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed.
State lawmakers in Indiana appealed the case about a week after Kavanaugh was sworn in, arguing that “technological advances have improved ... prenatal testing that screens for Down syndrome and other fetal abnormalities,” which results in most women choosing abortion when they receive a diagnosis.
The latest available data, from 1995-2011, show that 67 percent of pregnancies that test positive for Down syndrome end in abortion. Pregnant women can screen for Trisomy 21, a chromosomal abnormality, through a blood sample.
The Indiana abortion ban was signed by Vice President Mike Pence, who was governor of the state at the time. It contains exemptions for conditions that "with reasonable certainty result in the death of the child not more than three months after the child’s birth.”
In 2016, a federal judge blocked the Indiana law from going into effect, and a 3-0 ruling in the 7th Circuit Court in Chicago ruled it unconstitutional. They pointed to the Supreme Court's Roedecision, saying the choice to have an abortion was not up to the government but was to be a decision between a woman and her doctor. In June, a dissenting opinion urged the appeals court to reconsider its ruling, with one of the judges saying that the Supreme Court had not ruled on what he termed a "eugenics statute."
Kavanaugh gave little clue during his Senate testimony as to where he might stand on challenging Roe v Wade:
The question over whether Kavanaugh would cast a deciding vote to overrule or weaken Roe featured prominently in Democratic attacks early during his confirmation hearings. Later, the messaging centered primarily on sexual assault allegations from Christine Blasey Ford, who said he touched her inappropriately and covered her mouth while he was drunk and they were both in high school.
When asked by senators about abortion, Kavanaugh cited Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, decisions that legalized the procedure nationwide up until fetal viability, generally understood as up to 24 weeks. Casey allowed states to regulate abortion but prohibited them from placing an "undue burden" on women who seek an abortion.
Kavanaugh did not say during the hearings how he would rule on abortion or whether he believed women had a right to abortion, stressing instead that Casey created a " precedent on precedent."
If the court took the case, they may be inclined to rule narrowly on the issue, confirming or striking down the law, without really dealing with the underlying problem of abortion on demand.
An elective abortion cannot be justified as medically necessary, meaning that other reasons not related to the health of the woman are used to justify it. If you can abort a child based on the fact that it will be a burden to its parents because of some condition they are born with, why not have the right to abort a girl baby because you wanted a boy? It's a slippery slope that the Indiana law seeks to address. If confirmed by the high court, the law could become the basis for severely restricting the reasons a woman can have a legal abortion.
Activists know this, of course, which is why they are fighting the law tooth and nail. While no one can guess where Justice Kavanaugh might stand on the issue, he could support a ruling that would keep Roe intact, but make it much harder to get an abortion. That would maintain both the Roe and Casey precedents while carving out new restrictions on abortion.




