Showing posts with label NAU - GENERAL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NAU - GENERAL. Show all posts
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Well, the Irish MEP's got asked if we want to be a NAU
I was watching this video about Ireland and their fight against the Lisbon Treaty. I almost dropped my teeth at around 57:00. That's an Irish man and the woman is an Irish MEP (Member of Parliament)!!!! Did you happen to get asked if you wanted to become a NAU (North American Union) with Mexico and Canada? I didn't either. But someone obviously asked at least the Irish MEPs.
Monday, August 29, 2011
Rick Perry tied to Agenda 21, globalist policies
Selling Texas to foreign creditors while jabbing Obama for same
By Terri Hall
Founder
Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom
August 15, 2011
Rick Perry may be good at invoking states rights and property rights, while disavowing ‘foreign creditors,’ but his actions as Texas’ longest serving governor tell a different story. Public private partnerships (or P3s) are part and parcel of the United Nations’ Agenda 21. Two of the purposes of Agenda 21 are to abolish private property and restrict mobility and P3s act as the vehicle to do it. Perry made P3s a centerpiece of his transportation policy since he stepped in as governor.
It started with the Trans Texas Corridor, known at the federal level as high priority corridors, corridors of the future, or the NAFTA superhighways. Just in Texas, it was to be a 4,000 mile multi-modal network of toll roads, rail lines, power transmission lines, pipelines, telecommunications lines and more. It was going to be financed, operated, and controlled by a foreign company granted massive swaths of land 1,200 feet (4 football fields) wide taken forcibly through eminent domain.
Called the biggest land grab in Texas history, it was going to gobble up 580,000 acres of private Texas land (the first corridor alone was to displace 1 million Texans) and hand it over to well-connected global players using P3s, who would gain exclusive rights to determine the route and what hotels, restaurants, and gas stations were along the corridor in a government-sanctioned monopoly for a half century. It was the worst case of eminent domain for private gain ever conceived.
Property rights shredded
The Trans Texas Corridor, and P3s in general, represent an imminent threat to private property rights. While lawmakers repealed the Trans Texas Corridor from state statute only months ago due to the public backlash, the re-named corridor (‘Innovative Connectivity Plan’) and its threat to property rights lives on through P3s. Two such projects underway by a Spanish developer, Cintra, will charge Texans 75 cents per mile in tolls (nearly $13 a day while Perry claims he hasn’t raised taxes or indebted Texans to foreign creditors) to access lanes on two public interstates -- I-635 and I-820. A third project being developed by the same company for two segments on SH 130 is, perhaps, the only leg of the Trans Texas Corridor TTC-35 project that will ever be built.
While Perry distracted Texans and tea partiers with ‘emergency’ resolutions on state sovereignty during the 82nd legislature, P3s spread from transportation projects to virtually every other type of public infrastructure in a bill, SB 1048, passed by the Texas legislature which he signed into law June 17. Now all public infrastructure, including public buildings, schools, nursing homes, ports, mass transit, etc. can be auctioned-off to private interests in long-term sweetheart deals with taxpayer subsidies and profit guarantees using P3s.
P3s give a private corporation the power to tax the public, whether through charging tolls or other so-called ‘user fees,’ to access their own public infrastructure, and, perhaps more insidious, allowing well-connected private entities to profit from concessions on land taken through eminent domain.
Why shouldn’t the original landowner be able to profit from developing his/her land instead of having the government take it in the name of a “public use” and give it to another developer, one with government connections? Perry’s administration of P3s is like his administration of his Emerging Technology Fund that’s been highly criticized for steering taxpayer money to Perry’s campaign donors -- a case in point, Dan Shelley.
Shelley worked for Cintra, who had its sites set on developing the Trans Texas Corridor. Shelley lands a job as Perry’s aide, steers the $7 billion corridor P3 to his former employer Cintra, then goes back to work for Cintra. That’s how Perry does business -- pay to play.
Texas “Open for Business”
While Perry is staking his campaign on Texas being the top net jobs creator, Perry’s version of Texas being “Open for Business” isn’t about low taxes and less regulation as much as it is about doing business with foreign companies, including selling off Texas’ sovereign land and public assets to foreign creditors, an issue which Perry’s first television ad uses to take aim at President Obama.
Aside from the P3s, Texas has 20 active deals going with the Chinese and has 32 foreign trade zones (FTZs), a vehicle to ease the flow of foreign goods into the United States that are chalk full of tax breaks for importers. Perry’s office promoted these FTZs in a document entitled Foreign Trade Zones: Texas Wide Open for Business and even dedicates a web site for Texas FTZs, http://www.texaswideopenforbusiness.com/.
A recent Washington Post article documents Perry’s work to get Chinese government-owned telecommunications company Huawei, to base its U.S. operations in Texas, a company that the U.S. government has deemed a threat to national security noting that “three times since 2008, a U.S. government security panel has blocked Huawei from acquiring or partnering with U.S. companies because of concerns that secrets could be leaked to China’s government or military.”
Perry’s coziness with the Chinese and foreign investors exposes a huge weakness in his right flank -- illegal immigration and open borders. The Trans Texas Corridor has been linked to the global plan to economically integrate North America, with the eventual goal of a common security perimeter modeled after the European Union. Perry ushered in in-state tuition for illegals and has long been an obstacle to immigration reform or any Arizona-style immigration law.
Perry’s record paints a much different picture than what candidate Perry would have us believe -- that he’s a states rights, Constitutionally limited government conservative that’s responsible for the “Texas miracle.” In reality, he’s more like an Agenda 21 globalist willing to sell America to the highest bidder.
Continue reading on Examiner.com Rick Perry tied to Agenda 21, globalist policies - San Antonio Transportation Policy
Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/transportation-policy-in-san-antonio/rick-perry-tied-to-agenda-21-globalist-policies#ixzz1V8WLRtO9
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
County approves redistricting plan
Commissioners propose same tax rate as 2011
August 22, 2011 9:51 PM
The Ector County Commissioners Court showed Monday you can’t make everyone happy all of the time, but you can still get a unanimous vote.
Commissioners voted on revised redistricting plans for the county in response to objections raised by Commissioner Armando Rodriguez July 18 at what was supposed to be the redistricting task force’s final public hearing on the first map. Following a process that began in April, Rodriguez raised objections at that hearing about the distribution of minority voters.
Commissioners approved the new Plan A redistricting map, despite Rodriguez’s objections about minority distribution.
Rodriguez said some of the people who approached him did not believe minorities were represented well enough in Precinct 3, which caused quite a stir in previous redistricting meetings and was also the vehicle for the creation of a third map plan.
Rodriguez helped create Plan C with the county demographer, a plan that was sent to commissioners Wednesday.
That plan drew no support when Rodriguez made a motion to approve it, and commissioners instead approved Plan A, with Rodriguez voting for the plan as well.
Rodriguez said he wouldn’t be able to change the minds of the other commissioners, so he voted for it, despite his problems with the plan.
Plan A moves a total of 1,197 people of precinct 102, who will not be able to vote in the next election. Plan C would have moved more than 15,000 people from multiple precincts. Plan B, developed at the same time as Plan A, would also have moved more than 13,000 people.
Redistricting is necessitated by demographic changes measured by the U.S. census each decade. According to federal guidelines, to ensure each person’s vote has the same weight, the difference in population between the smallest and largest district can’t be more than 10 percent.
If some things are changing, others are likely to stay the same.
Ector County commissioners voted to propose a tax rate identical to last year, but a faint hope exists that it could be reduced after public hearings.
“There’s still a chance we can find a reduction in the rate,” Commissioner Greg Simmons said. “Had it not been for the (information technology costs), I would say we would have been in a position to lower the tax rate a little bit.”
But he said despite some hope, it’s not likely commissioners will be able to lower the tax rate. As proposed, the steady tax rate will actually increase taxes in the county because of a 5 percent appraised property value increase.
If the tax rate were lowered now, Simmons said it could end up causing commissioners to take too much out of the reserve fund. The proposed budget already is taking almost $3 million from the $8.7 million fund balance to cover costs, despite an increase in revenue.
Simmons said commissioners did not want to issue debt for the IT project as they have for past projects, and is hoping the county can spend less than it budgets and save that money for projects in the future.
Ector County Judge Susan Redford said she hopes taxpayers appreciate the work the court has done to cut the budget, including the trimming of an extra $500,000 in the past two weeks.
But she said she understands there may be some additional wants and needs addressed in the public hearings.
“We have a responsibility to the taxpayers to provide them with the best possible services we can,” Redford said. “But we do have to take into consideration that this is taxpayer money we are using and we have to look at what they want, too. It’s a difficult balancing act.”
She said the commissioners would have to take a look at reducing the tax rate if that’s what taxpayers want, but reinforced what Simmons said that the IT program would make that difficult, if not impossible.
IT renovations, which could cost the county as much as $10 million over the next five years, have been pegged as a necessity to overhaul aging hardware and connect systems throughout the entire county.
The meetings will take place at 10 a.m. Sept. 2 and 6 p.m. Sept. 6 at the Ector County Annex.
http://www.oaoa.com/articles/county-70803-plan-commissioners.html
August 22, 2011 9:51 PM
The Ector County Commissioners Court showed Monday you can’t make everyone happy all of the time, but you can still get a unanimous vote.
