Friday, June 08, 2007

















Fear and miss interpretation of facts from the Xenophobics, Racist and the American Immigration Paranoia against Latinos.

Continue with your conspiracy Anti Inmigrant, Racist and Xenophobic agenda Lou Dobbs. Lou Dobbs has been using his soapbox on CNN, Lou Dobbs Tonight, to sow senseless paranoia in the viewing public. Whether he's reporting on outsourcing—the "assault on the American middle class"—or the issue of illegal immigration from Latin America—the "illegal alien invasion"—Dobbs seeks to isolate the United States from menacing "them." "Feel violated," he drones into the nation's airwaves every weekday evening. Feel angry, mistreated, and afraid.
Some people just don't like Mexicans — or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy to learn English. They think Latinos have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. They think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans.
No amount of hard, empirical evidence to the contrary, and no amount of reasoned argument or appeals to decency and fairness will convince this small group of Americans — fewer than 10 percent of the general population, at most — otherwise. Unfortunately, among this group is a fair number of Republican members of Congress, almost all influential conservative talk radio hosts, some cable news anchors — most notorious, Lou Dobbs — and a handful of public policy "experts" at organizations such as the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, Glenn Spencer from American Border report, in addition to fringe groups like the Minuteman Project.

Stripped bare, this is what the current debate on immigration reform is all about. Fear of "the other" — of those who look or sound different, who come from poor countries with unfamiliar customs — has been at the heart of every immigration debate this country has ever had, from the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 to the floor of the U.S. Senate .

What is said today of the Mexicans, Guatemalans, Salvadorans and others was once said of Germans, Swedes, the Irish, Italians, Poles, Jews and others. The only difference is that in the past, the xenophobes could speak freely, unconstrained by a veneer of political correctness. Today, they speak more cautiously, so they talk about the rule of law, national security, amnesty, whatever else they think might make their arguments less racially charged.
Where once the xenophobes could advocate forced sterilization and eugenics coupled with virtually shutting off legal immigration from "undesirable" countries, now they must be content with building walls, putting troops on the border, rounding up illegal aliens on the job and deporting them, passing local ordinances to signal their distaste for immigrants' multi-family living arrangements, and doing whatever else they can to drive these people back where they came from.
There is no chance this small group of xenophobes will succeed — ultimately. The victories of their predecessors have been short-lived and so obviously wrong-headed we've always finally abandoned them, from modifying and then repealing the Asian exclusion acts to scrapping the nationalities quotas. But we need to quit pretending that the "No Amnesty" crowd is anything other than what it is: a tiny group of angry, frightened and prejudiced loudmouths backed by political opportunists who exploit them.
The status quo — largely turning a blind eye toward the 12 million illegal aliens who work, pay taxes and keep their noses clean, while stepping up border enforcement and selective internal enforcement — may not be the worst possible outcome in the current debate on immigration reform. It is the coward's way out of our current dilemma. But there are other problems with allowing the xenophobes to derail comprehensive immigration reform.
We've struggled long and hard as a nation to overcome our prejudices, enduring a Civil War and countless dead for the right to be judged by the content of our character not the color of our skin or where we came from. Our country is the greatest, freest, most powerful and optimistic nation in the history of the world — and our people are good, decent, fair and the hardest working anywhere. That is why immigrants — even those who look and sound different, from nearby and far away — come here, often with only the clothes on their backs but a fire in their bellies to succeed. They make all of us richer, and by embracing and welcoming them, we make ourselves better. God bless America.
As the dollar continues its steady fall, many Americans have begun to fear a permanent downward spiral of the entire economy. According to this Yale Herald opinion, CNN anchor Lou Dobbs blames outsourcing and illegal immigration for this trend. For over the years, Dobbs has dedicated a permanent segment on his daily news show to those two subjects, speaking to a willing audience of middle-class Americans. Yet Dobbs' agenda is ultimately racist and self-defeatist. In the current state of global economy, claiming that US workers have a moral right to certain job markets is not only close-minded – it's unrealistic. Industry leaders and policymakers should cultivate competitiveness in the US workforce, The Herald commentator concludes, rising to the challenge of a global era, instead of propagating fears against Latinos. In God we Trust–











Amnesty? What amnesty? Critics substitute fear for facts.

Opponents (Lou Dobbs, Tom Tamcredo, Pat Buchannan, Minuteman Groups, etc)of the immigration compromise being hotly debated in the Senate wield the word "amnesty" like a club, as if repeating it over and over constitutes rational argument.

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., displays the word prominently on his presidential campaign website and describes amnesty variously as a "travesty" and a "catastrophe." CNN's Lou Dobbs invokes the word so often (six times in the introduction of his Wednesday broadcast alone) you'd think his anchor seat was under imminent threat from border-jumping TV hosts.

Such is the politics of fear, and if it is deplorable, it is also effective.

Although polls show that most Americans support giving illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, the bipartisan immigration bill was in trouble Thursday evening. Never mind that what it offers is not amnesty at all. Never mind either that defeating it - thereby retaining the current system - means that the 12 million illegal entrants already here will stay. It's fear that counts, not reason.

This is what the critics call amnesty:

Over time, illegal immigrants would have to pay fines and fees of more than $9,000 (plus thousands more for each family member). They'd have to prove they're working and have no significant criminal record. They'd have to learn English and American civics. And, if they want legal permanent residence, they'd have to return to their home country to apply for it there. Getting a green card would take at least eight years, citizenship at least 13.

Some amnesty.

In a perfect world, it might be reasonable to say that everyone here illegally should be deported. Law breaking, obviously, cannot be ignored. But if that were possible at all - which is very dubious - the cost would run far into the billions.

And for what?

Most immigrants work hard. They came to make better futures for themselves and their families. They have put down roots and are vital to the American economy. Even small crackdowns produce wails from employers who can't find replacement workers.

Ask detractors to stop braying "amnesty" for a minute and offer an alternative, and the response is too often the sort of non-answer Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave during Tuesday's GOP debate on CNN. Romney proposed "to enforce the law … that was passed in 1986."

Alas, that ship has sailed. It's simply not feasible to go back to start over - or to suddenly make it so difficult for illegals to work here that 12 million people magically self-deport, leaving restaurants, hotels and millions of small businesses with a crippling labor shortage.

And, oh yes, the 1986 legislation included an amnesty - a real one.

The critics should instead focus their efforts on a more legitimate goal: Making sure this reform includes both the means and the funding to keep millions more illegal immigrants from coming. If the federal government follows through aggressively - a big if, given the abject failure of the 1986 bill's enforcement provisions - the nation could get control over its borders and its workplaces.