Whether Americans like it or not, abortion has become the defining issue of the two main parties.  A Democrat can be many things – a moderate; a corporatist; or a shrill, uninformed socialist – but he must be pro-choice, as shown in the recent move to repeal the pro-life Mexico City policy, which prevents foreign aid going to organizations that fund or encourage abortions.  The same applies to the Republicans, who range from government-friendly "moderates" to staunch say-no-to-all-spending libertarians but who all must try to uphold the rights of the unborn – except Gov. Kasich, who apparently thinks cursive is more important than saving infants with a heartbeat.
Considering the respective platforms of each party, this sometimes places political leaders and their constituents in strange places.  It seems odd that Democrats, who claim to champion the poor and people of color, support a procedure that decimates those very communities and accounted for a staggering41 million deaths worldwide in 2018.  For Republicans who claim to advocate for freedom and limited government, it also seems odd, at least on principle, to limit parents' freedom in planning their families.  
The division makes more sense within the context of morality than politics.  Democrats espouse a materialist secular morality that stresses quality of life over the sanctity of life.  This means they believe there is a point for individuals when life is not worth living, usually in cases of poverty, sickness, or suffering, which then makes it permissible to terminate that life.  By contrast, Republicans have embraced the Christian/Natural Law morality, which contends that all human beings have the right to life, regardless of circumstance.
Unlike most, if not all, other issues, abortion has no gray areas.  One must pick a side and work on winning over the other side.  Compromise and moderation are not an option.
Nor is "agreeing to disagree" an option, which is where problems start.  At its core, the pro-life movement believes that babies are people entitled to a right to life, while the pro-choice movement does not acknowledge the personhood of the unborn child.  Taken a step farther, pro-lifers consequently believe that abortion is murder, that the millions of abortions that have already happened equate to the worst genocide in history, and that people who continue to support abortion endorse a grave evil.  As long as the practice of abortion continues, pro-choicers have to find a way to respond to this charge, whether they like it or not.
So far, there have been three ways that the pro-choice movement has responded: (1) repent and join the pro-life movement, (2) argue and rationalize abortion, or (3) fight back.  In the first case, the pro-life cause can claim some success, having won over key figures in abortion (including the very woman who was involved inRoe v. Wade) and making the elimination of abortion a key component in theGOP platform and politics in general.  In the second kind of response, pro-choicers have adopted every possible argument to rationalize and justify abortion.  Mainly, they argue that it empowers and liberates women (because babies are a burden) and enables economic mobility for the poor (again, because babies are a burden).  Arguments of the Malthusian and eugenic variety often linger in the background, but only bioethicists have the clout to openly make them in polite company.
The third way to respond – to fight back and become militant – has come to characterize the pro-choice movement as a whole.  People who support abortion will use any means to break down the opposing side.  They will take legal action (even against nuns), organize smear campaigns, create laws about advertising abortion, and outlaw pro-life protests, and even break laws that might inhibit access to abortion.  They will celebrate their abortions at every opportunity, donate massive sums of money to abortion-providers, and treat the right to kill one's child as sacred.  Unlike the second group of pro-choicers, they do not use arguments or bring up extenuating circumstances that may justify abortion as though it were a difficult choice (this would show weakness); they simply get mad and use force against the people who oppose abortion in any way.
Most pro-lifers scratch their heads at this reaction.  Why celebrate something that is traumatic for the mother and kills the baby?  It's understandable (though wrong) that people excuse abortion, but it's disgusting, if not positively demonic, that people tout it as a great thing – as shown in this disturbing commercial from Planned Parenthood or "Shout Your Abortion" founder Amelia Bonow talking to young children about her abortion.
What's lost in this thinking is the massive pressure that keeps pro-choicers from changing their position.  One would first have to admit to committing or abetting a great evil.  This necessarily produces great guilt and need for penance, which people are less and less willing to accept in today's comfortable world.  Moreover, one would have to break away from his peers who still hold fast to legal abortions, risking becoming a pariah.  As it is in politics, so too in people's households and social circles: saying yes to life in general means saying no to one's own life in particular.  It's also difficult to stay friends with people who you believe enable and engage in what amounts to murder.
Pro-life advocates will often compare the abortion debate to the debate over slavery, and rightly so.  Both concern fundamental rights (the right to life and liberty), both allow no compromise, and both have to contend with flawed court cases that legalize something morally wrong (Roe v. Wade and Dred Scott v. Sandford).  Pro-choicers even use the same logic as anti-abolitionists, and many ponder the same state-by-state solution to the whole matter.  Whether both issues will conclude in an American civil war remains to be seen, but it would be na├»ve to rule out the possibility of violence erupting – mainly from the pro-choice camp.
Everything depends on how the pro-life movement proceeds.  Its members hold the high ground in terms of morality and logic, but they also need to have the courage to confront the inevitable resistance.  Victory will not come easily, and praying that a political victory or winning a public debate will overturn the pro-choice movement is foolishness.  The pro-life movement will need to continue the hard, often thankless work of appealing to, while fighting, their fellow Americans to protect the unborn.  In this sense, it truly is like a civil war, where the enemy is one's brother and sister, and the most loving thing one can do is defeat the enemy in battle – something Lincoln famously argued in his second inaugural address.
The costs will be high, and many will feel discouraged, but if it means saving the lives of millions of future children and promoting a culture of life, then it is all worth it.
Auguste Meyrat is an English teacher in the Dallas area. He is the editor ofThe Everyman and has also written essays for The Federalist and The American Conservative. Follow him on Twitter.