Commissioners voted on revised redistricting plans for the county in response to objections raised by Commissioner Armando Rodriguez July 18 at what was supposed to be the redistricting task force’s final public hearing on the first map. Following a process that began in April, Rodriguez raised objections at that hearing about the distribution of minority voters.
Commissioners approved the new Plan A redistricting map, despite Rodriguez’s objections about minority distribution.
Rodriguez said some of the people who approached him did not believe minorities were represented well enough in Precinct 3, which caused quite a stir in previous redistricting meetings and was also the vehicle for the creation of a third map plan.
Rodriguez helped create Plan C with the county demographer, a plan that was sent to commissioners Wednesday.
That plan drew no support when Rodriguez made a motion to approve it, and commissioners instead approved Plan A, with Rodriguez voting for the plan as well.
Rodriguez said he wouldn’t be able to change the minds of the other commissioners, so he voted for it, despite his problems with the plan.
Plan A moves a total of 1,197 people of precinct 102, who will not be able to vote in the next election. Plan C would have moved more than 15,000 people from multiple precincts. Plan B, developed at the same time as Plan A, would also have moved more than 13,000 people.
Redistricting is necessitated by demographic changes measured by the U.S. census each decade. According to federal guidelines, to ensure each person’s vote has the same weight, the difference in population between the smallest and largest district can’t be more than 10 percent.
If some things are changing, others are likely to stay the same.
Ector County commissioners voted to propose a tax rate identical to last year, but a faint hope exists that it could be reduced after public hearings.
“There’s still a chance we can find a reduction in the rate,” Commissioner Greg Simmons said. “Had it not been for the (information technology costs), I would say we would have been in a position to lower the tax rate a little bit.”
But he said despite some hope, it’s not likely commissioners will be able to lower the tax rate. As proposed, the steady tax rate will actually increase taxes in the county because of a 5 percent appraised property value increase.
If the tax rate were lowered now, Simmons said it could end up causing commissioners to take too much out of the reserve fund. The proposed budget already is taking almost $3 million from the $8.7 million fund balance to cover costs, despite an increase in revenue.
Simmons said commissioners did not want to issue debt for the IT project as they have for past projects, and is hoping the county can spend less than it budgets and save that money for projects in the future.
Ector County Judge Susan Redford said she hopes taxpayers appreciate the work the court has done to cut the budget, including the trimming of an extra $500,000 in the past two weeks.
But she said she understands there may be some additional wants and needs addressed in the public hearings.
“We have a responsibility to the taxpayers to provide them with the best possible services we can,” Redford said. “But we do have to take into consideration that this is taxpayer money we are using and we have to look at what they want, too. It’s a difficult balancing act.”
She said the commissioners would have to take a look at reducing the tax rate if that’s what taxpayers want, but reinforced what Simmons said that the IT program would make that difficult, if not impossible.
IT renovations, which could cost the county as much as $10 million over the next five years, have been pegged as a necessity to overhaul aging hardware and connect systems throughout the entire county.
The meetings will take place at 10 a.m. Sept. 2 and 6 p.m. Sept. 6 at the Ector County Annex.
http://www.oaoa.com/articles/county-70803-plan-commissioners.html
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Rawsome Foods
This is a prime example of what I have been talking about with government controle at all levels.
Written by a well armed potential suspect...well hell (Ring) Huggins, be honest...you are general and originator of the Terlingua Liberation Front.
Hail Obama!
Cowing the Population
By Doug Hornig
The noose around Washington, D.C.'s neck continues to tighten, with no clear way to remove it. Behind the scenes, there is undoubtedly a rising sense of panic. That's bad. The last thing you want is panicky people operating the far-reaching power levers of the state.
But if push does come to shove, history teaches us, the government will not hesitate to clamp down on its subjects by whatever means necessary to preserve itself. And the best way to mute resistance is to prepare citizens ahead of time for escalating levels of police control. An enhanced law enforcement presence must be accepted as the new normal. But rest assured, it's "for our own good."
That disclaimer has been used to hoodwink decent folk forever. But the truth is, what's really up is the application of the time-tested political axiom that the more fearful people are, the easier they are to control. We've seen this principle at work for years. Politicians continually pass more intrusive laws; and police take increasing liberties with our rights, content that the courts will back them up... which they have done, as spineless judges hand them larger and larger cartes blanche to act however they please. The first ten amendments to the Constitution have been largely gutted. The things the Founders cared most passionately about have been tossed into the dustbin.
We're told: that our homes are no longer safe from no-knock entries, and warrants be damned (precisely the abuse that most riled the revolutionary colonists); that we should rat out our neighbors at the first sign that something is "amiss," just as in any communist state you care to mention; and that it should be regarded as okay that warrants of all kinds are commonly served by gangs of helmeted thugs, covered with body armor and toting a dizzying array of lethal weapons.
Readers of a certain age will remember when the police were called peace officers, as their job was primarily to maintain the peace. Who's heard that quaint term lately? No, now they are law enforcement officers, and they are at war with a widening swath of the citizenry. And the targets of overwhelming force are not just murderers and rapists and armed robbers. SWAT teams are routinely dispatched to deal with bickering spouses, zoned-out pot smokers, parking ticket violators, and those delinquent in loan payments.
Make no mistake about it: Authorities around the country have gotten the message from Washington that a complaisant populace is required. And they're dutifully applying the heat. It may seem odd that they're going after ever less-violent people, but it makes perfect sense. It's in the government's interest to suggest that all of us are potential suspects.
Take, for instance, the case of Rawesome Foods in California, a private buying club dedicated to bringing the most wholesome, natural food products to its members. Does that sound like a criminal conspiracy? It did to local and federal officials, who staged a joint SWAT-style raid on the club last week. Without a warrant, officers entered the storefront, seized cash, destroyed inventory, and jailed the club's founder.
But if those in power are really serious about creating a docile population, there is absolutely no better way to go about it than criminalizing children. Yes, children.
No, I'm not talking about SWAT raids here. But in a way, this is even more insidious, because the effort is directed at teaching kids at an early age that Big Brother is always watching and that you'd better be sure you obey the letter of every law (as if anyone could possibly know what they all are) or you're in for trouble with the Man.
This has been - and I swear I am not making this up - the summer of the lemonade-stand bust. Yep, children's lemonade stands have been closed down in states all over the country, including California, Oregon, and Texas - and even, astonishingly, in such bedrock, sensible-values American heartland states as Wisconsin and Iowa.
The latest of these important police actions came in small-town Georgia, where the local cops advised the kids in question that they had to cease and desist from selling their lemonade until they forked over $50 a day for a business license. Watch this news report only if you have a strong stomach and your outrage button is not easily pushed.
That video is instructive in oh so many wonderful ways.
First, take a good look at the head cop as she explains their actions. "The law is the law" is about as close as you can get to "I was only following orders." Squint your eyes a little. She'd look perfect decked out in SS lightning bolts, wouldn't she?
Next, consider the little girl who says, "... but we had to listen to the cops." She's learned her lesson.
Then there's mom. We're sure that if she were one of our readers that stand would've been up and running the next day, and every day until the police were forced to take those kids to court over this. But not here. This mom is backing away from the issue, saying, "I'm trying to teach my kids good, and I don't think it'll teach 'em good if I keep on an' on with this." Right, the lesson wasn't only for the children.
Finally, in addition to instilling fear of authority in our most impressionable citizens, there's an added kicker to this incident. What better way to kill the entrepreneurial spirit in its cradle and set us up for the day when we all work for the state?
Question: What's the point when we finally announce that we're not going to take it any more? If that point isn't when they go after our kids, then there isn't one.
Written by a well armed potential suspect...well hell (Ring) Huggins, be honest...you are general and originator of the Terlingua Liberation Front.
Hail Obama!
Cowing the Population
By Doug Hornig
The noose around Washington, D.C.'s neck continues to tighten, with no clear way to remove it. Behind the scenes, there is undoubtedly a rising sense of panic. That's bad. The last thing you want is panicky people operating the far-reaching power levers of the state.
But if push does come to shove, history teaches us, the government will not hesitate to clamp down on its subjects by whatever means necessary to preserve itself. And the best way to mute resistance is to prepare citizens ahead of time for escalating levels of police control. An enhanced law enforcement presence must be accepted as the new normal. But rest assured, it's "for our own good."
That disclaimer has been used to hoodwink decent folk forever. But the truth is, what's really up is the application of the time-tested political axiom that the more fearful people are, the easier they are to control. We've seen this principle at work for years. Politicians continually pass more intrusive laws; and police take increasing liberties with our rights, content that the courts will back them up... which they have done, as spineless judges hand them larger and larger cartes blanche to act however they please. The first ten amendments to the Constitution have been largely gutted. The things the Founders cared most passionately about have been tossed into the dustbin.
We're told: that our homes are no longer safe from no-knock entries, and warrants be damned (precisely the abuse that most riled the revolutionary colonists); that we should rat out our neighbors at the first sign that something is "amiss," just as in any communist state you care to mention; and that it should be regarded as okay that warrants of all kinds are commonly served by gangs of helmeted thugs, covered with body armor and toting a dizzying array of lethal weapons.
Readers of a certain age will remember when the police were called peace officers, as their job was primarily to maintain the peace. Who's heard that quaint term lately? No, now they are law enforcement officers, and they are at war with a widening swath of the citizenry. And the targets of overwhelming force are not just murderers and rapists and armed robbers. SWAT teams are routinely dispatched to deal with bickering spouses, zoned-out pot smokers, parking ticket violators, and those delinquent in loan payments.
