Monday, June 17, 2019



Media Hide Subsidies for Alien Grads in OPT Articles

Washington, D.C. (June 18, 2019) -  The 
Center for Immigration Studies finds that 
two big newspapers, the New York 
Times and the San Jose Mercury, recently 
published articles on the controversial 
Optional Practical Training (OPT) program 
for foreign grads of U.S. universities 
without mentioning the truth about the 
program — America's elderly and sick in 
effect pay $2 billion a year to employers 
who hire alien grads through OPT rather 
than American ones.

View the full post:

David North, fellow at the Center and the author of the piece, said, "Neither article mentioned the approximately 8 percent tax break that employers of foreign grads, but not of American grads, get under OPT. The program's dirty little secret is that it is subsidizing employers who choose to hire alien grads rather than American ones."

The New York Times article on Monday dealt with a slowdown within the Department of Homeland Security in the issuance of work permits for the foreign alumni bore this awkward headline: "Visa Delays at Backlogged Immigration Service Strand International Students".

The Times article focused on the new delays in the issuance of work permits for these jobs, which, indirectly, caused the loss of some of those jobs, and on an interesting set of "victims", all of whom are former or current students at Ivy League universities. This gives a lopsided view of the program that routinely provides subsidized jobs to more than 200,000 alumni of less highly regarded institutions.

For instance, one would not know from reading any of the rare media coverage of this program that OPT alumni have been hired, in subsidized jobs, as construction laborers.

Meanwhile, The San Jose Mercury News reported on an important event in the migration business -  Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) will soon be introducing a bill terminating the OPT program; he has also written to the president urging him to end the program (which has no legislative basis) by issuing an executive order.

Gosar is aware of the subsidies in the program, and is opposed to them. The first report on his legislative proposal came from Bloomberg News, which also noted the subsidy element in OPT, but the Mercury-News account failed to mention the tax break.

That these trust funds are, in effect, sending money to employers who would rather hire alien graduates than American ones, remains, for all practical purposes, a dirty little secret.