Report: 452 child workers died in the US from 2003 to 2016


About 452 child workers died in the United States from 2003 to 2016, according to a December 20 analysis by the Washington Post. Over 16 percent of those, or a total of 73, were children aged 12 years and younger. The age groups with the next highest number of deaths were 16- and 17-year-olds, with 110 and 145 deaths during those years, respectively.
A child worker is recognized by the US government as any worker under 18 years of age. According to the Fair Labor Standards Act—a set of federal laws which set age, hours worked, wage and safety requirements for minors in the US—14 is the minimum age for most non-agricultural work.
However, there are many exemptions to the law. In the US, children are legally allowed to deliver newspapers, perform in radio, television, movies or theatrical productions at any age. They are also allowed to work in businesses owned by their parents (except in mining, manufacturing or what are deemed to be “hazardous jobs”), perform babysitting or minor chores around a private home, and work as homeworkers to gather evergreens and make evergreen wreaths.
The majority of child deaths from 2003 to 2016—52 percent, or a total of 235—occurred in agriculture, although agricultural workers account for less than one-fifth of the total number of child laborers in the US. The disproportionate number can be attributed to the fact that the agricultural, forestry, fishing and hunting sector, which accounted for over 11 percent of total workplace deaths in 2017, is one of the most dangerous occupations in the US.
Another cause is that small family farms are exempt from most government regulations of child labor in the US. The US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the federal organization that regulates workplace safety, states that “youths of any age may work at any time in any job on a farm owned or operated by their parent or person standing in place of their parent.”
Children younger than 14 are allowed to work on a farm with their parents’ permission. Children younger than 12 can work only on farms so small that they’re not required to pay the minimum wage. Children are prohibited from working during school hours, which means they must work either in the early morning or evening hours. In some seasons, these are the hours with the least amount of sunlight, meaning that they make working conditions more dangerous.
Farmworkers 15 and younger are prohibited from operating a combine harvester or most larger tractors, using dynamite or other explosives, or performing other hazardous tasks. But there are exceptions for children who have been trained on certain tasks and machinery in a program such as 4-H. Children younger than 15 may and regularly do operate smaller vehicles, like tractors and all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), on family farms.
According to a 2018 report by the National Children’s Center for Rural and Agricultural Health and Safety, the number of youth worker fatalities in agriculture has been higher than in all other industries combined since 2009. In 2015, child workers were 44.8 times more likely to be fatally injured in agriculture when compared to all other industries combined.
Transportation incidents were the most common fatal event, with tractors and ATVs being the primary vehicles involved. Transportation incidents also cause the most workplace fatalities in the entire US labor force, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data for 2017.
The high number of child deaths in agriculture can be traced to the reactionary policies of the Obama administration enacted after the 2008 financial crisis, in order to serve the profit interests of the major corporations and big banks and to suppress the class struggle.
In addition to stripping back health and safety regulations during his two presidential terms, Obama’s Labor Department in 2012 refused to enact proposed regulations that would have forbidden children younger than 16 years of age from completing “agricultural work with animals and in pesticide handling, timber operations, manure pits and storage bins.” The regulations also would have forbidden farm workers under the age of 16 from handling most “power-driven equipment” and from contributing to the “cultivation, harvesting and curing of tobacco.”
Outside of agricultural work, the Washington Post report shows that children died working in construction (56), administrative and support and waste management (28), restaurants, hotels and retail (39 total) and several other occupations.
There is no way to know exactly how many children work in the US at any given time, as no official data is available for the total number in agriculture, family businesses and household work, including babysitting and housekeeping work for pay.
Data for employment of 15- to 17-year-olds show that 2.5 million children in this age group were working during the summer of 2017, and the number fell to less than 2 million for the rest of the year, when school is in session in the US. Both statistics are the highest level of employment recorded for this age group in the post-2008 period.
According to the report, “The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Childhood Agricultural Injury Survey separately found about 524,000 children worked on farms in 2014. The survey found about 375,000 ‘working household children’ that same year. Two-thirds of them were 14 or younger, according to the [Government Accountability Office’s] analysis.”
The number of children working and killed at work in the United States exposes the stark reality of the capitalist system: Even in one of the most advanced capitalist economies in the world, child labor is not eradicated, nor will it be unless the profit system is replaced with a planned economy based on fulfilling social need.
That so many children are working points to the fact that living standards for the working class have fallen so low that children are going to work at younger ages out of economic necessity, evoking images of children in the Victorian era who risked their lives in dangerous factory and mine work in order to support their families.
Small farmers are especially susceptible to pressure to use child labor, with a general lack of capital making production costs exceedingly high when compared to the economic gain.
Unless the working class intervenes with its own strategy to take control of the means of production, not only will child labor continue to exist in the US, but conditions for child laborers in the US will begin to fall closer to those faced by children on the continents of Asia and Africa, where it is much more common.
Betsy DeVos, current education secretary in the Trump Administration and one of the few cabinet members who has not been fired or resigned, has been a member of the board of the Action Institute. This right-wing think tank advocates the abolition of mandatory schooling and the loosening of child labor restrictions, as illustrated by one of its blog posts from early November 2016, titled “Bring back child labor.”
None of the trade unions in the United States, including the United Farm Workers of America, have lifted a finger to fight against the exploitation of children in dangerous work in the US.