Make no mistake about it: Authorities around the country have gotten the message from Washington that a complaisant populace is required. And they're dutifully applying the heat. It may seem odd that they're going after ever less-violent people, but it makes perfect sense. It's in the government's interest to suggest that all of us are potential suspects.
Take, for instance, the case of Rawesome Foods in California, a private buying club dedicated to bringing the most wholesome, natural food products to its members. Does that sound like a criminal conspiracy? It did to local and federal officials, who staged a joint SWAT-style raid on the club last week. Without a warrant, officers entered the storefront, seized cash, destroyed inventory, and jailed the club's founder.
But if those in power are really serious about creating a docile population, there is absolutely no better way to go about it than criminalizing children. Yes, children.
No, I'm not talking about SWAT raids here. But in a way, this is even more insidious, because the effort is directed at teaching kids at an early age that Big Brother is always watching and that you'd better be sure you obey the letter of every law (as if anyone could possibly know what they all are) or you're in for trouble with the Man.
This has been - and I swear I am not making this up - the summer of the lemonade-stand bust. Yep, children's lemonade stands have been closed down in states all over the country, including California, Oregon, and Texas - and even, astonishingly, in such bedrock, sensible-values American heartland states as Wisconsin and Iowa.
The latest of these important police actions came in small-town Georgia, where the local cops advised the kids in question that they had to cease and desist from selling their lemonade until they forked over $50 a day for a business license. Watch this news report only if you have a strong stomach and your outrage button is not easily pushed.
That video is instructive in oh so many wonderful ways.
First, take a good look at the head cop as she explains their actions. "The law is the law" is about as close as you can get to "I was only following orders." Squint your eyes a little. She'd look perfect decked out in SS lightning bolts, wouldn't she?
Next, consider the little girl who says, "... but we had to listen to the cops." She's learned her lesson.
Then there's mom. We're sure that if she were one of our readers that stand would've been up and running the next day, and every day until the police were forced to take those kids to court over this. But not here. This mom is backing away from the issue, saying, "I'm trying to teach my kids good, and I don't think it'll teach 'em good if I keep on an' on with this." Right, the lesson wasn't only for the children.
Finally, in addition to instilling fear of authority in our most impressionable citizens, there's an added kicker to this incident. What better way to kill the entrepreneurial spirit in its cradle and set us up for the day when we all work for the state?
Question: What's the point when we finally announce that we're not going to take it any more? If that point isn't when they go after our kids, then there isn't one.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Obama to America: Drop Dead
Obama to America: Drop Dead - San Francisco Immigration
By Rick Oltman
In the most anti-American act of his administration that showed complete contempt for America and Americans, President Barack Hussein Obama amnestied over 30 million illegal aliens on Thursday. There was no legislation, no debate and no consideration for American citizens.
Cecilia Munoz, formerly of the racist group La Raza, posted on the White House Blog that under the president’s direction an amnesty was declared for illegal aliens in America.
Oh, it wasn’t called amnesty, of course. In classic Orwellian Newspeak she said, “Today, (DHS) announced that they are strengthening their ability to target criminals even further by making sure they are not focusing our resources on deporting people who are low priorities for deportation.”
But it’s an amnesty.
Read the rest of the story at Examiner.com .
****
Make your thoughts known - call the President's comment line about this: 1-202-456-1111 - Email him at http://www.whitehouse.gov/. ~ Jean Towell
******
Well, NCLR wasn't satisfied with all the high level governmental appointments Obama paid them in return for their help in getting him elected. They've now twisted his arm by threatening to withdraw their support in 2012 and by actively encouraging him to be a dictator that he has now become a dictator, throwing the Balance of Power, our Constitution, and our laws out the window. Here's some on Cecilia Munoz. I have never liked her since she was on some committee that was discussing how many people from each country we would allow in as legal immigrants. She said something to the effect that she (although she phrased it as "we") didn't want to let too many black people in. Wish I'd kept that. I remember copying it as a comment on some posting on ALIPAC but I haven't been able to find it... that was back when I first started looking at this mess and wasn't familiar with saving things. Anyway, here's Cecilia.
I do believe that is incontestable evidence that the White House knows what the Balance of Powers is, what our Constitution and laws mean and that they have blatantly disregarded all of what this country was founded upon in favor of their own agendas. Our Congress needs to get off their duffs, do their job and reign this president and his entourage in. ~ Faye
Obama Usurps Congress
Administrative Amnesty for Illegal Aliens is a Blatant Usurpation of Congress's Constitutional Authority, Charges FAIR
(Washington, DC August 18, 2011) The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) responded sharply to today's White House announcement that it will essentially halt enforcement against illegal aliens who have not been convicted of criminal offenses. Today's move by the Obama administration amounts to an administrative amnesty and a sweeping overhaul of the nation's immigration policy without approval by Congress, charged FAIR. The announcement was posted on the White House website.
Under the guise of setting priorities for immigration enforcement, White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Munoz lays out entire classes of illegal aliens who will no longer be subject to enforcement. The plan entails dropping existing cases and taking "steps to keep low-priority cases out of the deportation pipeline in the first place," Munoz writes.
"Today's policy announcement clearly demonstrates the Obama administration's defiance of both the constitutional separation of powers and the will of the American public in its relentless effort to gain amnesty for illegal aliens," stated Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "From the outset, the administration has refused to enforce many immigration laws, essentially placing its own political agenda ahead of its constitutional responsibilities to carry out laws enacted by Congress. It has also acted aggressively to prevent state governments from implementing laws aimed at discouraging illegal immigration, including filing lawsuits against Arizona and Alabama.
"Supporters of comprehensive and targeted amnesties for illegal aliens have consistently failed to win approval by Congress or gain support from the American public," Stein noted. "Having failed in the legislative process, the Obama administration has simply decided to usurp Congress's constitutional authority and implement an amnesty program for millions of illegal aliens."
The announcement seemingly comes in response to growing demands from illegal alien advocates that the administration exercise broad discretionary powers not to enforce laws against entire classes of people who are in the country illegally. "In spite of repeated statements from President Obama himself that he lacks the constitutional authority to implement an amnesty by executive fiat, the administration is now doing precisely that," said Stein.
"This step by the White House amounts to a complete abrogation of the President's duty to enforce the laws of the land and a huge breach of the public trust. Never, in the history of federal immigration enforcement, has an administration willfully and so egregiously usurped Congress's and the people's role to decide immigration issues. In essence, the administration has declared that U.S. immigration is now virtually unlimited to anyone willing to try to enter and only those who commit violent felonies after arrival are subject to enforcement. This is not the nation's immigration law," concluded Stein.
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2/1913722586?page=NewsArticle&id=24343&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1741&utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FAIR%20Enews&utm_content=Enews+Aug+19+2011
(Washington, DC August 18, 2011) The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) responded sharply to today's White House announcement that it will essentially halt enforcement against illegal aliens who have not been convicted of criminal offenses. Today's move by the Obama administration amounts to an administrative amnesty and a sweeping overhaul of the nation's immigration policy without approval by Congress, charged FAIR. The announcement was posted on the White House website.
Under the guise of setting priorities for immigration enforcement, White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Munoz lays out entire classes of illegal aliens who will no longer be subject to enforcement. The plan entails dropping existing cases and taking "steps to keep low-priority cases out of the deportation pipeline in the first place," Munoz writes.
"Today's policy announcement clearly demonstrates the Obama administration's defiance of both the constitutional separation of powers and the will of the American public in its relentless effort to gain amnesty for illegal aliens," stated Dan Stein, president of FAIR. "From the outset, the administration has refused to enforce many immigration laws, essentially placing its own political agenda ahead of its constitutional responsibilities to carry out laws enacted by Congress. It has also acted aggressively to prevent state governments from implementing laws aimed at discouraging illegal immigration, including filing lawsuits against Arizona and Alabama.
"Supporters of comprehensive and targeted amnesties for illegal aliens have consistently failed to win approval by Congress or gain support from the American public," Stein noted. "Having failed in the legislative process, the Obama administration has simply decided to usurp Congress's constitutional authority and implement an amnesty program for millions of illegal aliens."
The announcement seemingly comes in response to growing demands from illegal alien advocates that the administration exercise broad discretionary powers not to enforce laws against entire classes of people who are in the country illegally. "In spite of repeated statements from President Obama himself that he lacks the constitutional authority to implement an amnesty by executive fiat, the administration is now doing precisely that," said Stein.
"This step by the White House amounts to a complete abrogation of the President's duty to enforce the laws of the land and a huge breach of the public trust. Never, in the history of federal immigration enforcement, has an administration willfully and so egregiously usurped Congress's and the people's role to decide immigration issues. In essence, the administration has declared that U.S. immigration is now virtually unlimited to anyone willing to try to enter and only those who commit violent felonies after arrival are subject to enforcement. This is not the nation's immigration law," concluded Stein.