Kamala Harris’s Socialist Ties

Part 1: Red diaper baby

Democratic presidential primary front-runner Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) recently told reporters at a campaign stop in New Hampshire that she is “not a democratic socialist.”
The next question should have been obvious: “Well, then, what kind of socialist are you?”
Harris has been surrounded by socialists and communists her entire life—beginning with her staunchly Marxist fatherHarris is the older child of two 1960s Berkeley radicals: Shyamala Gopalan, a cancer researcher from the state of Tamil Nadu in southern India, and Donald J. Harris, an economist from Jamaica.
Gopalan and Donald Harris were very active during the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War protests of the era, often taking baby Kamala to protests in a stroller, according to a recent article in San Jose daily newspaper The Mercury News on the Harris family.
The couple separated after Donald Harris took a professorship at the University of Madison–Wisconsin. Gopalan filed for divorce in 1971 and won custody of her two daughters in 1973.
Kamala and her younger sister, Maya—now her presidential campaign chair—regularly visited their father during school holidays.
In 1972, Donald Harris left the University of Madison–Wisconsin to begin a visiting professorship of economics at Stanford University.
On Nov. 3, 1976, an article published in the Stanford Daily newspaper claimed that more than 250 students were clamoring for more Marxist perspectives.
Shortly thereafter, a letter was published in the Stanford Daily on Nov. 12, 1976, signed by the Stanford branch of the Union for Radical Political Economics (URPE), with signatures from members Bill Dittenhofer, Ari Cohen, Eric Berg, David O’Connor, Arthur Slepian, Sandy Thompson, and Tracy Mott:
“The program in Marxian economics would be much weaker than it is today if had it not been for massive student efforts in the form of petitions, open meetings …
“[It] was only after a divisive one and a one-half year struggle that the opposing elements in the department gave into student pressure and conceded to ‘the appointment of Prof. Donald Harris. Thus the presence of Marxian economists here simply indicates the success of the student struggle. … The recent addition of course offerings in Marxian economics is again a direct result of student pressure, not departmental benevolence.”
After an 18-month campaign by the union, Harris was offered and accepted a permanent professorship.
The URPE (which last year celebrated its 50th anniversary) began in 1968 as a spinoff of the radical Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). URPE has overlapped considerably with America’s largest Marxist organization, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), since its founding in 1982. One of professor Donald Harris’s Stanford supporters and URPE letter signatories, Mott, is now a professor at the University of Denver, where he works with local DSA activists.
During the summer and fall of 2006, the DSA’s Political Action Committee helped DSA activists around the country host house parties to raise funds that helped Bernie Sanders become the “sole socialist in the U.S. Senate.”
According to DSA magazine Democratic Left: “Boulder, Colorado, guests braved a downpour to attend the party at the home of Leslie Lomas and hear a talk about giving money by economics professor and socialist Tracy Mott.”
According to The Mercury News: “Several of his former students said it wasn’t accurate to describe him [Donald Harris] as Marxist, although ‘he might have been a lot more sympathetic to Marx than a lot of other economists were at the time,’ said Tracy Mott.”
Mott was being disingenuous. Several Stanford Daily articles at the time described Donald Harris as “Marxist,” and Mott and his friends made it very clear that Harris was hired specifically for his radical ideology.
Donald Harris wrote papers such as “The Black Ghetto as Colony: A Theoretical Critique” ‎(1972) and “Capitalist Exploitation and Black Labor: Some Conceptual Issues” (1978).
Harris’s Marxism was never questioned or denied at any stage of his career.
URPE also was very close to the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), once the largest and most influential of the far-left think tanks in Washington. Since its founding in 1963, the IPS has consistently followed a pro-Marxist line on foreign policy, defense, and economic issues.
To put its policy recommendations into action, the IPS “built networks of contacts among congressional legislators and their staffs, academics, government officials, and the national media,” according to the book “The War Called Peace: The Soviet Peace Offensive.”
The IPS also was on very close terms with representatives of communist Cuba and the former Soviet Union.
In 1978, in an article in National Review, Brian Crozier, director of the London-based Institute for the Study of Conflict, described IPS as the “perfect intellectual front for Soviet activities which would be resisted if they were to originate openly from the KGB.”
In the 1988 book “Winning America: Ideas and Leadership for the 1990s,” edited by IPS leaders Marcus Raskin and Chester Hartman, the IPS and DSA affiliate Sean Gervasi recommended a slate of radical colleagues as potential appointees in a hoped-for new Democratic administration after the 1988 election.
Gervasi’s wish list including the following:
• Barry Bluestone—SDS founder, DSA affiliate, URPE member. Served as a member of the senior policy staff of former Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.).
• Gar Alperovitz—IPS, DSA, Brookings Institute.
• Robert Browne—SDS, IPS.
• Jeff Faux—DSA affiliate. Faux has worked as an economist with the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity and the U.S. Departments of State, Commerce, and Labor.
• Carol O’Cleireacain—DSA member, Brookings Institute. In 2014, she became Detroit deputy mayor for economic policy, planning, and strategy.
• Howard Wachtel—IPS, URPE member.
• Art MacEwan—URPE member, DSA affiliate.
And, of course, Donald Harris, Marxist professor and Kamala Harris’s father.
Republican George H.W. Bush won the 1988 election, so professor Harris stayed on at Stanford until his retirement.
Ironically, Kamala Harris’s most formidable opponent in the Democratic primary so far is Bernie Sanders, a favorite of professor Harris’s old URPE and DSA colleagues.
When Sanders drops out of a very crowded Democratic primary, will his supporters cross over to support Kamala Harris?
I believe they will. In fact, I believe it has already been decided.

Trevor Loudon is an author, filmmaker, and public speaker from New Zealand. For more than 30 years, he has researched radical left, Marxist, and terrorist movements and their covert influence on mainstream politics.

Democrats Allow Communists to Infiltrate Their Party Across the Nation

“Obama’s new home in Washington has been described as the “nerve center” of the anti-Trump opposition. Former attorney general Eric Holder has said that Obama is “ready to roll” and has aligned himself with the “resistance.” Former high-level Obama campaign staffers now work with a variety of groups organizing direct action against Trump’s initiatives. “Resistance School,” for example, features lectures by former campaign executive Sara El-Amine, author of the Obama Organizing.”
“Professor Paul Kengor has extensively researched the Chicago communists whose progeny include David Axelrod, Valerie Jarrett, and Barack Hussein Obama.  Add the openly Marxist, pro-communist Ayers, and you have many of the key players who put Obama into power.”
We are all victims of the Obama cabal’s collusion with Russia – President Trump’s voters and all Americans who believe in our free and fair election process.