The time to keep 12 million illegals who are here now out of the country was long ago. Maintaining the status quo is, as Sen. John McCain and others have said, simply a matter of Comprehensive Imigration reform "

Thursday, June 07, 2007





















What a low blow from the Republicans to the Latinos and the hope of many unlawful inmigrants to fulfill their American Dream. Shame on you Republicans and Xenophobics, Anti Inmigrants, my sorrow for the Republican party.
What a great conspiracy from the Republicans using the Unlawful Inmigrants to gain votes for 2008
.
Latinooooooooossss we better wake up and raise our voice and vote in 2008.
Those who vote no for the legislation i feel sorry for them.
For those who votes Yes, my vote and simpathy will go with them.

The Republican just wants...put the latino families apart


.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Cloture Motion (Upon Reconsideration, Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Kennedy Amdt. No. 1150, As Amended )
Vote Number: 206 Vote Date: June 7, 2007, 08:24 PM
Required For Majority: 3/5 Vote Result: Cloture Motion Rejected
Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 1150 to to S. 1348 (Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 )
Statement of Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.
Vote Counts: YEAs 45
NAYs 50
Not Voting 4

Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---45
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Schumer (D-NY)
Specter (R-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---50
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Ensign (R-NV)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lott (R-MS)
McCaskill (D-MO)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Pryor (D-AR)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (R-VA)
Webb (D-VA)

Not Voting - 4
Brownback (R-KS)
Coburn (R-OK)
Enzi (R-WY)
Johnson (D-SD)

Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Grouped by Home State Alabama: Sessions (R-AL), Nay Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Alaska: Murkowski (R-AK), Nay Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Arizona: Kyl (R-AZ), Nay McCain (R-AZ), Yea
Arkansas: Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Nay
California: Boxer (D-CA), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Colorado: Allard (R-CO), Nay Salazar (D-CO), Yea
Connecticut: Dodd (D-CT), Yea Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea
Delaware: Biden (D-DE), Yea Carper (D-DE), Yea
Florida: Martinez (R-FL), Yea Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Georgia: Chambliss (R-GA), Nay Isakson (R-GA), Nay
Hawaii: Akaka (D-HI), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Idaho: Craig (R-ID), Nay Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Illinois: Durbin (D-IL), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea
Indiana: Bayh (D-IN), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea
Iowa: Grassley (R-IA), Nay Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Kansas: Brownback (R-KS), Not Voting Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Kentucky: Bunning (R-KY), Nay McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Louisiana: Landrieu (D-LA), Nay Vitter (R-LA), Nay
Maine: Collins (R-ME), Nay Snowe (R-ME), Nay
Maryland: Cardin (D-MD), Yea Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Massachusetts: Kennedy (D-MA), Yea Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Michigan: Levin (D-MI), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Minnesota: Coleman (R-MN), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Yea
Mississippi: Cochran (R-MS), Nay Lott (R-MS), Nay
Missouri: Bond (R-MO), Nay McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
Montana: Baucus (D-MT), Nay Tester (D-MT), Nay
Nebraska: Hagel (R-NE), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Nevada: Ensign (R-NV), Nay Reid (D-NV), Yea
New Hampshire: Gregg (R-NH), Nay Sununu (R-NH), Nay
New Jersey: Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea Menendez (D-NJ), Yea
New Mexico: Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Domenici (R-NM), Nay
New York: Clinton (D-NY), Yea Schumer (D-NY), Yea
North Carolina: Burr (R-NC), Nay Dole (R-NC), Nay
North Dakota: Conrad (D-ND), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Nay
Ohio: Brown (D-OH), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Oklahoma: Coburn (R-OK), Not Voting Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Oregon: Smith (R-OR), Nay Wyden (D-OR), Yea
Pennsylvania: Casey (D-PA), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea
Rhode Island: Reed (D-RI), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea
South Carolina: DeMint (R-SC), Nay Graham (R-SC), Yea
South Dakota: Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting Thune (R-SD), Nay
Tennessee: Alexander (R-TN), Nay Corker (R-TN), Nay
Texas: Cornyn (R-TX), Nay Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Utah: Bennett (R-UT), Nay Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Vermont: Leahy (D-VT), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Virginia: Warner (R-VA), Nay Webb (D-VA), Nay
Washington: Cantwell (D-WA), Yea Murray (D-WA), Yea
West Virginia: Byrd (D-WV), Nay Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Wisconsin: Feingold (D-WI), Yea Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Wyoming: Enzi (R-WY), Not Voting
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By

Wednesday, June 06, 2007















Another Minuteman Fiasco. Minuteman PAC raised $300,000

Oops Sorry I believe someone misspelled the main Subject. Meaning Minuteman raised their packet over $ 300,0000 in less than three months. Just call the IRS. Goshhh how in the world do you think these people are patriotic, missionaries, honest, and accountable about their alliance for their believers. Lou they need to spend money in advertising could you bring them to Justice; ooops I forgot that you advertise or promote the Minuteman Groups for free. The Middle class do not need to throw money this way. Why are you not fighting for the true? Just see for yourself