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2/1913722586?page=NewsArticle&id=24343&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1741&utm_source=iContact&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FAIR%20Enews&utm_content=Enews+Aug+19+2011
Thursday, August 18, 2011
Activist Glenn Spencer: ATF Promotes It's Own Involved in 'Fast & Furious' Scandal
More info:
ATF promotes supervisors in ‘Fast and Furious’ operation
http://newmexicoindependent.com/71126/atf-promotes-supervisors-in-fast-and-furious-operation
ATF's 'Fast and Furious' firearms tracked to at least 11 violent crimes
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-naw-atf-guns-crimes-20110816,0,2290351.story
Friday, August 5, 2011
Congress Asked To Pledge Respect To Latinos
.Last Updated: Wed, 03/23/2011 - 11:07am
Amid heated immigration debates, members of Congress are being asked to sign a pledge acknowledging the economic, civic and cultural contributions of Latinos and opposing “irresponsible and inflammatory rhetoric” that “dehumanizes” them.
The contract is part of the “Pledge for Respect” campaign launched this month by the politically-connected National Council of La Raza (NCLR), which bills itself as the largest Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States. The influential Mexican group receives millions of federal tax dollars annually to promote its leftist, open-borders agenda and has hundreds of branches throughout the nation.
NCLR leaders regularly attend congressional hearings as well as White House meetings and President Obama hired one of the group’s top officials (Cecilia Munoz) to serve in his administration. The commander-in-chief even violated his own lobbyist ban to make Munoz director of intergovernmental affairs even though she supervised all legislative and advocacy activities on the state and local levels for the NCLR, which is headquartered in Washington D.C.
With that said, this isn’t merely a publicity stunt for the powerful NCLR, which is pushing the respect campaign as part of this year’s National Latino Advocacy Days. The idea is to reinforce that the Hispanic community is an integral part of the fabric of America, according to the group, which is also using the opportunity to denounce politicians who use Latinos to exploit xenophobia for political gain.
The contract also forces members of Congress to promise that they’ll meet with advocates and leaders from the Hispanic nonprofit (that would include the NCLR) and business communities to hear their perspective on the “issues.” That way they could find a common ground based on “shared values and interests.”
To launch its respect campaign the NCLR enlisted a Los Angeles hip-hop band named after the Aztec astrological symbol of the monkey (Ozomatli). In a public service ad, members of the musical group claim that some candidates for public office have called for landmines on the U.S.-Mexico border and microchips to be implanted in undocumented immigrants. Others have used “stereotypical and menacing images of Latinos in their campaign ads.”
The message goes on to say that elected officials and states have fashioned “extreme draconian” proposals against the immigrant and Latino communities, including the elimination of ethnic studies programs in public schools, forcing publicly-funded hospitals to ask for patients’ immigration status and stripping U.S. citizenship from children born to illegal aliens. “It’s time to tell Congress that we won’t stand for this anymore. We need to know who is with us and who is against us! “
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/mar/congress-asked-pledge-respect-latinos
La Raza Group Teams Up With Feds To Push Govt. Aid In Spanish
Last Updated: Fri, 07/08/2011 - 2:03pm
President Obama’s favorite La Raza group has teamed up with a federal agency to promote one of the administration’s many government cash giveaways with Spanish ads encouraging Latinos—possibly illegal immigrants—to apply for free U.S. taxpayer dollars.
The new campaign warns Hispanics that time is running out to get up to “$50,000 in help” from Uncle Sam to pay their mortgage, past due charges, taxes, insurance and even legal fees associated with their home. The money is being disbursed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as part of a billion-dollar Emergency Homeowner Loan Program (EHLP).
In 2008 the agency revealed that some 5 million fraudulent or defaulted home mortgages were in the hands of illegal immigrants, who obtained the loans from banks that were pressured by the government to offer them. In fact, the agency in charge of preserving and promoting public confidence in the nation’s financial system, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), began pushing banks to offer services to illegal aliens years earlier and many still do today.
It’s logical to assume that the involvement of the nation’s most powerful open borders group, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), in promoting government-funded mortgage aid is geared, at least in part, towards undocumented immigrants. The EHLP expired but recently got extended amid record-high unemployment to help people keep their homes. The NCLR, which has seen its federal funding skyrocket since one of its top officials got a job in Obama’s White House, wants to make sure Latinos get a piece of the pie. This week it launched a Spanish-language public service campaign to highlight the program’s “fast-approaching” deadline.
“The biggest challenge now is ensuring that people know about this opportunity and take advantage of it during the short period that it is available,” according to the NCLR director who announced the campaign that will help Latinos “seize” an “opportunity.” In the ad HUD Assistant Secretary Mercedes Marquez alerts Hispanics of the imminent deadline to get their government cash and directs them to a Spanish HUD website that assures the money will be disbursed in a “fair and impartial manner.”
Last year Marquez , a strong ally of the open borders movement, awarded an NCLR affiliate known as Chicanos Por la Causa nearly $40 million in grants to “stabilize neighborhoods and rebuild economies.” The money came from a Neighborhood Stabilization Program that has doled out $2 billion to community groups to combat the negative effects of “vacant and abandoned homes.”
Just a few weeks ago a Judicial Watch investigation revealed that federal funding for the NCLR, which for years has raked in millions of taxpayer dollars, has catapulted since Obama hired its senior vice president (Cecilia Muñoz) to be his director of intergovernmental affairs. In fact, the government cash more than doubled the year Muñoz joined the White House, from $4.1 million to $11 million. Additionally, NCLR affiliates nationwide raked in tens of millions of government grant and recovery dollars last year thanks to the Muñoz factor.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/jul/la-raza-group-teams-feds-push-govt-aid-spanish
Obama’s NLRB Uses Weight Of Fed Govt To Protect Illegal Immigrants
Posted by tomtflorida
Saturday, June 18th at 9:14AM EDT
Federal Resources Also Re-Directed To Further La Raza, Other Far Left Causes
When the National Labor Relations Board is not adding to our economic woes by suing American corporations and doing the bidding of the labor unions, it’s strenuously working to protect illegal immigrants.Judicial Watch reports that the Obama Labor Department has entered formal agreements with two foreign countries vowing to preserve the rights of their migrants.
Signed this week by the U.S., Guatemala and Nicaragua, the declaration will make it easier to protect the rights of migrants from those Central American countries who work in the United States. Under the decree, Labor Department regional offices will team up with local Guatemalan and Nicaraguan embassies and consulates to distribute information to their citizens about their “rights” in the U.S.
It’s part of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis’s plan to help illegal aliens, who she refers to as “vulnerable” and “underpaid.”
Judicial Watch also reports that the National Council of La Raza got a big boost in federally funded grants and contracts after President Obama appointed Cecilla Munoz, the National Council of La Raza’s senior vice president, as his director of inter-governmental affairs. In fact, the government cash more than doubled the year Muñoz joined the White House, from $4.1 million to $11 million.
The inter-governmental affairs job is among the most powerful in a presidential administration in terms of its occupant being able to direct or influence the awarding of hundreds of billions of dollars in federal grants in aid and contracts.
There are frequent claims that Obama has accomplished little in his first three years, however, when looking at just how thoroughly he has transformed the federal government through the appointment of radical left-wingers at all levels and how successful he’s been in redirecting the weight and finances of these federal agencies to further the far left agenda, those claims are very short sighted.
And with the ‘ends justifies the means‘ mentality of the far left, it’s unfathomable to grasp just how completely the public treasury is being raided.
It also further emphasizes just how critical the 2012 election is for the future of this country. As it stands, it will take years to root out the far left extremists that now permeate federal government. Another four years under the Obama Administration and the odds are that the damage may very well be irreversible.
http://www.redstate.com/tomtflorida/2011/06/18/obama%e2%80%99s-nlrb-uses-weight-of-fed-govt-to-protect-illegal-immigrants/
Welcome to Maywood, Mexico
Boasting a population that is 97% Hispanic, more than half foreign born, and 40% illegal, the Los Angeles County, Calif., incorporated city of Maywood has achieved the Reconquista goal. It is now as lawless and chaotic as any place in Mexico. Maywood is a warning to every city and town in America.
The Maywood City Council announced this week that after years of radical policies, corruption and scandal, the city was broke and all city employees would be laid off and essential city services contracted out to neighboring cities or to L.A. County government.
How did this happen? Until recently, Maywood was the model for "brown power" politics.
Maywood was the first California city with an elected Hispanic City Council, one of the first "sanctuary" cities for illegal aliens, the first city to pass a resolution calling for a boycott of Arizona after that state passed a law to enforce federal immigration laws, the first California city to order its police department not to enforce state laws requiring drivers to have licenses to drive, the first American city to call on Congress to grant amnesty to all illegals.
Council meetings were conducted in Spanish. Maywood was the leader in the peaceful, democratic achievement of the La Raza goal to take power in the U.S.
The City of Maywood started out quite differently. Back after World War II, Maywood was a booming blue-collar town with good jobs, a multi-ethnic suburb of Los Angeles.
On the 25th anniversary in 1949 of Maywood's incorporation as a city, the town celebrated with a beard-growing contest, a rodeo, and wrestling matches in City Park. Chrysler operated an assembly plant there until 1971.
But the early 1970s saw these industrial jobs in aerospace, auto and furniture manufacturing, and food processing evaporate under the pressure of higher taxes, increased local and state regulation, and the attraction of cheaper land and cheaper labor elsewhere.
The multi-ethnic Maywood of the post-war years was transformed in the ’80s and ’90s by wave after wave of Hispanic immigrants, many of them illegal.
In August 2006, a "Save Our State" anti-illegal immigration rally in Maywood drew hundreds of protesters—but a larger number of defenders of illegal immigration. The pro-illegal protesters carried signs which read "We are Indigenous ! The ONLY owners of this Continent!" and "Racist Pilgrims Go Home" and "All Europeans are Illegal Here."