The United States at the Point of No Return


There is an unquestioned disconnect between the vast majority of the American people and the so-called elites or ruling class.  Whenever I am in the company of those that are members of this exclusive fraternity, and when the conversation inevitably turns to the subject of the irascible mood of the electorate, I offer what I consider to be a valid theory as to one of the primary reasons why.  That is: a plurality of the populace, myself included, firmly believe the United States is approaching the point of no return to its founding as a nation of individual freedom and opportunity, and that the 2016 election is the most significant in 150 years insofar as determining the long term fate of the country.
More often than not these acquaintances react as if Chicken Little had just escaped the asylum and was running amok claiming the sky is falling.   However, in an effort to be kind to the loon in their midst, I have been told, as a figurative pat on the head, because of my personal background as displaced war orphan from World War II that I am hypersensitive and what is going on in America really isn’t as bad as I claim.
Not as bad as I claim? 
Not since the presidential election of 1932 has the American electorate been so mired in discontent.  Despite the best efforts of the media to portray this discontentment as limited to the Republican base, a variety of polls have confirmed a vast majority of the populace shares this same sense of disgruntlement.  Innumerable polls taken over the past seven years are consistent in showing nearly 7 in 10 Americans believing the nation is headed in the wrong direction. 
Further, nearly 60% think that the next generation will be worse off than they are. And few have any faith that the economic outlook for the country will improve in the near or distant future.
Beginning in the late 1980’s, the cognoscenti declared that expansive government spending, globalization and free trade, combined with a comprehensive and overarching regulatory regime determined to root out so-called corruption and inequality as well as save the planet from the over blown evils of global warming, would be the course the nation should pursue.  The result of this foolhardy and myopic scheme:
1.   In 1988 the national debt of the United States stood at $2.6 Trillion, today it is over $19.0 Trillion-- an increase of 635% (and projected to reach $29.0 Trillion by 2026).  On the other hand the debt of all the nations on earth has grown by only 135% since 1988.
2.   Since November of 2008 the working age population has increased by over 18 million. However, the number of those employed has increased just 5.5 million.  Meanwhile those unemployed or no longer in the work force has ballooned by 12.4 million to a staggering total of 102 million or 40.4% of the working age population.
3.   Another factor impacting on the economic health of the American people is immigration.  In 1988 there were 16 million immigrants (including less than a million illegal aliens) living in the United States.  Today that number has skyrocketed to 42.4 million (including an estimated 12 million illegal aliens).  This enormous increase (165%) in the immigrant population has not only put pressure on a stagnant job market but it has also been a major factor in the decline of median income in the country.
4.   The upshot of all the above is that since 1988 the income of the top 5% has risen 39.3% (adjusted for inflation) and the income of the bottom 50% has fallen by 1.9%.
5.   Since 2008 the Obama cabal has added over 18,000 pages to the Code of Federal Regulations. It is estimated that complying with federal regulations costs the economy nearly $2 Trillion per year and is, along with taxes and innumerable mandates, one of the principle reasons for the lack of new business start-ups and loss of jobs to other countries.
One of the primary hallmarks of the United States had been that of a classless society wherein economic factors allowed the citizenry to take advantage of the marketplace in order to move up or down based on their efforts and willingness to work.  However, this scenario is disappearing as the opportunities for upward mobility cease to exist.  In its place a class driven society, similar to all other quasi-socialist nations past and present, is now becoming inevitable as even the Bureau of Labor Statistics admits that the level of Americans working and in the labor force will continue to decrease over the next 8 years.
Another of the primary factors in the decline of the United States is that the nation’s elites, rather than view education as the means for the people to attain success in a competitive world, have recast it into a vehicle for their pet theories and political views.  Whether it is the promulgation of faux self-esteem, the obsession with the so-called evils of capitalism and the nation’s past, and the theoretical joys of socialism among other inane curricula, the education establishment has assured that the American people are rapidly becoming among the least well-educated populations in the world.
In 2013 American 15 year olds ranked 32nd among industrialized countries in math, 20th in reading and 24th in science.  In 1988 this same age group ranked among the top 5-10 nations in the world in these same categories. Further, recent polls have indicated that as a byproduct of the radicalized education establishment, nearly 7 out of 10 between the ages of 18 and 29 would vote for an avowed socialist. Thus it is clear that the future of the country is on very shaky ground.
As for the issue of freedom: in a recent analysis it was determined that the United States now ranks 12th among the nations of the world in economic freedom (6thin 2008) but a dismal 31st in personal freedom (17th in 2008).  The authors of the study commented:
The decline reflects the long-term drop in every category of economic freedom and its rule of law indicators. The US performance is worrisome and shows that the US can no longer claim to be the leading bastion of liberty in the world.  In addition to the expansion of the regulatory state and drop in economic freedom, the war on terror, the war on drugs and the erosion of property rights due to a greater use of eminent domain all likely contributed to the US decline.
Using the cudgel of the mainstream media, the entertainment complex and the education establishment, the Left and its surrogate, the Democratic Party, have successfully inculcated into a plurality of the American people a belief that there are no moral absolutes and that the state can grant any rights that it so chooses to whomever it chooses.  Further, the nation’s founding documents are arcane, racially insensitive, and unsuitable for today.  Thus religious liberty, property rights and freedom of speech are under aggressive assault.  The Judiciary is now almost under the complete control of these same statists, and with the death of Justice Scalia the last line of defense, the Supreme Court, is in peril.
The vast majority of the American people sense that the future of the nation and that of their progeny is in serious jeopardy.  However, one of the most troubling aspects of the current unease and angst among the general public is what this portends: when anger and frustration evolve into deep seated passion, reason is too often a casualty.  As Thomas Sowell recently wrote:
Too many nations, in desperate times, especially after the authorities have discredited themselves and forfeited the trust of the people, have turned to some new and charismatic leader, who ended up turning a dire situation into an utter catastrophe,
This has been true throughout history whether in England in the 1650’s, France in the 1790’s, or Russia, Italy and Germany in the 20th century. 
In the current campaign for the next president, there are candidates attempting to tap into the ire of the citizenry by either promising that a purer form of socialism will magically solve the problems or by claiming that they, by sheer force of their will and personality, will part the seas and save the nation.  Unfortunately, due to the ill-education of the populace as well as their angst, far too many seeds of this demagoguery are falling on fertile ground.  The election of any of these candidates will only exacerbate and make permanent the nations woes.
So to my ruling class friends safely ensconced in Washington, New York and other enclaves among the like-minded and wealthy, this nation is at the point of no return to the country of freedom and opportunity that allowed you to be where you are.  The folks in fly-over country know it and so should you.