By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 6, 2007

The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps' political action committee, whose mission is to "find and support" political candidates to secure America's borders, raised more than $300,000 in the first three months of this year -- but gave less than 3 percent of it to any political campaign.
According to Federal Election Commission records, two $5,000 contributions to Republican Bill Greene, a conservative activist competing in a crowded field to succeed the late Republican Rep. Charlie Norwood in Georgia, were the Minuteman PAC's only reported political gifts between Jan. 1 and March 31 -- 2.9 percent of the $301,176 it raised and the $38,708 it had on hand at the end of 2006.
Instead, the bulk of the cash, 97.1 percent, went to what PAC officials reported as "operating expenses," including advertising, fundraising and telemarketing to promote the Minuteman PAC, or was maintained as "cash on hand," according to the FEC records. No portion of the reported operating expenses were made on behalf or in opposition to any federal candidate, the Minuteman PAC said in a Feb. 28 memo to the FEC in response to a request for clarification of its expenditures.
The PAC's honorary chairman, Chris Simcox, president and co-founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC), has been the target of criticism for nearly a year over what current and former MCDC leaders, members and others have described as a lack of financial accountability. Mr. Simcox has declined to be interviewed by The Washington Times and has forbidden his public affairs representatives from responding to inquiries.
Financial concerns have been rampant in the Minuteman movement for the past several months.
Several MCDC officials were let go last month by Mr. Simcox after they requested a meeting and asked that financial information be turned over. Members of the MCDC Leadership Committee said long-standing requests for the information had gone unanswered, that Minuteman chapters were not getting the tools and resources they had been promised, and that reimbursements for out-of-pocket expenditures were not made in a timely manner, if at all. They also sought a "full explanation" of the relationship between MCDC and other groups, including the Minuteman PAC and Herndon-based tax-exempt charitable organizations known as Declaration Alliance and Declaration Foundation, founded and chaired by former presidential candidate Alan Keyes.
The latest Minuteman PAC report to the FEC shows that the organization has maintained its close financial ties to Mr. Keyes and his organizations, including:
Politechs Inc., a Los Angeles-based political consulting firm headed by Mary Parker Lewis, a key adviser to MCDC and a top official in several tax-exempt fundraising organizations led or founded by Mr. Keyes. In the report, the Minuteman PAC said it paid $10,000 for fundraising to Politechs. Mrs. Lewis served as chief of staff for Mr. Keyes' 1996 and 2000 presidential runs and in his 2004 senatorial race against Barack Obama in Illinois. She also is executive director of Declaration Foundation and chief of staff at Renew America, another tax-exempt fundraising group founded by Mr. Keyes. The Richard Norman Company Inc., another organization with a long history of fundraising for Mr. Keyes, which raised $261,000 for Mr. Keyes' 2004 Senate bid. The report showed that the Minuteman PAC paid $83,651 to the company for direct-mail fundraising. American Caging Inc., a Texas firm that also manages hundreds of thousands of dollars in separate donations to MCDC. The Minuteman PAC paid $22,913 to American Caging to manage money it collected as donations. In addition to the Minuteman PAC and MCDC, the firm's clients include Declaration Foundation, Declaration Alliance and the Declaration Alliance Political Action Committee.
American Caging also handles other clients aligned with MCDC, Mr. Keyes and the Alliance organizations, including Diener Consulting Inc., which serves as the Minuteman group's public-relations arm, as it did in Mr. Keyes' campaigns.
Bob Wright, the MCDC former executive director who was among those fired last week, said in a statement that while Mr. Simcox claims to be holding the federal government accountable for border security, "who is holding Simcox accountable for all the monies raised from volunteers across America?" "We can not win on the border or in our communities if we can not have honesty from our leadership," he said.
Gary Cole, who served as the MCDC national operations manager until he was fired in 2005 for asking about the organization's finances, said the Minuteman movement was being destroyed from within.
"The Minutemen are being attack by a cancer also," he said. "Our cancer is in corporate form. It devours our financial resources, our time, our imaginations and ultimately our hope. I will continue to fight until the enemy is vanquished or death separates me from your midst."

Border Patrol Sweep, Encinitas california

The Border Patrol just profiling Latinos for questioning their legal Status.





This incident deserve an answer from the Government and the Media to the Public. The reaction of the Border Patrol it was justified or were acting by Xenophobia and Anti Inmigrant sentiment created by the media that every Unlawful person is a criminal and it should be treated that way.
I believe it is dangerous for Populist journalists (Lou Soups, Billy O' willy)or Media to demonize, denigrating, retrograde entire groups of people and I believe the media going against the principles of journalism to join the wave of Xenophobics, racist and populist groups or Individuals just to increase their rating, their packets $$$ without feel compassion for other people. That's ashamed....

Friday, June 01, 2007











Shocking news ..Border Patrol Agent shot down to an apparent(?) Unlawful Inmigrant and Lou Soups Air Time to Supremacist Again..You are not learning Lou..Shame on CNN and Lou Dobbs.I believe that you are the Bozo of the news and I am wondering why you never show or published this incident in your show or CNN.
Up next, we will have two perspectives from veterans of that 1986 amnesty law, Senator Alan Simpson, one of bill's architects and sponsors, and Bill King, former chief Border Patrol agent. He was responsible for administering the results of that legislation. We will have his perspective on that and this current effort. Current Effort Lou? Could you explained to me? or another leak from you to came out of the closet as a Racist.

Former senior Border Patrol agent and Immigration and Naturalization Service Regional Director Bill King joins us to tell us why the amnesty law of '86 didn't work, which he had to administer, and why this new one isn't likely to work much better.

Stay with us. We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: Two border state governors today complaining the Bush administration is shipping needed Border Patrol agents from their borders to Iraq to train Iraqi security forces.

Arizona's governor, Janet Napolitano, New Mexico's governor, presidential candidate Bill Richardson, sent a letter to the secretary of state, saying, "The administration needs to decide whose security is more important, America's or Iraq's."

Both governors are Democrats, Governor Richardson, of course, a candidate for the Democratic presidential election. That in no way diminishes, at least in my view, the logic of their statement.

Critics of the new amnesty legislation compare it to the failed immigration law of 1986. Bill King is one of those critics. King was senior Border Patrol agent and, later, regional director for the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the 1986 amnesty, joining us tonight from California.
Good to have you with us, Bill.

The -- the idea that 1986 -- let's -- first, your view. The 1986 amnesty legislation, did it create more problems or solve more problems?

BILL KING, FORMER IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE WESTERN REGIONAL DIRECTOR: It created nothing but more problems, Lou.
And, in fact, going back to the '86 program, it was the largest program ever undertaken by the INS up to that point. Logistically, it was a nightmare. And that was just simply to process, roughly, 3.1 million people.

The size and magnitude of this current plan is, to me, unmanageable.

DOBBS: Right.

KING: I don't think the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services is in a position to handle it.

DOBBS: Well, you know, even the head of CIS has basically admitted as much. No one, of course, in the Senate, the Democratic leadership, or the White House wants to acknowledge that.
But let me ask you this. Why in the world, in your judgment, could the United States government not secure its borders from 1986 to the -- to current day?

KING: Lack of political will.

I have listened to promises for the last 50 years about how the border situation is going to be improved, how interior enforcement will work. None of it has ever happened. As you know, the employer sanctions bill in the '86 program was a dismal failure. I can see nothing more than the same thing happening again with this new program.
DOBBS: And, so, when this president, Senator Kennedy, the Democratic leadership in the Senate tell us that we are going to see 18,000 Border Patrol agents, you're not buying it?

KING: No, sir.

Look back to the last election cycle, when President Bush was promising 10,000 new Border Patrol agents, at the rate of 2,000 a year for five years. That didn't happen. I doubt that we will see 18,000 Border Patrol agents.