According to newspaper reports at the time, objectors to illegal aliens were subject to physical attacks. A 70-year-old man was "slashed," a woman attacked, and cars vandalized. Pro-illegal demonstrators raised the Mexican flag at the U.S. Post Office.
The illegal population and their sympathizers became increasingly radicalized. Elections to the City Council saw "assimilationist" incumbent Hispanic council members ousted by La Raza supporting radical challengers.
For years, the Maywood City Council authorized police checkpoints to stop drunk driving. Drivers without licenses had their cars impounded. Illegals in California cannot get drivers licenses. By 2005, the number of such impounds were in the hundreds. A community campaign was launched forcing the City Council to suspend the checkpoints.
Cars were still being impounded whenever a police traffic-violation stop resulted in a driver without a license. Felipe Aguirre, a community activist with Comite Pro-Uno, an "immigration service center," coordinated a new campaign against any impounds. He was elected in 2005 to the City Council. He is the mayor of Maywood today.
Aguirre and a new majority of the council dismantled the Traffic Department. Illegals were given overnight-parking permits and impounds stopped. You didn't need a license to drive in Maywood. The Los Angeles Times wrote glowingly of this "progress" in a story entitled "Welcome to Maywood, Where Roads Open Up For Immigrants".
The Maywood Police Department was restructured by the new council. A new chief and new officers were hired. Later it turned out that many of the new officers had previously been fired from other law enforcement agencies for a variety of infractions. The Maywood P.D. was known as the "Department of Second Chances."
Among those hired was a former L.A. Sheriff's deputy terminated for abusing jail inmates; a former LAPD officer fired for intimidating a witness; and an ex-Huntington Park officer charged with negligently discharging a handgun and driving drunk.
Even the L.A. Times called the Maywood Police Department a "haven for misfit cops." Their story alleged that a veteran officer was extorting sex from relatives of a criminal fugitive; that another officer tried to run over the president of the Maywood Police Commission; and that another officer has impregnated a teenage police-explorer scout.
Charges of corruption and favoritism led to one recall of city council members and threats of more recalls are heard to this day.
Maywood is represented in the state Senate by Democrat "One Bill" Gil Cedillo. He earned the nickname by introducing every year in the state legislature a bill to grant drivers licenses to illegals. Maywood is represented in Congress by Democrat Lucille Roybal-Allard, a staunch advocate of amnesty for illegals.
Today, Maywood is broke. Its police department dismantled along with all other city departments and personnel. Only the city council remains and a city manager to manage the contracts with other agencies for city services in Maywood.
Maywood is the warning of what happens when illegal immigrants, resisting assimilation as Americans, bring with their growing numbers the corruption and the radical politics of their home countries. Add the radical home-grown anti-Americanism of Hispanic "leaders" and groups like La Raza and you get schools where learning is replaced with indoctrination, business and jobs replaced by welfare and gangs, and a poisonous stew of entitlement politics.
In too many American communities, this sad tale is all too familiar.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Hedgecock is a nationally-syndicated talk show host.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Roger Hedgecock
06/25/2010
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=37671
Outrage! US Government Funding La Raza with Your Tax Dollars
by Mike Piccione
03/11/2011
The United States government is funding the National Council of La Raza with our tax dollars. La Raza, which literally means in Spanish “The Race,” is a radical organization that advocates open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens. I pulled and analyzed the tax return Form 990, the form filed by 501(c) 3 organizations to the IRS, and here is what was reported:
Government Grants (contributions) to the National Council of La Raza
2008 Tax Returns, (October 1 2008 to September 30, 2009) $5,136,535
2007 Tax Returns $3,458,351
2006 Tax Returns $3,353,319
Three Year Total $11,948,205
What do people get paid at La Raza?
According to the 2008 tax returns seventeen people listed as officers, directors, trustees, key employees and highest compensated employees of the National Council of La Raza have an income ranging from $119,675 to $378,446, the latter of which goes to Janet Murguia, president and CEO.
To put that income figure in perspective a rank and file United States Senator makes $174,000. A United States Marine Sergeant with five years of service earns a base salary of $29,376, including the raise received for 2011.
Lobbying:
Part II, Section 1b indicates lobbying expenditures to influence a legislative body amounted to $550,787.
Section 1g indicates lobbying expenditures to “Grassroots nontaxable amount” of $250,000.
Here is the quick analysis: The US government pays La Raza to lobby the US government for money.
The United States of America is facing a multitude of critical issues. Two of those issues are wasteful government spending and illegal immigration. Cutting funding for the National Council of La Raza would begin to help in both of those issues.
Now you sound off. Should the United States taxpayer be funding the National Council of La Raza?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Piccione is founding editor of Guns & Patriots and is now an executive at U.S. Concealed Carry. A long time shooter, hunter and writer, Piccione is a Marine veteran, a NRA Marketing Manager and a member of the Fairfax County, VA, Community Emergency Response Team.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=42237
Sotomayor’s La Raza Uses Taxpayer Money for Radical Agenda
by Robert M. Engstrom
06/15/2009
If a group of United States citizens trekked to another country, formed an organization called “The Race,” which demanded open borders, unfettered immigration and citizenship, billions of dollars for bilingual education, health care, housing, job and wage guarantees, and anti-discrimination protection, they would likely soon be jailed or deported in a display of righteous sovereign indignation. But the National Council of La Raza engages in all these activities in the United States, and it receives taxpayer dollars to help promote its radical views.
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is a member of La Raza. That membership and her own statements have led to many challenges to her suitability for the High Court. Critics of the organization and its goals have frequently been labeled as racists, but that didn’t stop former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R.-Colo.) from calling La Raza a leftist radical group “a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses.”
La Raza, founded in 1968 by Raul Yzaguirre, takes its name from “La Raza Cosmica,” a phrase coined by Mexican scholar Jose Vasconcelos. The English translation, and the first definition found in Spanish/English dictionaries, for “la raza” is “the race.” Contrary to La Raza’s contention that the phrase means “the people,” or “the community,” the Spanish for those phrases are “la gente,” and “la comunidad.”
In 2005, La Raza received $15.2 million in federal grant money for charter schools and get-out-the-vote campaigns and in 2006 got another $4 million in congressional earmarks for housing reform. The organization’s financial statements for 2008 show that it received another $5.1 million in federal grants, and holds assets worth $97.4 million. La Raza has received more than $30 million from the federal government since 1996.
The Council of La Raza arranged to have its voice included in congressional hearings by House and Senate leaders and garnered an extra $4 million in federal tax funds earmarked by an anonymous senator in 2007 while continuing to lobby for open borders, driver’s licenses for illegals, and amnesty leading to citizenship for all illegal immigrants in the country.
Many of Mexico’s leading politicians encourage the takeover of sovereign U.S. property, and La Raza encourages those statements, while offering advice about avoiding the terms “illegals” and “amnesty.” Former Mexican President Felipe Calderon told Mexicans in a state of the nation address that “Where there is a Mexican, there is Mexico.” In 1995, President Ernesto Zedillo told a group of U.S. citizens of Hispanic descent in Dallas that “You are Mexicans, Mexicans who live North of the border,” suggesting they owed a higher allegiance to Mexico than the United States. Zedillo brought a 1997 La Raza gathering in Chicago to its feet in applause when he said that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders. All those statements accord with the accusations of the colonialism that the U.S. is constantly accused of pursuing by its enemies.
La Raza endorsed the 2007 Citizenship Promotion Act, introduced by then-Sen. Barack Obama. The purpose of this act was to limit the costs of applying to become a citizen of the United States, but another provision of the bill would have distributed $80 million to pro-illegal immigration organizations, some of which are suspected of having links to the Mexican government.
In the name of diversity, La Raza encourages Latinos to cling to the language and customs of their home country after becoming citizens of the U.S. Those not “brown enough” are derided, as was Linda Chavez when she was considered for the position of Labor secretary under President George W. Bush. Rather than taking pride in the accomplishments of a female of Hispanic descent, critics mocked her as “the Hispanic who doesn’t speak Spanish.” While Chavez was under fire, the National Hispanic Leadership Association, an umbrella group representing 40 different Hispanic groups, including La Raza, condemned the federal Office of Personnel Management for failing to promote and hire Hispanics.
Obama laid claim to the Hispanic vote in a 2007 speech before the La Raza Council in which he said, “Find out how many senators appeared before an immigration rally last year. Who was talking the talk, and who walked the walk -- because I walked.” Obama characterized the 2007 Senate debate on immigration as “ugly and racist” and promised to make amnesty a priority of his presidency.
In the 2006 demonstrations Obama marched in, protestors carried signs reading, “Gringo Go Home,” and “This Is Our Land, Not Yours.” American flags were burned and desecrated by Hispanics wearing Che Guevara T-shirts and carrying Mexican flags while waving Communist and anarchist banners. La Raza advised the organizers of the 2007 demonstrations held in 40-plus cities to keep such incendiary symbols to a minimum.