Inequality, class and life expectancy in America

A study by Brookings Institution economists released Friday documents a sharp increase in life span divergences between the rich and the poor in America. The report, based on an analysis of Census Bureau and Social Security Administration data, concludes that for men born in 1950, the gap in life expectancy between the top 10 percent of wage earners and the bottom 10 percent is more than double the gap for their counterparts born in 1920.

For those born in 1920, there was a six-year differential between rich and poor. For those born in 1950, that difference had reached 14 years. For women, the gap grew from 4.7 years to 13 years, almost tripling.

Overall, life expectancy for the bottom 10 percent improved by just 3 percent for men born in 1950 over those born in 1920. For the top 10 percent, it soared by about 28 percent.

Life expectancy for the bottom 10 percent of male wage earners born in 1950 rose by less than one year compared to that for male workers born 40 years earlier—to 73.6 from 72.9. But for the top 10 percent, life expectancy leapt to 87.2 from 79.1.

The United States ranks among the worst so-called rich countries when it comes to life expectancy. But its low ranking is entirely due to the poor health and high mortality of low-income Americans. According to the Social Security Administration, life expectancy for the wealthiest US men at age 60 was just below the rates for Iceland and Japan, two countries with the highest levels. Americans in the bottom quarter of the wage scale, on the other hand, ranked just above Poland and the Czech Republic.