We have 6,000 National Guardsmen down there on the border now. They're serving -- serving in secondary roles. And, as far as I'm concerned, they should be trained to interdict both the drugs coming into this country and the illegal aliens.

DOBBS: Right.

And give us your best assessment, Bill, if you will. From your perspective and your experience, what would it take to secure that border and to secure our ports?

KING: Well, I will tell you, Lou, frankly, three years ago, I, along with another friend of mine (Glen Spencer??), put together a petition to the president to put the military on the border.
We have the best-trained, best-equipped troops in the world.

DOBBS: Yes.

KING: They do what they're told. They do it well. And that's...

DOBBS: Yes.

KING: ... the only short-term solution available.

DOBBS: Well, instead, Bill, as you know, if I may use this expression, some bozo in this administration came up with a brilliant idea, instead of doing that, to send the Border Patrol agents to Iraq.
But you got to love government work, right?

KING: Well, I'm not sure I do...

(LAUGHTER)

KING: ... any longer.

DOBBS: Right.

KING: It's -- it's just totally out of hand.

DOBBS: Yes.

KING: The American public is paying the price for all of it, and it will... Yeah Mr. King they will continue to paying as longest tey continue donate they money to Supremacist Groups.
DOBBS: Yes.

KING: ... only get worse.

DOBBS: And the idea of the nation's sovereignty seems to be not even in the top 10 of any priority on the part of most of our elected officials in Washington, unfortunately.

Bill King, a great pleasure to have you with us tonight.

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: We -- and we hope we can talk again soon.

KING: Well, thank you very much. It was a pleasure.

DOBBS: Bill King.
American Border Patrol performed an aerial survey of the border the morning of Monday, June 12. A careful look flying in both directions from near the New Mexico border to the Huachuca Mountains found only two vehicles that appeared to be military in nature. These were construction vehicles parked on a dirt lot at the Douglas Border Patrol Station. "We saw no other evidence of the National Guard on the border," said pilot Glenn Spencer of American Border Patrol and he is the President of American Patrol Report.Do you think something is linking to Mr. Bill King with Glenn Spencer?? And do you think Lou did not know about it?
I doubt it.. Lou knows was he is doing, he planning to run for President but for President of a Circus.

Thursday, May 31, 2007


















The apparently apology from Lou Dobbs from the Controversial and inflated information on his show

I've been, over the years, because of our reporting on controversial issues and my strongly held beliefs on those issues, attacked, and usually pretty vigorously, by both the left wing and the right wing of this nation's media, both mainstream and otherwise, and of course the politicians that form the extremes of our political spectrum.
As a matter of fact, I'm regularly attacked by the right wing -- the biggest business lobbyists in the country, The Wall Street Journal editorial page, the Bush administration -- for my criticism of so-called free trade policies and outsourcing. Keep crying Lou after you had admitted that you were wrong nobody are going to believe on you either as CNN as a trustable source of Information or news.

I'm regularly attacked by the left wing as well -- the Southern Poverty Law Center, The New York Times, The Nation, MALDEF and MEChA -- for my opposition to illegal immigration. Lou you had been attacked to the Inmigrants, Pro Inmigrants, U.S. Citizens, to CEO's, Business and most of us.So we just want the true not missinforming the Citizens utilizing their fear to create anger, Xenophobia, and Racism.
Today, The New York Times published a column that picks up where an advertisement -- a paid advertisement in The Times, paid for by the Southern Poverty Law Center -- left off two weeks ago. This is not a paid advertisement Lou is free.

Today's New York Times column is primarily a personal attack on me, focusing on an ad-lib on the set of this broadcast uttered more than two years ago by Christine Romans on the number of cases of leprosy in this country -- an unscripted ad-lib, not a report by the way. We'd never done a report on leprosy until we had to set this record straight a couple of weeks ago. That's over four and a half years of reporting on that issue. Lou is not an attack to you personally. Is the fight for the principles of Journalism and verification of the sources.

The second issue, accusing us of overstating the number of non-citizens in our federal prisons. That number reported on this broadcast three-and-a-half years ago. Lou you had been overstating numbers on Leprosy cases, claiming that Illegals (Unlawful) Inmigrants burden the prisons, social services, Welfare, cities,
Without representing yourself from an accurate data and source of those numbers
.

Now, no one hates making a mistake, I assure you, more than I do. And on this broadcast, we do make mistakes -- not often, mind you -- but certainly enough to frustrate me mightily, and with barely tolerable frequency.

But today's scurrilous personal attack from The New York Times columnist David Leonhardt, carrying the water of the Southern Poverty Law Center, also has the facts wrong. Lou why trying to excuse yourself from making a mistake. just learn to receive a constructive positive criticism.
He wrote that I said that "One third of the inmates in the federal prison system are illegal immigrants." That isn't what I said. I didn't say anything close to it.

We reported that one-third of the federal prison population three and a half years ago were "non-citizens." The columnist said the number was 6 percent. The exact number of the year in question was 29.3 percent for fiscal year 2001. And by the way, we're putting up links on our Web site, loudobbs.com, so you can check the numbers for yourself.

I introduced that report three and a half years ago by saying the number of illegal immigrants in our prisons was increasing and the financial burden rising. Well, we had to go back and check, and because our correspondent no longer has his notes to support that statement, that the number of illegal immigrants within a prison population of non-citizens, I have to retract it here tonight, and I apologize to you for the necessity of doing so. But like I said, I do make mistakes.
Let's look at a few other issues, however, raised by The New York Times, including that columnist's statement that none of the enemies of the middle class, he said I said, "play a bigger role than illegal immigrants."

Well, again, that's just not true. I've made perfectly clear over the years that corporate power, expressed by lobbyists spending billions of dollars each year in Washington to influence both political parties and public policy, represents the greatest single threat to this nation's middle class.

That columnist also said I gave air time to white supremacists,(Glen Spencer, NumbersUSA, Minuteman Groups (Chris simcox, Jim Gilchrist, etc), and mentions one by name: Madeleine Cosman, who wrote the article that Christine Romans used as a source for her later leprosy statement.

The fact is, I made a mistake, and I've said we would never have used her as a source if we had known of her controversial background two years ago, at the time of the offending ad-lib. But the columnist fails to note that his own paper wrote a glowing obituary of Madeleine Cosman when she died last year.

And the columnist writes that I suggested that new immigration reform bill would be the first step to a North American union. Nope. What I did say is that the proposed legislation, favored by President Bush and Senator Kennedy and others who are misguided, contains language in Section 413 that, if approved by Congress, would endorse and legitimize the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which is the foundation of this administration's efforts to create a North American union, and which would further threaten, in my opinion, our national sovereignty.