To gain Hispanic support for his presidential bid, in 2007 Obama voted against amendments that would have facilitated the deportation of illegal immigrant gang members, convicted criminals, and terrorists. He also voted against legislation to enable state and local law enforcement officers to inquire about a person’s immigration status, then twice co-sponsored, but failed to get passage of, La Raza-backed legislation that would have granted citizenship and education benefits to minor illegal aliens and amnesty for their extended families. The border, national security and immigration policies that La Raza and Obama support, along with the healthcare and social welfare programs needed to accommodate the increase in immigration they are promoting, would mean spending and tax hikes that critics predict could bankrupt the American middle class. Spending on undocumented immigrants in the four states bordering Mexico now totals more than $200 million each year.
La Raza, through a network of 300 affiliates in 41 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, says that it “advocates on behalf of the entire Latino population regardless of immigration status.”
Much has already been said about the Sotomayor’s much-quoted statement about “a wise Latina woman” being better qualified to serve as a judge. President Barak Obama and his staff have downplayed Sotomayor’s statement, its meaning and context, but few have focused on her opening remarks in that same speech in which she said: “I intend tonight to touch upon the themes that this conference will be discussing this weekend and to talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench.”
The White House characterized Sotomayor’s comments as an off-the-cuff misstatement that has been taken out of context, but the prepared text of the full speech makes a mockery of that attempt to spin attention away from the meaning and intent of her words. The speech was written for and delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law’s Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture and later printed in the La Raza Law Journal for a symposium on “Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.”
Sotomayor has also served on the board of directors of the Latino Justice/Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund which, like La Raza, also opposes enforcing immigration laws, securing the border and supports amnesty for those already in this country illegally.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32277
Tom Tancredo: Por La Raza Nada
 |
| Tom Tancredo |
While virtually all President Obama will talk about is the debt ceiling, he took a short break to give an address before the National Council of La Raza on Monday. Calling the audience his “Hermanos y hermanas,” he trumpeted his support of the DREAM Act amnesty, stated his opposition to Arizona’s SB 1070 and all state level immigration laws, and touted his Hispanic appointments—citing Ambassador to the Dominican Republic Raul Yzaguirre, Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
Obama did not mention one other Hispanic appointment, former La Raza vice president Cecilia Munoz who serves as his Director of Intergovernmental Affairs and his public liaison to Hispanics. In appointing Munoz, Obama violated his own pledge not to allow former lobbyists positions where they control money they formerly controlled, and gave Munoz a special waiver.
While our nation is going broke, the National Council of La Raza is doing just fine. Since Obama and Munoz took up the white house, they have seen their funding skyrocket, nearly tripling from 4.5 to 11 million dollars in 2010. Judicial Watch also found out that the La Raza affiliate, Chicanos por la Causa received over 18 million dollars of tax dollars. That group was the primary plaintiff against Arizona’s law against illegal employers.
And it is not as if La Raza is lacking funds. Between their various sister organizations, they have over 200 million dollars in assets, much of it paid for by corporate America, and Chicanos por la Causa have nearly 100 million dollars.
Although some of La Raza’s government funding was earmarked by congress, virtually all of it was doled out by the Obama administration. Sixty percent of La Raza's take came from the Department of Labor—run by Hilda Solis. They lobbied hard for her appointment and honored her with an award. She paid them back—with millions of our tax dollars.
Even if we were running trillion dollar surpluses, there is no reason why La Raza should get a dime of taxpayer dollars. Here are just a few reasons why.
“La Raza” means “The Race,” specifically the Latino race. Could you imagine if the government were giving millions of dollars to a group called “The National Council of the White Race”?
La Raza counts the pro-reconquista Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán (Chicano Student Movement of Aztlán) as an affiliate and helps fund the organization. MeCHA’s slogan is "Por La Raza todo, Fuera de La Raza nada," meaning “For the Race everything, outside the Race nothing.”
La Raza opposes free speech and has tried to get Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, and other opponents of illegal immigration kicked off the air. Their president Janet Murguia said “when free speech transforms into hate speech, we've got to draw that line.” La Raza has said calling illegal aliens “criminals” is “hate speech.”
La Raza has lobbied for every single amnesty, against immigration enforcement, for Obamacare, and against English as an official language
Barack Obama managed to address the issue of the debt briefly during his talk to La Raza. He stated, “Every day, NCLR and your affiliates hear from families figuring out how to stretch every dollar a little bit further, what sacrifices they’ve got to make, how they're going to budget only what’s truly important. So they should expect the same thing from Washington.”
While 11 million dollars is a tiny fraction of our trillion dollar a year deficit, funding this pro-amnesty propaganda outfit is not “truly important.”
Republicans in the House have passed legislation to defund left wing groups such as Planned Parenthood and ACORN. The National Council of La Raza should be be next. To slightly alter their MeCHA pals' slogan, when it comes to our tax dollars: “Por La Raza, Nada!”
http://townhall.com/columnists/tomtancredo/2011/07/29/por_la_raza,_nada
Immigrant group sues to uphold Dream Act
Doubts petition validity
An immigrant advocacy group filed a lawsuit Monday seeking to uphold a recently enacted Maryland law that would allow some illegal immigrants to receive tuition breaks.
Casa de Maryland filed suit in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court against the State Board of Elections, alleging elections officials erroneously validated thousands of signatures that helped send the state’s Dream Act to a November 2012 referendum.
The group also argues that the law - which would allow in-state tuition for many college-aged illegal immigrants - addresses state spending and is therefore not subject to referendum. The lawsuit has been endorsed by the Maryland State Education Association and the Service Employees International Union Local 1199.
“This law was approved by our elected representatives and is not the type of law subject to referendum,” said Joseph Sandler, a lawyer with Sandler, Reiff, Young and Lamb - one of two firms representing Casa de Maryland, along with Arnold and Porter LLP.
Mr. Sandler said attorneys and volunteers conducted a “painstaking line-by-line” review of signatures and found they “fell far short.”
The Dream Act narrowly passed the Democrat-controlled General Assembly in April. Opponents then mounted a two-month petition drive that netted nearly 109,000 valid voter signatures, as determined by elections officials.
That nearly doubled the 55,736 signatures needed to force a statewide vote.
Dream Act supporters for several months have questioned the methods of petitioners, including their use of a website, mdpetitions.com, that allowed residents to print and circulate their own copies of the petition.
Nearly one-third of all of the approved signatures were on petitions obtained from the website.
The plaintiffs allege the site violated state petition laws by using online voter records to automatically fill in some personal information for visitors attempting to download the petition.
They argue that it violates the requirement that all petition signers personally provide all of their own information. The Maryland chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union threatened in June to sue the state for the same reason but is not a plaintiff in the lawsuit filed Monday.
Mr. Sandler said volunteers and lawyers reviewed 47,000 signatures that were approved in June and found more than half should have been invalid for various reasons. He used the rate of failure to project 58,000 of the nearly 109,000 approved signatures should be invalidated, which would leave the petition drive about 4,000 signatures short of its requirement.
He also argued that thousands of approved signatures were written to petition copies that did not contain a required summary of the text of the law and that the Dream Act is an appropriations law - making it not subject to a petition drive.
According to the state, laws that establish new spending cannot be challenged to referendum, unless the spending exceeds the previous year’s approved allotment.
Delegate Patrick L. McDonough, Baltimore County Republican and honorary chairman of the petition drive, refuted the claim, saying the Dream Act should be considered a policy law because it does not set spending within the state budget and was not reviewed by the House Appropriations or Senate Budget and Taxation committees.
Story Continues →
An immigrant advocacy group filed a lawsuit Monday seeking to uphold a recently enacted Maryland law that would allow some illegal immigrants to receive tuition breaks.
Casa de Maryland filed suit in Anne Arundel County Circuit Court against the State Board of Elections, alleging elections officials erroneously validated thousands of signatures that helped send the state’s Dream Act to a November 2012 referendum.
The group also argues that the law - which would allow in-state tuition for many college-aged illegal immigrants - addresses state spending and is therefore not subject to referendum. The lawsuit has been endorsed by the Maryland State Education Association and the Service Employees International Union Local 1199.
“This law was approved by our elected representatives and is not the type of law subject to referendum,” said Joseph Sandler, a lawyer with Sandler, Reiff, Young and Lamb - one of two firms representing Casa de Maryland, along with Arnold and Porter LLP.
Mr. Sandler said attorneys and volunteers conducted a “painstaking line-by-line” review of signatures and found they “fell far short.”
The Dream Act narrowly passed the Democrat-controlled General Assembly in April. Opponents then mounted a two-month petition drive that netted nearly 109,000 valid voter signatures, as determined by elections officials.
That nearly doubled the 55,736 signatures needed to force a statewide vote.
Dream Act supporters for several months have questioned the methods of petitioners, including their use of a website, mdpetitions.com, that allowed residents to print and circulate their own copies of the petition.
Nearly one-third of all of the approved signatures were on petitions obtained from the website.
The plaintiffs allege the site violated state petition laws by using online voter records to automatically fill in some personal information for visitors attempting to download the petition.
They argue that it violates the requirement that all petition signers personally provide all of their own information. The Maryland chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union threatened in June to sue the state for the same reason but is not a plaintiff in the lawsuit filed Monday.
Mr. Sandler said volunteers and lawyers reviewed 47,000 signatures that were approved in June and found more than half should have been invalid for various reasons. He used the rate of failure to project 58,000 of the nearly 109,000 approved signatures should be invalidated, which would leave the petition drive about 4,000 signatures short of its requirement.
He also argued that thousands of approved signatures were written to petition copies that did not contain a required summary of the text of the law and that the Dream Act is an appropriations law - making it not subject to a petition drive.