Life-expectancy is the most basic indicator of social well-being. The minimal increase for low-income workers and the widening disparity between the poor and the rich is a stark commentary on the immense growth of social inequality and class polarization in the United States. It underscores the fact that socioeconomic class is the fundamental category of social life under capitalism—one that conditions every aspect of life, including its length.

The Brookings Institution findings shed further light on the catastrophic decline in the social position of the American working class. They follow recent reports showing a sharp rise in death rates for both young and middle-aged white workers, primarily due to drug abuse, alcoholism and suicide. Other recent reports have shown a dramatic decline in life expectancy for poorer middle-aged Americans and a reversal of decades of declining infant mortality.

It is no mystery what is behind this vast social retrogression. It is the product of the decay of American capitalism and a four-decade-long offensive by the ruling elite against the working class. From Reagan to the Obama administration, Democrats and Republicans alike have overseen a corporate-government assault on the jobs, wages, pensions and health benefits of working people.
The ruling elite has dismantled the bulk of the country’s industrial infrastructure, destroying decent-paying jobs by the millions, and turned to the most parasitic and criminal forms of financial speculation as the main source of its profit and private wealth. Untold trillions have been squandered to finance perpetual war and the maniacal self-enrichment of the top 1 percent and 0.1 percent.
The basic infrastructure of the country has been starved of funds and left to rot, to the point where uncounted millions of people are being poisoned with lead and other toxins from corroded water systems. Flint, Michigan is just the tip of the iceberg.

Under Obama, this social counterrevolution has been intensified. The financial meltdown of 2008 has been utilized by the same forces that precipitated the crash to carry through a reordering of social relations aimed at reversing every social gain won by the working class in the course of a century of struggle. A central target of the attack is health care for working people.

Obamacare is the spearhead of a worked-out strategy to reduce the quantity and quality of health care available to workers and reorganize the health care system directly on a class basis. Corporate and government costs are to be slashed by gutting employer-paid health care, forcing workers individually to buy expensive, bare-bones plans from the insurance monopolies, and rationing drugs, tests and medical procedures to make them inaccessible to workers.

The rise in mortality for workers and the widening of the life span gap between rich and poor are not simply the outcome of impersonal economic forces. In corporate boardrooms, think tanks and state agencies, the ruling class is working to lower working class life expectancy. In late 2013, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank with the closest ties to the Pentagon and the CIA, published two 
policy papers decrying the “waste” of money on health care for the elderly. The clear message was that ordinary people were living much too long and diverting resources needed by the military to wage war around the world.

The social and economic chasm in America finds a political expression in the vast disconnect between the entire political establishment and the masses of working people. Neither party nor any of their presidential candidates, the self-described “socialist” Bernie Sanders included, can seriously address the real state of social conditions or offer a serious program to address the crisis.

In his final State of the Union Address last month, Obama presented an absurd picture of a resurgent economy. “The United States of America, right now,” he declared, “has the strongest, most durable economy in the world… Anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction.”
In the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton and Sanders are seeking to outdo one another in seizing the mantle of the Obama administration and praising its supposed social and economic achievements.

They cannot address the real conditions facing the masses of working people because they defend the capitalist system, which is the source of the social disaster. The remedy must be based on an understanding of the disease. It is the building of an independent socialist and revolutionary movement uniting the entire working class, in the US and around the world.

Eliseo Medina: Revolution Through Illegal Immigration


 “Before immigration debates took place in Washington, I spoke with Eliseo Medina and SEIU members,” said then-Sen. Barack Obamaaddressing the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) at a stop for his 2008 presidential campaign.

Eliseo Medina, Obama’s informal immigration adviser, has dedicated his life to obtaining citizenship and voting rights for America’s illegal aliens—now at an estimated 22 million—with the expressed goal of transforming the United States into a one-party state.
As a Communist Party USA (CPUSA) supporter and former honorary chair of the largest Marxist organization in the United States, the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), Medina is undeniably the leader of today’s amnesty movement.
At the far-left “America’s Future Now!” conference in Washington on June 2, 2009, Medina, then SEIU’s international executive vice president, addressed attendees on the vital importance of “comprehensive immigration reform”—a code phrase for amnesty.

Medina failed to mention the plight of illegal aliens, focusing instead on how—if given amnesty—they would eventually vote for Democrats.