The working class needs its own strategy, independent of the two capitalist parties and their allies in the trade unions, putting forward a socialist program and linking up with workers around the world in the fight for a safe workplace for all workers and to put an end to child labor worldwide.

JUDICIAL WATCH WINS VICTORY OVER ILLEGALS VOTING IN MEXICO'S SECOND LARGEST CITY LOS ANGELES AND COUNTY

California admits it has no idea whether non-citizens voted in last primary



After a hard-fought battle to obtain records by the Sacramento Bee, we now learn that California's electoral officials are admitting that they have no idea how many illegals and other non-citizens voted in the last primary, based on the state's motor-voter registration, which has been shown to have registered thousands of non-citizen voters. The Bee reports:
California officials still can’t say whether non-citizens voted in the June 2018 primary because a confusing government questionnaire about eligibility was created in a way that prevents a direct answer on citizenship.
Apparently, tens of thousands of foreign nationals and other ineligible voters, maybe 16 year olds, got registered to vote at the DMV when they applied for their drivers licenses whether they asked for it or not.
Investigators can see that people marked themselves as ineligible to vote or declined to answer eligibility questions, but they can’t tell why. 
“We can’t assume why they declined to answer eligibility questions or why they said they were not eligible,” the Secretary of State’s Office wrote in an internal memo on Oct. 8, 2018.
That email and other documents The Sacramento Bee obtained through the Public Records Act shed light on why the Secretary of State has been unable to say clearly whether non-citizens voted last year. The Bee filed a legal complaint for the records when the Secretary of State initially withheld most of them.
The email shows that, for months, California officials have been examining whether non-citizens voted last year. On Thursday, Secretary of State Alex Padilla confirmed for the first time that his office has an active internal investigation into the matter.
“The Secretary of State’s office does not comment on the details of ongoing investigations,” the office said in a statement. “Determining whether ineligible individuals who were erroneously registered to vote by the DMV cast ballots requires a complete review. The Secretary of State’s office is doing its due diligence by conducting a thorough investigation.”
Spokesmen for the office declined to say how the department could otherwise determine citizenship of those registered.
This doesn't even include the undoubtedly significant numbers of voters who answered that they were eligible to vote when they were not. Could that have happened when the ballot-harvestors were out patrolling illegal immigrant neighborhoods in search of votes? At a minimum, it most certainly was possible, especially, since claims to voter-eligibility on drivers license forms are never checked in California (it's the honor system), according to voter-integrity activists. It also doesn't help that California sneakily had residents sign to certify on their yellow mail-in ballots that they were California residents(rather than voting-eligible citizens) so as to prevent for illegals any potential perjury charges in addition to vote-fraud charges.
If California has no idea who's a citizen, and has resisted every effort out there to get that information (it has defied cooperation with President Trump's electoral integrity commission), well, then what we can conclude is that they don't want to know if a non-citizen is voting and now the word is out that they don't. Apparently, Democratic interests in 'counting all the ballots' as they say, means counting illegal ones, too.
They don't know, they don't want to know, and they aren't about to clean this up. Keep after them, Sacramento Bee. In this case, the Bee is a newspaper that's doing its actual job.