According to the state, laws that establish new spending cannot be challenged to referendum, unless the spending exceeds the previous year’s approved allotment.
Delegate Patrick L. McDonough, Baltimore County Republican and honorary chairman of the petition drive, refuted the claim, saying the Dream Act should be considered a policy law because it does not set spending within the state budget and was not reviewed by the House Appropriations or Senate Budget and Taxation committees.
Story Continues →
Poverty grew in Mexico to nearly half the population, study finds
The government of President Felipe Calderon blames the poverty numbers on the global financial crisis that sent Mexico into recession in 2009 and the worldwide hike in food prices.
By Tracy Wilkinson, Los Angeles Times
July 29, 2011, 7:34 p.m.
Reporting from Mexico City— Mexico received more bad economic news Friday with a report that shows poverty is steadily on the rise.
The number of Mexicans living in poverty grew to 52 million in 2010, up by more than 3 million people from two years earlier, the report says. That means 46.2% of the population lives in poverty.
Within that group, 11.7 million people live in extreme poverty, a figure that held steady over the same period.
The report was produced by the National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy, an autonomous but federally financed agency, and represents the state's most comprehensive study of poverty to date.
The government, which has sought to portray the country's economic standing in an especially optimistic light, blamed the poverty numbers on the global financial crisis that sent Mexico into recession in 2009 and the worldwide hike in food prices.
"This government like no other has sought to give opportunity to the poor," President Felipe Calderon said in response to the report.
Heriberto Felix Guerra, who as minister of social development is in charge of poverty-reduction programs, also defended the government's efforts, saying the administration took steps to contain the damage from the global financial meltdown of 2008-2009, which started in the United States, Mexico's most important economic partner.
"It would be irresponsible to deny the impact of global conditions" on Mexican poverty, he said, "but it would also be irresponsible not to recognize our achievements in recovering from the worst financial crisis in memory."
But social development and human rights groups criticize the Calderon administration for what they say is a failure to make poverty reduction a priority.
"Behind these figures are people with stories of injustice, dispossession, discrimination and insecurity," Alberto Herrera, director of Amnesty International in Mexico, said in a statement. "Millions of people who live in poverty cannot continue to wait" for the government to take action.
The council defines poverty as a monthly earning in urban zones of less than 2,114 pesos, or about $180. Extreme poverty is below 978 pesos, or about $83.
The council measures poverty based not only on income but also on access to food, education, healthcare, housing and basic services.
The report noted that access to healthcare had improved but access to food had declined, with nearly a quarter of the population insufficiently fed. Household income also fell about 12% between 2008 and 2010.
wilkinson@latimes.com
By Tracy Wilkinson, Los Angeles Times
July 29, 2011, 7:34 p.m.
Reporting from Mexico City— Mexico received more bad economic news Friday with a report that shows poverty is steadily on the rise.
The number of Mexicans living in poverty grew to 52 million in 2010, up by more than 3 million people from two years earlier, the report says. That means 46.2% of the population lives in poverty.
Within that group, 11.7 million people live in extreme poverty, a figure that held steady over the same period.
The report was produced by the National Council for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy, an autonomous but federally financed agency, and represents the state's most comprehensive study of poverty to date.
The government, which has sought to portray the country's economic standing in an especially optimistic light, blamed the poverty numbers on the global financial crisis that sent Mexico into recession in 2009 and the worldwide hike in food prices.
"This government like no other has sought to give opportunity to the poor," President Felipe Calderon said in response to the report.
Heriberto Felix Guerra, who as minister of social development is in charge of poverty-reduction programs, also defended the government's efforts, saying the administration took steps to contain the damage from the global financial meltdown of 2008-2009, which started in the United States, Mexico's most important economic partner.
"It would be irresponsible to deny the impact of global conditions" on Mexican poverty, he said, "but it would also be irresponsible not to recognize our achievements in recovering from the worst financial crisis in memory."
But social development and human rights groups criticize the Calderon administration for what they say is a failure to make poverty reduction a priority.
"Behind these figures are people with stories of injustice, dispossession, discrimination and insecurity," Alberto Herrera, director of Amnesty International in Mexico, said in a statement. "Millions of people who live in poverty cannot continue to wait" for the government to take action.
The council defines poverty as a monthly earning in urban zones of less than 2,114 pesos, or about $180. Extreme poverty is below 978 pesos, or about $83.
The council measures poverty based not only on income but also on access to food, education, healthcare, housing and basic services.
The report noted that access to healthcare had improved but access to food had declined, with nearly a quarter of the population insufficiently fed. Household income also fell about 12% between 2008 and 2010.
wilkinson@latimes.com
Lamar Smith's HALT bill
August 2, 2011 4:00 A.M.
Obama’s Administrative Amnesty
The president uses executive-branch authority to circumvent the law
Speaking at the National Council of La Raza’s annual conference recently, President Obama said, “The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. . . . But that is not how our system works.” The president is right to acknowledge that this isn’t how our government operates, but it seems the temptation to do things his own way is too much for him to withstand. This is especially true when it comes to our immigration laws.
Although Congress has defeated several amnesty bills in recent years, President Obama now wants to grant a backdoor amnesty to illegal immigrants by using executive-branch authority.
What had once been a rumor fueled by leaked administration memos is, as of last month, official Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy. The director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued two directives on the scope of DHS officers’ prosecutorial discretion that could allow millions of illegal and criminal immigrants to avoid our immigration laws.
The memos tell agency officials when to exercise “prosecutorial discretion,” such as when to defer the removal of immigrants; when not to stop, question, arrest, or detain an immigrant; and when to dismiss a removal proceeding.
The directives also tell officials not to seek to remove illegal immigrants who have been present illegally for many years. Millions of illegal immigrants have been in the U.S. since the 1990s.
Further, the ICE memos make clear that the administration plans not to use but to abuse these powers. If the Obama administration has its way, amnesty will be the official policy of the United States without a vote of Congress.
This will saddle American communities with the costs of providing education and medical care to illegal immigrants. It will also place our communities at risk by not deporting criminal immigrants.
As a result, I introduced the Hinder the Administration’s Legalization Temptation Act, also known as the HALT Act. This legislation prevents the Obama administration from abusing its authority to grant a mass administrative amnesty to illegal immigrants.
Regrettably, this isn’t the only instance in which President Obama has been tempted to do things his own way. It is part of a broader pattern of ignoring the law.
The Obama administration has all but abandoned worksite-enforcement efforts. Over the past two years, worksite-enforcement efforts fell 70 percent. Under this administration, there have been fewer arrests of illegal workers, as well as fewer criminal arrests, fewer indictments, and fewer convictions of illegal immigrants and employers.
While worksite-enforcement activities have plummeted, the Obama administration argues that it has increased the number of audits of employers. But audits do little to stop illegal immigration or discourage illegal hiring. Audits can result in fines, though employers consider them just the cost of doing business. Illegal workers are typically not arrested, so they continue to compete with citizens and legal immigrants for jobs.
We could open up millions of jobs for unemployed Americans by requiring all employers to use E-Verify. This program quickly identifies those working illegally in the United States by checking the Social Security numbers of new hires. E-Verify takes only one to two minutes per hire to use, and confirms persons who are eligible to work 99.5 percent of the time. And over 270,000 employers voluntarily use it today.
Of course, lost jobs wouldn’t be as large a problem if the border itself were secure and illegal immigrants couldn’t enter in the first place. But according to the Government Accountability Office, only 44 percent of the southwest border is under “operational control” by the Border Patrol.
Completion of the border fence would help secure our border. We know that a border fence can be very effective — in San Diego, the fence reduced apprehensions by 95 percent. But there is no fence in many other areas.
To date, the administration has built only about 650 miles of the 800 miles of border fencing that Congress required in 2006. Of the 650 miles, only 299 have vehicle barriers. And even vehicle barriers can be easily bypassed.
President Obama and his administration should not pick and choose which laws they will enforce. The fact that the president doesn’t like our immigration laws doesn’t mean he shouldn’t enforce them. It appears that doing things on his own is not just tempting, it’s what President Obama does.
— Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas) is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/273352/obama-s-administrative-amnesty-lamar-smith#
E-mail Mike Conaway
E-mail John Cornyn
E-mail Kay Bailey Hutchison
My e-mail to the above legislators:
Dear Representative (Senator) _____________:
Please support Lamar Smith's HALT bill and do all you can to impede President Obama's excessive use of executive power.
Thank you,
Faye Hall
Note: It takes very little. Their staffs usually just keep counts of yeas and nays.
Obama’s Administrative Amnesty
The president uses executive-branch authority to circumvent the law
Speaking at the National Council of La Raza’s annual conference recently, President Obama said, “The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. . . . But that is not how our system works.” The president is right to acknowledge that this isn’t how our government operates, but it seems the temptation to do things his own way is too much for him to withstand. This is especially true when it comes to our immigration laws.
Although Congress has defeated several amnesty bills in recent years, President Obama now wants to grant a backdoor amnesty to illegal immigrants by using executive-branch authority.
What had once been a rumor fueled by leaked administration memos is, as of last month, official Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy. The director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued two directives on the scope of DHS officers’ prosecutorial discretion that could allow millions of illegal and criminal immigrants to avoid our immigration laws.
The memos tell agency officials when to exercise “prosecutorial discretion,” such as when to defer the removal of immigrants; when not to stop, question, arrest, or detain an immigrant; and when to dismiss a removal proceeding.