Well, as I said tonight at the outset, I don't like personal attacks from both the left and the right wings, but I'm getting kind of used to it. I will assure you that we'll continue to report on the nonpartisan independent reality that is too often overwhelmed by the ideologues in our national media, the left wing and the right wing.

And I'll guarantee you this: Those attacks from the left and the right will continue. They perhaps may get even a little more energetic. And as long as they continue to do so, you and I can rest assured that we're doing more right than wrong on this broadcast.



















Minuteman meltdown, Simcox under fire, Shut Down Minuteman Civil Defense Corporations .We’re fighting the government. I don't understand that Chris when you should be able to demonstrate to your fellow members where's the money is? I hoping not in your personal bank account? This Corporation is a joke and stealing the money from the citizens supporting themselves to this groups from the Xenophobia and fear created by the Media. (Lou Dobbs)

Could things get any worse? They can if you’re Chris Simcox, president and founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC).
MCDC state directors and national leaders tried to meet with Simcox to address issues and concerns they claimed remained unresolved.In a letter to Simcox, dated May 8, Bob Wright, New Mexico State Director, and directors from across the country, cited financial accountability as a major concern, as well as Simcox’s sole and complete control over the organization’s finances, operations, new chapter development, leadership placement, media and public relations.
They requested an update on the status of MCDC’s 501 (c) (3) application, and wanted to know what MCDC’s relationship was with Denier, Declaration Alliance, Alan Keyes, MCDC PAC, MCDC Fence, and any other organization with which MCDC has agreements.
Wright concluded, “We firmly believe in the organization we have all built and do not want to see it become fractured. This is our effort to keep MCDC whole and make it possible for future growth. We look forward to meeting with you and sharing our ideas.” Simcox notified the directors the meeting was unauthorized, and under no circumstances was it sanctioned or approved by the MCDC, Inc,” and said the Board of Directors of MCDC had never authorized a “State Leadership Committee,” stating, “[T]his shadowy entity and any business or actions proposed by it violate the organizational chain of command …” Although he said they have the right to freely assemble, Simcox said his letter served as notice to those on the cc list of Wright’s letter that Wright, Bob Thompson, Stacey O’Connell and Bill Irwin were “terminated for cause as volunteers and volunteer leaders …” adding, if others decided to attend the unsanctioned meeting, they too would be terminated.
Simcox told Sonoran News there were members who egregiously violated procedures and the organization’s bylaws, but said some of those who were terminated had been reinstated.Wright then sent a resolution, passed by 13 national/state directors, to Simcox on May 21, stating their call for a meeting was offered in good faith with the goal of resolving important issues, while “minimizing turmoil within the organization.” They said Simcox’s response threatened “the very existence of the organization at a time in our nation’s history when it is vital for all citizens to work to secure our borders and prevent amnesty.” Citing lost confidence his ability to lead MCDC, they moved that Simcox “reinstate the unjustly terminated Minutemen, immediately…” They gave him until May 24 to schedule a meeting to discuss and resolve the stated issues and said if Simcox failed to respond by May 25, 2007 it would result in the “entire matter being turned over to the national media for their investigation.” On May 25, Thompson sent out an E-mail to Oklahoma volunteers that said, “In a recent meeting … 65 percent of the national leaders and state directors voted they have lost confidence in Chris Simcox’s ability to lead MCDC.” He asked volunteers to carefully read all the documents so they would understand and know the truth, pointing out, “There was never any attempt to take over MCDC or discredit any of its members.” Two days later, an E-mail from Pat Dietrick and her husband was distributed to volunteers in Arizona.
Dietrick wrote, “[W]e are dumfounded as to what is going on. As we entered church last night, we were left speechless by a church member asking us, ‘What’s going on with the Minutemen and stealing money?’” saying they heard it on the Barry Young Show.
Dietrick said that was no surprise as Young has been saying that for years. Although invited to appear on the show, Dietrick doesn’t believe Simcox has ever appeared to prove him wrong.“We also feel like fools,” said Dietrick, “Both of us worked in the office two days a week, eight hours a day … until last October … We taught all the new volunteers and ran the office when the manager was gone.
“When we returned from vacation, we were told we were only responsible for shredding.” That meant no more E-mailing, no more data entry of new members, no more vetting, etc.Dietrick said they were told “the New Jersey representative had stolen away members or did something grievous to MCDC.” Having been active participants in all the border operations, the Dietricks wondered why they were suddenly being treated that way.
They were told “NOBODY was trusted any more.” “We left after a few months of shredding,” said Dietrick, adding, “Now I wonder what all we were shredding!” O’Connell, who is running for Phoenix City Council, District 3, was stunned by what was going on and said, “That’s no way to treat volunteers.” Simcox said, “There’s always someone not satisfied because we’re not buying them batteries for their flashlight,” and stated things like that are not unusual in an organization of such magnitude.A year ago, Jim Campbell, a retired builder and war veteran, mortgaged his home to donate $100,000 toward the Minuteman Fence Project.Campbell believes the money is going to other expenses and organizations, other than the fence and doesn’t believe the fence, as sold to the public, was being built.
On May 22, Campbell filed a complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court against Simcox, Diener Consulting and others alleging fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract and rescission of contract.Simcox hadn’t yet seen the complaint but said, as does Campbell’s complaint, “Campbell purchased some of the materials on his own, which are down at the border.” Simcox also said those materials caused them to have to change the design somewhat.
Then on Sunday, while attempting to register the domain name, TheFenceAndTheFire.com, for her new film, Mercedes Maharis, who produced last year’s riveting documentary, “Cries from the Border,” found the domain name was already taken. It was registered to Diener Consultants, Inc., Simcox’s consultants, as is the domain name CriesFromTheBorder.com.Maharis said, “This newest discovery … is off-the-charts astonishing to me.” Last year, MCDC sold, and gave away with a minimum donation, “Cries from the Border.” Maharis says she’s never received any money from MCDC or Diener, and has no idea how long her film was being used to obtain donations for MCDC.
Simcox says he knows nothing about the domain name registration but stated, “We purchased the DVDs directly from her distributor.” When Sonoran News asked about MCDC’s taxes, Simcox said, “Our Form 990 is posted right there on our Web site.” However, the 990 posted was for 2005, not 2006.
According to Simcox, MCDC has received its preliminary letter of determination from the IRS, although they recently responded to a few more questions.
“We’re fighting the government,” Simcox pointed out, “So, they’re not going to make this easy for us,” and expressed gratitude to Alan Keyes and the Declaration Alliance, which he said saved MCDC and allowed it to continue operating while dealing with the bureaucracy. Yeah right know blame bureaucreacy for the misused of donations from many Citizens.