Speaking of Latino voting patterns in the 2008 election, Medina said:

“When they [Latinos] voted in November, they voted overwhelmingly for progressive candidates. Barack Obama got two out of every three voters that showed up.
“So, I think there’s two things that matter for the progressive community:
“Number one: If we are to expand this electorate to win, the progressive community needs to solidly be on the side of immigrants. That will solidify and expand the progressive coalition for the future.
“Number two: [If] we reform the immigration laws, it puts 12 million people on the path to citizenship and eventually voters. Can you imagine if we have—even the same ratio—two out of three?
“If we have 8 million new voters … we will create a governing coalition for the long term, not just for an election cycle.”
Medina’s “governing coalition” refers to Democrats having control of the federal government for the foreseeable future, “not just for an election cycle.”

Who Is Eliseo Medina?

Medina‘s road to power began in 1965 when, as a 19-year-old grape-picker, he participated in the United Farm Workers’ strike in Delano, California. Over the next 13 years, Medina worked alongside labor leader and beloved socialist Cesar Chavez, eventually surpassing his mentor as a skilled union organizer and political strategist. Medina met his future wife Liza Hirsch during this period.
Medina had met Chicago DSA comrades in the 1970s when he was in the Windy City organizing a grape boycott for Chavez. From 2004 until 2016, Medina served as an honorary chairman for the organization.
Like many DSA members, Medina also worked closely with the CPUSA.
Medina gave the keynote speech at the CPUSA publication’s People’s Weekly World (PWW) banquet in Berkeley, California, on Nov. 18, 2001.
The PWW quoted Medina praising the communist publication: “’Wherever workers are in struggle,’ Medina said, ‘they find the PWW regularly reporting issues and viewpoints that are seldom covered by the regular media. For us, the PWW has been and always will be the people’s voice.’”
In 2007, Medina personally endorsed the People’s World (by then renamed from People’s Weekly World).

Medina’s Wife and Flexible Socialist Ethics

Medina’s wife, Liza, is the daughter of Fred Hirsch, a self-described “communist plumber” and his even-more-radical wife, Virginia, known as Ginny. In the early 1960s, Ginny Hirsch left her husband and young children in San Jose while she drove to Guatemala with nearly a ton of smuggled ammunition destined for leftist rebels.
From the age of 12, Liza Hirsch was partially raised by Cesar Chavez and, at his personal request, committed herself at an early age to earning a law degree so she could serve as an attorney for the movement.
Though a sometimes-socialist himself, Chavez had no time for illegal aliens (who he dubbed “wet-backs”) fearing they would “scab” against his strikes and take jobs from his members. Chavez even launched an “Illegals Campaign”—an organized program to identify illegal alien workers in the fields and turn them in to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
Hirsch was put in charge of this program. In 1974, just before she went to law school, she “distributed forms printed in triplicate to all union offices and directed staff members to document the presence of illegal immigrants in the fields and report them to the INS,” according to the book “The Crusades of Cesar Chavez” by Miriam Pawel.
Hirsch would later marry New York DSA member Paul Du Brul. After his untimely death, she married Medina, also a card-carrying DSA member by then.
Socialist ethics can be very flexible.

Changing the Democrat Position to Pro-Amnesty


Medina joined the SEIU in 1986, where he helped revive a local union in San Diego, building its membership from 1,700 to more than 10,000 in five years. Medina became international executive vice president of the 2.2 million-member SEIU in 1996.
The SEIU has a huge number of illegal alien workers in its ranks. Medina used that leverage to promote amnesty in the union movement, as well as in the organized left and in the Democratic Party.
In the mid-1990s, most unions were still hostile to illegal alien workers who worked at a much lower rate, taking jobs away from union members. But in 1994, several far-left union leaders led by DSA member John Sweeney took over the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), setting the stage for a major policy change for the unions—and ultimately for the Democrats.

Claiming U.S. immigration policy was “broken and [needed] to be fixed,” the AFL-CIO on Feb. 16, 2000, called for a new amnesty for millions of undocumented workers and the repeal of the 1986 legislation that criminalized hiring them.