Ballot-harvesting gets just a little harder in California, thanks to 

Judicial Watch





Judicial Watch has forced the state of California and Los Angeles county to end its practice of keeping 'inactive' voters on the voter rolls as is required by federal law. Here's the news from the legal watchdog:
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it signed a settlement agreement with the State of California and County of Los Angeles under which they will begin the process of removing from their voter registration rolls as many as 1.5 million inactive registered names that may be invalid. These removals are required by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).
The NVRA is a federal law requiring the removal of inactive registrations from the voter rolls after two general federal elections (encompassing from 2 to 4 years). Inactive voter registrations belong, for the most part, to voters who have moved to another county or state or have passed away.
Los Angeles County has over 10 million residents, more than the populations of 41 of the 50 United States. California is America’s largest state, with almost 40 million residents.
The state of California, run completely by Democrats, of course, resisted this (at least until the midterm was over). They decided that cleaning up inactive voters from the rolls wasn't in their interest and federal laws were for other states, little states. And as a result, nearly a quarter of California's counties had more voters registered than actual eligible voters. And surprise, surprise, the state has suddenly turned solid blue.
L.A. county's approximately 1.5 million inactive voters on those rolls (112% of age-eligible citizens alone) had been perfect fodder for ballot-harvestors, not this last time at midterms (all of the Democratic ballots harvested in the last midterm have made their voters active voters), but for upcoming elections. That rich bank of potential Democratic votes from ballot-harvesting is now gone with this Judicial Watch agreement.
Ballot-harvesting is a disturbing phenomenon so prone to abuse it's illegal in most states. In California, where it's not, Democratic operatives selectively pay visits to the homes of indifferent voters who don't want to go to the polls or mail in their ballots, engage those voters, and then "help" them fill out their ballots in the way Democrats want. That's why conservative areas such as Orange County were suddenly flipped blue and popular candidates such as Young Kim, who had been winning by large margins on election night - suddenly saw their results flipped. Democrats learned that by extending the election count for weeks, turning in harvested ballot after harvested ballot, they could win any election. 
But the harvest had been incomplete, and with many inactive voters, Democrats would need that bank of more potential votes, which likely explains why California's Democrats resisted any cleanup of voter rolls. California may have mailed these people ballots whether they liked it or not or asked for it or not, as they did with all of us, and well, Democratic ballot-harvestors could have easily gotten hold of those unasked for ballots in the mailboxes of dead, moved-away, or incapacitated voters and saw to it that they somehow got cast.
(Judicial Watch is investigating that one, too.)
The state's chief vote counter, Secretary of State Alex Padilla, insists that not a single voter will be disenfranchised, given all his 'safeguards.' His official plan is to mail in a confirmation form to inactive voters and strike their names if they don't respond, but somehow, I suspect the ballot-harvestors will be paying visits to these inactive residents, who may be indifferent and incapacitated voters, and somehow will get them to mail those forms in, too, thereby subverting the process.
That said, Judicial Watch's victory is a great one and frees them up to focus on other areas of abuse that are rife in California, such as non-citizen registrations (the state still says it has no idea how many there are), illegal immigrant votes already cast, ballot harvestors using coercion, foreign ballot-harvestors, gerrymandering, straight out fraud, and the whole cavalcade of Democrat tricks that have disenfranchised conservative voters in the state.
It's a welcome glimmer of light from a one-party state.

40 MILLION ILLEGALS.... handed us a homelessness, housing crisis, wages depression and jobs crisis!



WE HANDED THEM HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS IN WELFARE TO KEEP COMING!

THE NEW PRIVILEGED CLASS: Illegals (unregistered democrats)!

This is why you work From Jan - May paying taxes to the government ....with the rest of the calendar year is money for you and your family.

Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children. He takes a job for $5.00 or 6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, with his fake Social Security number, he gets an "earned income credit" of up to $3,200..... free.

He qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.

He qualifies for food stamps.

He qualifies for free (no deductible, no co-pay) health care.

His children get free breakfasts and lunches at school.

He requires bilingual teachers and books.

He qualifies for relief from high energy bills.

If they are or become, aged, blind or disabled, they qualify for SSI.

Once qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare. All of this is at (our) taxpayer's expense.

He doesn't worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance.

Taxpayers provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.

He and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in benefits.

Working Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6.00/hour left after Paying their bills and his.

The American taxpayers also pay for increased crime, graffiti and trash clean-up.



Cheap labor? YEAH RIGHT! Wake up people! 

 THE GLOBALIST DEMOCRAT PARTY TO SERVE THE RICH,
BANKSTERS AND EXPAND THE MEX WELFARE STATE IN AMERICA
TO KEEP THEM COMING

Greenspan, Schumer, Pelosi and their cohorts are determined to create a $15.00 per hour “standard wage” to be paid to all workers irrespective of education or the nature of their jobs.  This is called Communism! 

BILLIONAIRES FOR wider OPEN BORDERS TO KEEP WAGES DEPRESSED and AMERICA FLOODED WITH FOREIGNERS.
But Benioff’s cheap-labor importation plan would also shrink the income and careers sought by millions of American college graduates, many of whom will vote in 2020 for or against Trump. 
*
The nation’s workforce now includes roughly 1.5 million foreign college-graduate contract-workers who are imported via the H-1B, L-1, OPT, O-1, J-1, and other visa programs. These outsourcing workers are not immigrants, but instead, they are contract workers hired for one to six years, at lower wages, to take jobs that would otherwise go to American graduates.
*
The Americans’ salary loss, however, would be a gain for the CEOs who see their profits rise and their stock options spike as middle-class salaries decline. 