MCDC TWISTED 120 DEGREES DOWN BELOW.

Canadian 9 year old boy held in U.S. detention center

Is our immigration policy on the right track, or is this a violation of human rights? It's not what we tryng to Lou to explained for so long. Lou open your eyes and ears.

T. Don Hutto

T. Don Hutto facility include forcing the children to wear prison uniforms, keeping them in what were once prison cells for 11 to 12 hours a day without toys or other youthful recreation, feeding them food that makes them ill, providing poor medical treatment, and threatening the children with separation from their families if they don’t behave. What a shame for a Country rule of Law.



How "Law and Order" Covers for Bigotry in the Immigration Debate

Central to the debate on immigration has been the appeal to law and order. But behind all the propaganda about respect for the law the core of the anti-immigration movement is about bigotry. Not surprisingly, the laws they appeal to are, in word and practice, unjust and barbaric.

We have heard that we should make a distinction between immigrants on the one hand and illegal aliens on the other. This is a way for the anti-immigration lobby to claim they are not racist or even xenophobic. They simply believe in obeying the law. But forget about the law for a moment. There is no reason why the millions of people who have moved here from Latin America in the last twenty years should be deported or criminalized. No one is being harmed by their presence, and there is strong evidence that we are all benefiting from this influx. So why is it so important to enforce these laws? After all, people violate genuinely serious laws all the time--citizens even. Driving while intoxicated, insider trading, corporate fraud, violating clean air laws are all much bigger problems. So why focus on immigration unless out of ignorance or hate? The truth is, just as with the the bigots of the past who disguised their hatred with the rhetoric of "law and order" when the law was apartheid in South Africa or "black codes" in the American South, the core of the anti-immigration movement today is about hate.
We can see this clearly with the conduct of the raids that have swept up thousands of people across the country in recent months. The federal agency under Homeland Security called Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is following the lead of the anti-immigrant activists. It is the agency responsible for incarcerating children and tearing apart families. ICE defends these huge sweeps of so many non-violent people, reminiscent of the internment of the Japanese during World War II, again with appeals to "law and order." Operation Return to Sender, we are told, is not about deporting just anyone; it is about looking for the worst violators of the law; the immigrants who may actually be a burden on our communities, maybe even a danger to our communities. ICE calls them "immigration fugitives"--a nice official-sounding pejorative to add to the collection: "illegals," "aliens," "wetbacks."
Despite these claims, 37% of the 18,149 people arrested nationwide through Feb. 23 were not wanted fugitives; that number is closer to 45% in the San Francisco Bay Area; and more than half of those arrested in the San Diego region were not these fugitives ICE claims to be after. Even the "fugitives" themselves are rarely people charged with any violent or deleterious crimes.
On the one hand ICE officials claim they can't ignore people they happen to find who are in violation of immigration law, but on the other hand they defend their right to interrogate anyone at a home where they believe a fugitive might be. In the San Francisco Chronicle last week an ICE spokesperson explained, "If agents are going to the home of a target they believe is in the country illegally, they could reasonably suspect that others in the house might be here illegally as well." So it isn't as if they are just stumbling upon law violators; they are using their warrants as a pretext for broad sweeps at homes, workplaces and apartment complexes. ICE ­ as is common with law enforcement ­ is also racially profiling. There are not raids on Irish immigrants or Canadian immigrants; The overwhelming focus is on people with brown skin (just as the debate over border security is focused on our southern border).
To be blunt, ICE is using its power as enforcer of unjust immigration laws to terrorize communities of color. They have specifically raided homes before dawn and have reportedly had automatic weapons with them at some of these raids. They have moved people to far-away detention facilities within hours of arrest (such as to Texas from Massachusetts), and have intimidated and misled people into signing away their rights. They are doing all this while simultaneously claiming that they are merely enforcing the law and that immigrants have due process. Nonsense. They are in fact doing whatever they can to deny people their rights and, again, terrorize these communities.
Behind all the rhetoric about enforcing the law and respect for the law is a lot of ugliness. The immigration law as it stands is oppressive and the proposals in Congress are as well. They all presume that immigrants are a burden on our country and that we ought to have laws that spend billions of our tax dollars to build walls, add law enforcement, greatly restrict the rights of non-citizens, maintain unnecessary restrictions on citizenship and create a system of indentured servitude. Those of us who believe in human rights and human dignity must not be sucked into a debate on law and order. We should make clear that the law is unjust and defend those who are the targets of unnecessary, racist and inhumane enforcement.
They have a deeper, more sinister, anti-Latino agenda

Let’s face it, there has always been a debate surrounding immigration, and with the stakes raised by terrorism and homeland security in our modern era, there always will be. The border represents the frontline of homeland defense to many people, and a breach of either is considered a serious transgression. Discourse goes back and forth on the level of tolerance toward immigration that we have in America, but it is a focus on the policies themselves that draws the most ire, for these policies dictate control over human lives. There is an undeniable human rights issue involved that has many people worried that our policies have gone too far.

I’m speaking most directly to the T. Don Hutto Residential Center in Taylor, Texas. And we were as surprised as anyone to find out that the city is home to one of the two detention centers for immigrant families in the US (the other being the Berks County Youth Center in Pennsylvania). T. Don Hutto is run by a private, for-profit company called Corrections Corporation of America (CCA). The center is a former medium security prison where inmates are held in what were once prison cells. Until recently, the entire building was surrounded by fences topped with razor wire (the razor wire has since been removed). The furor surrounding this facility stems from the detention of women and children.

An official statement from ICE regarding the T. Don Hutto Residential Center reads:

“U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) established the T. Don Hutto Family Residential Facility to maintain family unity while the family members await disposition of their immigration cases or their return to their home countries. For how long? many of them had been for months..

Hutto is a modern facility designed to humanely accommodate families with children who are detained as a result of ICE enforcing the immigration laws of the United States.

ICE continues to work with non-governmental organizations, including the Women’s Commission for Refugee Women and Children, Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Services, the National Immigration Forum and the American Bar Association to identify family-specific detention standards for family detention. These will be in addition to the 38 existing ICE detention standards.”