According to the DSA website in 2004, Medina was “widely credited with playing a key role in the AFL-CIO’s decision to adopt a new policy on immigration a few years ago.”
From his union position, Medina reached across the labor movement into the social movements and the Catholic Church to create the widest possible pro-amnesty coalition.
According to the SEIU:

“Working to ensure the opportunity to pass comprehensive immigration reform does not slip away, Medina led the effort to unite the unions of the Change to Win federation and AFL-CIO around a comprehensive framework for reform. Serving as a leading voice in Washington, frequently testifying before Congress, Medina has also helped to build a strong, diverse coalition of community and national partners that have intensified the call for reform and cultivated necessary political capital to hold elected leaders accountable.
“Medina has also helped strengthen ties between the Roman Catholic Church and the labor movement to work on common concerns such as immigrant worker rights and access to health care.”
In August 2008, the Obama campaign announced the formation of its National Latino Advisory Council. The new body consisted of several Democratic Congress members, a Catholic bishop, a former ambassador, two former cabinet members, and Medina.
After the election, Medina became Obama’s informal adviser on issues concerning immigration and amnesty. The fact that a DSA member and CPUSA supporter was advising the U.S. president on issues of vital national security importance appeared to concern no one.

Eventually, Medina and his movement were able to get an amnesty bill passed through the U.S. Senate. If they could only pass a bill through the House, the United States would be set on an irreversible path to socialism.

Fortunately, Tea Party-aligned Republican Congress members refused to sell out their nation. They held the line against intense pressure, and no amnesty bill was passed through the House in Obama’s eight years in the White House.

‘Fast for Families’

In November 2013, Medina, along with Cristian Avila of amnesty advocacy group Mi Familia Vota and Dae Jung Yoon of the National Korean American Service and Education Consortium (a hard-left group that supports communist North Korea), started a 22-day “fast for families” in front of Capitol Hill “to demand Congress approve comprehensive immigration reform,” according to People’s World.

The staged protest gained worldwide media attention. Several Democratic members of Congress dropped by to offer support, along with then-President Obama, first lady Michelle Obama, and Vice President Joe Biden.
Still, House Republicans did not budge.
On May 17, 2016, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign announced that long-time DSA activist Dolores Huerta and Medina would join the team as senior advisers in California.
“Huerta and Medina will build on the campaign’s robust outreach to the Latino community in California and work with the campaign’s senior team to organize and engage Californians in conversations about Hillary Clinton’s plans to break down barriers and help move the country forward.
“’We are thrilled to be joined by two incredibly accomplished and admired leaders in the Latino, immigrant and labor communities, Dolores Huerta and Eliseo Medina,’ said Buffy Wicks, State Director for Hillary for California. ‘Their advocacy and leadership … will go a long way in continuing the important work of reaching every California voter in advance of the June 7 primary.’”

Clinton promised to introduce a “pathway to full and equal citizenship” to legalize and grant voting rights to every illegal alien in the country “within 100 days of taking office” if she were to be elected president.

Had President Donald Trump not won his shocking victory on Nov. 6, 2016, Medina’s dream of a permanent, unbeatable progressive “governing coalition” would today be a reality, making it virtually impossible to elect another Republican president.
Trevor Loudon is an author, filmmaker, and public speaker from New Zealand. For more than 30 years, he has researched radical left, Marxist, and terrorist movements and their covert influence on mainstream politics.
Views expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

“Attorney General Eric Holder's tenure was a low point even within the disgraceful scandal-ridden Obama years.” DANIEL GREENFIELD / FRONTPAGE MAG

Senate Hearing: Obama’s DACA and Flores Orders Spiked Illegal Migration

Sen. Ron Johnson
 23 May 201918

The illegal migration of “family units” and “unaccompanied alien children” spiked after former President Barack Obama signed off on the “DACA” amnesty and the Flores court order, according to a graphic used by the chairman of the Senate Homeland Defense Committee.