LA RAZA SUPREMACIST DEMOCRAT PARTY HOOKS AND CROOKS AMERICA TO DOUBLE THE “CHEAP” LABOR POPULATION


TRILLION DOLLAR WELFARE HANDOUT TO NARCOMEX!

 

Clinton amnesty plan would cost taxpayers $1.2 trillion



Hillary Clinton's plan to bring 11 million illegal aliens
"out of the shadows" would cost American households an immediate tax increase of $1.2 trillion, or $15,000 per household, according to a study by the National Academy of Sciences.

 

 

THE BILLIONAIRES’S GLOBALIST DEMOCRAT PARTY FOR WIDER OPEN BORDERS

 

THE TRUE COST OF ALL THAT “CHEAP” LABOR IS PASSED ALONG TO THE MIDDLE CLASS.

 

"This doesn't include the costs of illegal immigration to society, which provides health care, housing, education, child care, and legal services to illegal aliens.  Even though immigration advocates claim that illegal aliens do indeed pay taxes, the dollar amount pales in comparison to the cost of the many services they receive."

https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-globalist-democrat-party-for-wider_29.html

 

Meanwhile, despite the highest taxes in the nation, California is $1.3 trillion in debt – unemployment is at a staggering 11%.  California's wacko giveaways to illegals include in-state tuition, amounting to $25 million of financial aid.  Nearly a million illegals have California driver's licenses.  L.A. County has 144% more registered voters than there are residents of legal voting age.  Clearly, illegals are illegally voting

DEMOCRAT PARTY CORRUPTION 

"This is how they will destroy America from within.  The leftist billionaires who orchestrate these plans are wealthy. Those tasked with representing us in Congress will never be exposed to the cost of the invasion of millions of migrants.  They have nothing but contempt for those of us who must endure the consequences of our communities being intruded upon by gang members, drug dealers and human traffickers.  These people have no intention of becoming Americans; like the Democrats who welcome them, they have contempt for us." PATRICIA McCARTHY


THE INVASION SPONSORED BY THE DEMOCRAT PARTY
Congressional Democrats are apparently fine with catch-and-release policies because they see the likely electoral benefits. According to Customs and Border Protection (CPB), of the 94,285 Central American family units apprehended last year, 99 percent of them remain in the country today. CPB also reports that 98 percent of the 31,754 unaccompanied minors from the Northern Triangle of Central America remain in the country. CAL THOMAS

 

STAGNANT WAGES and the Dem Party’s obsession with open borders, amnesty and no damned legal need apply!
THE LA RAZA SUPREMACY PARTY for OPEN BORDERS, AMNESTY, NON-ENFORCEMENT, NO E-VERIFY and no Legal need apply!!!

The Democratic Party used to be the party of blue collar America- supporting laws and policies that benefited that segment of the U.S. population.  Their leaders may still claim to be advocates for American working families, however their duplicitous actions that betray American workers and their families, while undermining national security and public safety, provide clear and incontrovertible evidence of their lies…. MICHAEL CUTLER …FRONTPAGE mag

 

  

 

WE COULD END MEXICO’S INVASION IF WE PUT EMPLOYERS OF ILLEGALS IN JAIL

 

NumbersUSA’s Rosemary Jenks:

 

E-Verify Ignored in DACA Negotiations Because ‘Members of Congress Know It Will Work’


Members of Congress broadly oppose a legislative nationwide E-Verify mandate for employers because “they know it will work,” said NumbersUSA’s Rosemary Jenks, explaining why E-Verify is not being pushed in congressional negotiations for an amnesty deal for recipients of the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Jenks further noted that both parties are beholden to special interests supportive of “mass migration.”

E-VERIFY – Why both parties hate the word!

http://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/08/mark-krikorian-wheres-e-verify-dont.html

Putting employers of illegals in prison would end the foreign invasion today!

WEST HOLLYWOOD WELCOME MAT FOR ILLEGALS… Not a single employer of illegals ever prosecuted in this LA RAZA SANCTUARY CITY where they print voting ballots in Spanish so illegals can vote for more!

 

https://mexicanoccupation.blogspot.com/2018/11/does-reformation-hardware-in-west.html

 

Simultaneously, illegal immigration next year is on track to soar to the highest level in a decade, with a potential 600,000 border crossers expected.

“More than 750 million people want to migrate to another country permanently, according to Gallup research published Monday, as 150 world leaders sign up to the controversial UN global compact which critics say makes migration a human right.”  VIRGINIA HALE