I’m not here to pontificate on the moral standing of the T. Don Hutto Residential Center. I do, however, feel that this is an issue that a lot of people might not know about, including those that live in close proximity. When I started doing research on the facility, I came across Jay Johnson-Castro and the work he’s been doing to draw attention to it. I’m working on a larger story about the center itself, but thought it was important to cover one of the several candlelight vigils that have been held outside the facility recently. The turnout wasn’t huge, but it was passionate, and this passion seems to be spreading.
On March 6, 2007, the ACLU filed suit against Michael Chertoff (Secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security) and six officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). They have more information about this lawsuit on their website, but the main objective is to remove children from what they deem a prison environment. They site the Flores Settlement of 1997, a settlement that “established minimum standards and conditions for the housing and release of all minors in federal immigration custody.”

Some of the allegations that the ACLU has brought forth against the T. Don Hutto facility include forcing the children to wear prison uniforms, keeping them in what were once prison cells for 11 to 12 hours a day without toys or other youthful recreation, feeding them food that makes them ill, providing poor medical treatment, and threatening the children with separation from their families if they don’t behave. A spokesperson from ICE said that they do not comment on pending litigation, and a request for a tour of the facility was denied for the time being. I was directed to a fact sheet on the T. Don Hutto Residential Center. It is important to note that many of the allegations made by the ACLU are refuted on this fact sheet.
From here, I’d like to turn this forum over to all of you out there on the World Wide Web. How do you feel about residential detention centers? Is our immigration policy on the right track, or is this a violation of human rights? Whether you’re for or against facilities like T. Don Hutto, what are the bigger implications of their existence (e.g. more secure borders or a bad example of American humanitarianism)?

Wednesday, May 30, 2007














Errors and Extremist Sources on Lou Dobbs Tonight and this is not an attack to you Lou just pointing out the facts that you are just a pathethic liar and I am not from the right or left wind either.I wonder if you will pass the lie detector?


In April 14, 2005, Dobbs said an "invasion of illegal aliens" was bringing "highly contagious diseases" to America "decades after those diseases had been eradicated" here. Reporter Christine Romans stated that more than 7,000 new cases of leprosy had been reported in the previous three years. The real number of new leprosy cases from 2002 through 2004 was 398, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dobbs and Romans said their source for the 7,000 figure was the late Madeleine Cosman, a lawyer who told an anti-immigrant conference in 2005 that "most" Latino immigrant men "molest girls under 12, although some specialize in boys, and some in nuns."

On Nov. 4, 2003, Dobbs' said "illegal aliens" are "taking up a third of the cells in our federal penitentiaries." The reality: The Government Accountability Office reported in 2005 that 27 percent of federal inmates in 2004 were immigrants – including those here legally. Another GAO study estimated that just 12 percent of non-U.S. citizens in federal custody were there for committing violent crimes. Dobbs often covers crime issues relating to undocumented persons, but several studies debunk the notion that there is a relatively high level of criminality among undocumented immigrants.
On Oct. 30, 2003, a Dobbs reporter claimed that a National Academy of Sciences report showed an economic loss of up to $10 billion from immigration. The report actually showed that immigrants caused a net gain in the U.S. gross national product of between $1 billion and $10 billion.

On February 10, 2006, state Rep. Russell Pearce of Arizona was quoted as saying, "You know, the illegal aliens kill more people on an annual basis than we probably lost in the Iraq war to date in the United States. It's enough is enough." At that time, approximately 2,500 of U.S. servicemen and women had died in Iraq. Though there were 16,692 murders in the U.S. in 2005, there is no data that show how many murders were committed by undocumented immigrants.

• On May 19, 2006, Dobbs had on as a guest Robert Rector, a senior research fellow from the Heritage Foundation, discussing his recent report about the number of immigrants that would come to the U.S. if the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill then under consideration by the Senate were to be passed. Dobbs said, "Your initial report suggested well over 100 million over the next 10 years." Though Dobbs noted that the White House disputed Rector's numbers, Dobbs supported Rector's research, telling him, "thank you for paying close attention." As to Rector's numbers, they defy logic. As demographers quickly pointed out, his minimum figure of 100 million is equal to almost the entire current population of Mexico. His high-end estimate of 180 million over the next 20 years would require that the equivalent of the current population of Central America be added, too. A series of leading demographers told the San Francisco Chronicle on June 20, 2006, that Rector's projections were vastly overstated, ignored the effects of emigration and used unreasonably high estimates of legalization and naturalization.
• On May 23, 2006, CNN correspondent Casey Wian referred to Mexican President Vicente Fox's visit to the U.S. as a "Mexican military incursion." Wian went on to say that Fox's trip could be called "the Vicente Fox Aztlan tour," referring to the conspiracy theory, popular among anti-immigration zealots, that Mexico is plotting to "reconquer" the American Southwest. As Wian spoke, a graphic appeared on the screen – a map of the United States highlighting the seven southwestern states that Mexico supposedly covets and calls "Aztlan." Remarkably, it was prominently sourced to the Council of Conservative Citizens, a white supremacist hate group that has described blacks as "a retrograde species of humanity" and compared pop singer Michael Jackson to an ape.
Chris Simcox, co-founder of the Minuteman Project and a top anti-immigration leader, has appeared some 20 times on Dobbs' show. But Dobbs has never reported that Simcox says he has seen the Chinese army secretly maneuvering along the U.S.-Mexico border or that he is a member of the speakers' bureau of the extreme-right John Birch Society.
Glenn Spencer, head of the American Patrol – regarded as a hate group by the Center – has been interviewed on the Dobbs show at least twice,
on Jan. 7 and June 4, 2004. Spencer promotes the idea that the Mexican government is involved in a secret plot to take over the Southwest. He has also predicted that "thousands will die" in a forthcoming Mexican invasion. Dobbs did not mention the criticism of Spencer's group, the fact that he has spoken at other hate group gatherings or his actions in shooting up a neighbor's garage.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007








Is immigration the problem?

by Art Perlo.

Lou best friend Roy Beck, head of the anti-immigration group Numbers USA, has been circulating a slick video. Over 1.8 million viewers have seen its frightening picture of the U.S. overwhelmed by immigrants. But beneath the surface is a mix of inaccuracies and misdirection.
Beck starts with this thesis: 1926-1965 was a golden era in America, when immigration was limited to an average of 178,000 per year. As a result, the labor market was tight, and workers enjoyed high wages and prosperity. Since 1965, immigration has increased, now reaching over 1 million per year. The result: surplus labor which has lowered wages and living standards for American workers.

In short, Beck says (low immigration) = (tight labor market) = (high wages).