The directives also tell officials not to seek to remove illegal immigrants who have been present illegally for many years. Millions of illegal immigrants have been in the U.S. since the 1990s.
Further, the ICE memos make clear that the administration plans not to use but to abuse these powers. If the Obama administration has its way, amnesty will be the official policy of the United States without a vote of Congress.
This will saddle American communities with the costs of providing education and medical care to illegal immigrants. It will also place our communities at risk by not deporting criminal immigrants.
As a result, I introduced the Hinder the Administration’s Legalization Temptation Act, also known as the HALT Act. This legislation prevents the Obama administration from abusing its authority to grant a mass administrative amnesty to illegal immigrants.
Regrettably, this isn’t the only instance in which President Obama has been tempted to do things his own way. It is part of a broader pattern of ignoring the law.
The Obama administration has all but abandoned worksite-enforcement efforts. Over the past two years, worksite-enforcement efforts fell 70 percent. Under this administration, there have been fewer arrests of illegal workers, as well as fewer criminal arrests, fewer indictments, and fewer convictions of illegal immigrants and employers.
While worksite-enforcement activities have plummeted, the Obama administration argues that it has increased the number of audits of employers. But audits do little to stop illegal immigration or discourage illegal hiring. Audits can result in fines, though employers consider them just the cost of doing business. Illegal workers are typically not arrested, so they continue to compete with citizens and legal immigrants for jobs.
We could open up millions of jobs for unemployed Americans by requiring all employers to use E-Verify. This program quickly identifies those working illegally in the United States by checking the Social Security numbers of new hires. E-Verify takes only one to two minutes per hire to use, and confirms persons who are eligible to work 99.5 percent of the time. And over 270,000 employers voluntarily use it today.
Of course, lost jobs wouldn’t be as large a problem if the border itself were secure and illegal immigrants couldn’t enter in the first place. But according to the Government Accountability Office, only 44 percent of the southwest border is under “operational control” by the Border Patrol.
Completion of the border fence would help secure our border. We know that a border fence can be very effective — in San Diego, the fence reduced apprehensions by 95 percent. But there is no fence in many other areas.
To date, the administration has built only about 650 miles of the 800 miles of border fencing that Congress required in 2006. Of the 650 miles, only 299 have vehicle barriers. And even vehicle barriers can be easily bypassed.
President Obama and his administration should not pick and choose which laws they will enforce. The fact that the president doesn’t like our immigration laws doesn’t mean he shouldn’t enforce them. It appears that doing things on his own is not just tempting, it’s what President Obama does.
— Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas) is chairman of the House Judiciary Committee.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/273352/obama-s-administrative-amnesty-lamar-smith#
E-mail Mike Conaway
E-mail John Cornyn
E-mail Kay Bailey Hutchison
My e-mail to the above legislators:
Dear Representative (Senator) _____________:
Please support Lamar Smith's HALT bill and do all you can to impede President Obama's excessive use of executive power.
Thank you,
Faye Hall
Note: It takes very little. Their staffs usually just keep counts of yeas and nays.
Obummer's Prosecutorial Discretion
Prince William County files suit over illegal immigration case
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, Va. --
Prince William County filed a lawsuit Thursday against the Department of Homeland Security seeking information about thousands of illegal immigrants the county has turned over to the department.
In 2007 the Prince William Board of County Supervisors passed an ordinance that requires county police officers to check the immigration status of anyone they arrest.
If police find that they have arrested someone who is in the country illegally, they turn that person over to the department for deportation.
To date the county has turned over more than 4,000 people to DHS, according to a county press release.
After Carlos Martinelly Montano, 23, was charged in August 2010 with killing a Benedictine nun while driving drunk in Prince William County, county officials became concerned that DHS was releasing illegal immigrants back into the community.
Police records show that Montano was previously convicted of drunken driving, identified as an illegal immigrant, handed over to DHS for deportation, subsequently released and was then given an employment authorization card, according to the release.
When county officials discovered Montano’s record and learned that the department had failed to deport him, they became concerned that other criminal illegal immigrants may also have been released.
After the crash, the county made two separate Freedom of Information Act requests seeking records that disclosed the disposition of people police had turned over to the department.
The requests went unanswered, so the county sued the department.
Police say that Montano was driving the car that crashed into a car carrying three nuns, killing Sister Denise Mosier, 66, and seriously injuring fellow nuns Charlotte Lange, 75, and Connie Ruth Lupton, 70.
The nuns lived in Richmond, but were associated with the Linton Hall School in Bristow, which is operated by the Benedictine Sisters Monastery, and also associated with St. Gertrude’s in Richmond.
At the time of the accident Montano, of 12760 Merrymont Lane in Bristow, was charged with involuntary manslaughter, drunken driving as a third offense in five years and felony driving on a revoked license.
Montano was later charged with felony murder, according to court records. If convicted, he could face up to 40 years in prison.
Montano is scheduled for a six-day jury trial beginning Oct. 31.
Prince William County Chairman Corey A. Stewart said this is the second time the county has sued the department over.
In March, the county sued to get the department to turn over facts surrounding the Montano case.
This most recent lawsuit is for information regarding other illegal immigrants who have been handed over to the department, Stewart said.
“We wanted to know how it was they released Montano. Now we’re suing them over the disposition of the other 4,000 illegals that we’ve handed over to them since 2007,” Stewart said.
The latest lawsuit is a much more significant case, Stewart said.
While the county was seeking information on Montano, Stewart said, the department cited the Privacy Act of 1974 and said that illegal immigrants have a right to privacy. Stewart said that the department maintained that that right to privacy precluded the department from releasing information on Montano.
“It does not apply to illegal immigrants,” Stewart said of the Privacy Act. “It only applies to citizens and permanent residents of the United States.”
Stewart said he was “very confident” of a “favorable outcome” in the present case.
The department disclosed information related to the Montano case once the county sued, Stewart said.
Stewart said the county shouldn’t have to sue to get information.
“What’s frustrating is that this isn’t just the Obama administration. This is also the Republican-led Congress which has completely refused to help us out on this. They’ve done nothing different from the administration or the previous Democratic Congress in terms of helping us enforce immigration law and have illegal immigrants that commit crimes deported,” Stewart said. “I’m very disappointed in my own party.”
Senior reporter Keith Walker can be reached at 703-369-6751.
http://www2.insidenova.com/news/2011/aug/04/5/prince-william-county-files-suit-over-illegal-immi-ar-1218019/
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Cornyn Conference Call 8-4-11
I listened in on John Cornyn's conference call to constituents tonight. I recognized the last caller to speak as being Pat Kennedy. She asked him what our elected representatives were going to do about Obama's backdoor amnesty. I didn't care for his answer. So I sent him an e-mail via his congressional site e-mail function. Here's what I said:
I joined the conference call you had tonight, Aug. 4, 2011. I recognized the last caller you had. Her subject was illegal immigration. Your answer, effectively that Obummer doesn't believe in the same things we do and that our only recourse is to wait until we can elect someone else, was exceedingly lame.
I, too, have been working against illegal immigration for the past several years. It is not just Obummer working for open borders; it was Bush also. I've read and kept up with the CFR's "Building a North American Community," in which they stated that the economies of the U.S, Canada, and Mexico would have to be harmonized. I also followed the Security and Prosperity Partnership very closely. That was scary enough and now they've renamed it to cover it up as they continue to change regulations to accomplish their goal.
And now, I'm finding out about the UN's Agenda 21. I watch as Obummer issues orders to various departments to further destroy our economy and our jobs and gain federal land. And I watch as our elected representatives let him do it.
I'd like to know if any of you know what's going on with the SPP and Agenda 21 and if you're going to do anything about it.
Sincerely,
Faye Hall
West Texas Concerned Citizens Coalition
http://concernedcitizenscoalition.blogspot.com/
So let's see what he has to say. I have not forgotten that Cornyn sponsored a bill that would illegimitize the SPP nor that he wore a lapel pin that was a minature of the U.S./Canada/Mexican flag for the North American Union. Both of which he got rid of when we called him on it.
I joined the conference call you had tonight, Aug. 4, 2011. I recognized the last caller you had. Her subject was illegal immigration. Your answer, effectively that Obummer doesn't believe in the same things we do and that our only recourse is to wait until we can elect someone else, was exceedingly lame.
I, too, have been working against illegal immigration for the past several years. It is not just Obummer working for open borders; it was Bush also. I've read and kept up with the CFR's "Building a North American Community," in which they stated that the economies of the U.S, Canada, and Mexico would have to be harmonized. I also followed the Security and Prosperity Partnership very closely. That was scary enough and now they've renamed it to cover it up as they continue to change regulations to accomplish their goal.
And now, I'm finding out about the UN's Agenda 21. I watch as Obummer issues orders to various departments to further destroy our economy and our jobs and gain federal land. And I watch as our elected representatives let him do it.
I'd like to know if any of you know what's going on with the SPP and Agenda 21 and if you're going to do anything about it.
Sincerely,
Faye Hall
West Texas Concerned Citizens Coalition
http://concernedcitizenscoalition.blogspot.com/
So let's see what he has to say. I have not forgotten that Cornyn sponsored a bill that would illegimitize the SPP nor that he wore a lapel pin that was a minature of the U.S./Canada/Mexican flag for the North American Union. Both of which he got rid of when we called him on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