Committee chairman Rep. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., touted the jarring graphic by printing it on paper cups used by the committee members. The graphic contradicts claims by Democrats that the huge wave of Central American economic migrants are really refugees from a humanitarian disaster caused by crime and crop failures in Central America. 
Officials expect almost one million Central American migrants in the 12 months prior to October 2019. The migrant wave includes hundreds of thousands of people in “family units.” These units consist of adults who bring youths and children to help trigger the border catch-and-release loophole.
The primary catch-and-release loophole is the Flores court order, because it requires border agencies to release migrants within 20 days if they bring children. Once released, the migrant adults take jobs in American workplaces and their children are sent to the schools used by the children of blue-collar Americans.
The Flores decision “has been the essential driver, frankly, for the increase in family units,” said Kevin McAleenan, the acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security in a May 23 committee hearing. He continued:
That certainty, that knowledge, that they will be allowed to stay in the US. indefinitely, pending a court [asylum] proceeding that could be years away … is a huge draw. Smugglers have capitalized on that. They’re advertising that fact. We hear that routinely from our interviews with families.
The 2015 extension of the 1993 Flores judgment was accepted by the Obama administration, even though it requires border agencies to release migrants within 20 days if they bring children. Obama’s legal team could have fought the decision by filing appeals with higher courts, but it instead signed an agreement to implement the decision.
Under policies set by judges, the 2015 agreement by Obama, ACLU activists, and the judge binds President Donald Trump, even though he did not approve it, and even though the Supreme Court did approve the extension.
Obama’s 2012 DACA amnesty offered a sanctuary from deportation, plus work permits and Social Security Numbers, to roughly 800,000 migrants who had been smuggled over the border by their parents. The giveaway is legally shaky, but it prompted many other illegal migrants to get their children delivered from Central America by smugglers to U.S. border agencies, which then passed the children to the parents.
This government-enabled smuggling operation helped bring tens of thousands of carefuly smuggled Unaccompanied Minor Children (UACs) into the United States. Very few migrants have been sent home, according to federal data.
Democratic legislators have refused to reform the border rules, ensuring that 100,000 migrants — including 40,000 children — walked over the border in April 2019, into the nation’s job sites and schools.
However, Trump’s deputies are preparing a regulation that would allow them to detain migrants with children for more than 20 days.
But Obama holdovers in the agencies have slowed the regulation. The Flores requirement that state officials set up a health and safety inspection process for family detention centers has also delayed the regulatory fix.
Democrats say the migration is a humanitarian crisis but deny their role in creating the disaster, which is now emptying parts of Guatemala.

CALIFORNIA UNDER THE DEMOCRATS: Worst Lower Education System in the Nation!
"The costs of illegal immigration are being carefully hidden by Democrats."

"California’s public education system, once the envy of the world, now ranks 49th in the nation." ROBERT J. CRISTANO, Ph.D
Accounting for these differences reveals that California's real poverty rate is 20.6 percent – the highest in America, and nearly twice the national average of 12.7 percent.

"The public schools indoctrinate their young charges to hate this country and the rule of law. Illegal aliens continue overwhelming the state, draining California’s already depleted public services while endangering our lives, the rule of law, and public safety for all citizens."

Kamala Harris: Medicare for All Includes Illegal Aliens

Harris, a guest on CNN's "State of the Union," said "I support Medicare for all. It is my preferred policy." She said she supports the bill introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders.
However, the dominant force in American politics for the last two decades has been economic warfare against American citizens.
This economic warfare has two primary components; the use of government to economically favor one group over another; and the collusion of immigrant groups to economically inhibit Americans who oppose replacement migration.

"This is country belongs to Mexico" is said by the Mexican Militant. This is a common teaching that the U.S. is really AZTLAN, belonging to Mexicans, which is taught to Mexican kids in Arizona and California through a LA Raza educational program funded by American Tax Payers via President Obama, when he gave LA RAZA $800,000.00 in March of 2009!

The “mother of all caravans” is forming in Central America, and our border-enforcement system is at “the breaking point” — all because Democrats in Congress rejects any effort to plug the legal loopholes that drive the accelerating flood at the border. In effect, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are doing just what Cesar Chavez complained about 40 years ago: placating employers by allowing the unhindered importation of cheap labor to undermine the efforts of American workers to negotiate higher wages. MARK KRIKORIAN


But the business community will have little reason to defend Trump, partly because they have gotten their double-shot of tax cuts and cheap labor. In fact, the legislation does not sunset the amnesty, meaning it can be quietly expanded with a few legal tweaks that can be attached to any of the myriad obscure bills annually passed by Congress.

 Yes, it is by invitation of the Democrat and Republican parties on behalf of their rich paymasters!