The facts don’t support Beck. In the 1920s, immigration was almost entirely choked off, and the 1930s had the lowest immigration in the last 100 years. So there should have been low unemployment and high wages, right? Wrong! We had the Great Depression, with 25 percent unemployment, and miserable wages for those who could find jobs. Then, as now, some people blamed immigrants, as well as Blacks, Jews and probably sunspots, for the disaster.

Beck’s next point: Without any net immigration, the U.S. population will continue to grow until about 2030, when it will level off. But if we continue with the present net immigration of 1 million per year, population will grow indefinitely. Immigrants are severely straining our resources — in California alone, a new school is being built every day. This is a burden on hard-working American taxpayers.

In fact, in the late 1950s and 1960s, a rapidly growing population, fueled by the baby boom, put strains on schools across the country. But a growing U.S. economy was able to pay for more schools and teachers, as well as greatly expanded access to higher education. Real wages were increasing, there was a significant reduction in poverty, and major social programs (like Medicare and Medicaid) were implemented.

The high local taxes paid by working families are caused, first of all, by a regressive financing system that puts most of the cost of education and other services on local communities. In other developed countries, these costs are borne by the national government, providing more equality in these services.

Beck talks about other real problems, including economic insecurity, urban sprawl and barriers to economic progress by African Americans. These problems have increased in the last 30 years. So has immigration. Does that mean, as Beck claims, that immigration is the cause?

This seems plausible only because there is a common cause: the capitalist system driven by private corporate profits. Neoliberal policies that have removed all controls from multinational corporate activity are responsible for increased immigration, as well as U.S. workers’ economic insecurity. A global conglomerate drives Mexican peasants off their land, forcing them to risk death to look for work here. The same conglomerate closes urban factories in the U.S., moving production abroad and setting up distribution warehouses in suburban and rural areas in the U.S. where property taxes are low. The impact has been aggravated by the Bush administration’s priorities which increase the burden on working families and their communities while cutting taxes for the wealthy, waging an unnecessary, expensive and destructive war, and placing corporate profits ahead of the public good.

People are looking for a way out. Blaming immigration is not it.

In the Depression, some used racism, anti-Semitism and anti-immigrant sentiment to advocate a fascist solution. But the victims of the economic crisis organized with the slogan, “Black and white, unite and fight,” and won unemployment insurance and Social Security. They marched and voted to win the New Deal, which put millions to work constructing schools, bridges and highways. As a result of unionization of major industries, wages and working conditions improved despite high unemployment.

Today, immigrants and U.S.-born workers — Black, white and Latino — are joining together in a host of struggles. If we reject anti-immigration diversions, we can take a lesson from the 1930s, and “unite and fight” for the people’s needs.

Monday, May 28, 2007














Lou sharing his Mexican Cuisine with Mr. Joe Baca. What a great chef you are Lou.Another pathetic lie from the Clown


CBS) On the May 6, 2007 edition of 60 Minutes, Lou Dobbs told Lesley Stahl about a meeting he had with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Rep. Joe Baca, the Chair of the CHC, sent 60 Minutes this letter in response.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Behalf of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), I write to express our deep concern about the comments made by CNN's Lou Dobbs during an interview on CBS's 60 Minutes.

This past Sunday, on 60 Minutes, CNN personality Lou Dobbs commented on a meeting he had with the CHC in March of 2004. His recollection presented on your program, however, clearly took our meeting out of context, misrepresenting the meeting's purpose and context. Moreover, Mr. Dobbs continuously misrepresents both the Hispanic community and the issue of immigration with half truths and harmful rhetoric.
Regrettably, Mr. Dobbs' comments on your show do not reflect the true nature of the discussion at our meeting. Instead, the meeting focused on the negative portrayal of Hispanics on Mr. Dobbs' program and on immigration reform. Sadly, Mr. Dobbs' recent comments are just one example of how he continues to belittle Hispanic Members of Congress and the Hispanic community.
The CHC believes it is inappropriate and unacceptable for Mr. Dobbs to continue to exploit the issue of immigration—seemingly for notoriety and ratings. If he is sincere in his concern for our country's broken immigration system and those it puts at risk, he should use his program to address the issue of immigration. However, if Mr. Dobbs is sincere in wanting to move our nation forward on the issue, he should use his program as a means to facilitate a legitimate and complete debate on our broken immigration system, including a discussion on immigrants' contributions to our nation. Sadly, Mr. Dobbs appears more concerned with ratings and publicity, than with actually being a part of the solution.
The fact of the matter remains—our nation's immigration system is broken. It needs to be fixed, and needs to be done so with a comprehensive plan that is both practical and just. However, our country will not arrive at a solution without fair, honest, and respectful debate on the issue.

It is in this light that we ask for you help to clear the record on the air. Specifically, we want to relay that the CHC did not meet with Mr. Dobbs to discuss his Mexican cuisine experiences, but to respectfully recommend that he cease the negative portrayal of Hispanics on his show and that treat the issue of immigration in a responsible manner.

Sunday, May 27, 2007
















Another Law Breaker and criminal- The Minuteman Express by Jim Gilchrist
Lou why you do not invite Mr. Jim Gilchrist to discuss this information on your show? Or you dont want to put more bizarre on your lap eh?. You need to expose the both sides of the subject

Minuteman Project president, Jim Gilchrist, says California Coalition for Immigration Reform (CCIR) member may be smuggling illegal weapons into California

May 12, 2007 — Minuteman Project founder and president, Jim Gilchrist, said today that investigations are continuing into the disgruntled former members of his organization who illegally tried to seize his organization in February. Allegations are that an investigation of possible illegal gun dealing may also involve a well-known immigration law advocacy group from Huntington Beach, Ca.

“It has been brought to my attention that Scott Powelson, a close friend and associate of Barbara Coe, the leader of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform (CCIR), was apparently observed purchasing an illegal assault rifle in Nevada and smuggling that weapon into California recently.”

Powelson, one of the hijackers who failed in an attempt to overthrow and seize Gilchrist’s Minuteman Project, was removed from the Minuteman Project membership in late January after he refused to provide Gilchrist with his social security number. The information was needed for the filing of federal and state compensation reports required for payments to sub-contractors of $600, or more, annually. Powelson received over $8,100 from the Minuteman Project, Gilchrist said. “He wouldn’t provide the information required by tax laws for sub-contractors, so I terminated his contract…and his membership. He was not happy about that.”

According to Gilchrist, two Minuteman Project membership recruiting consultants accompanied Powelson to Las Vegas last November. In their presence Powelson purchased what he later described as “an illegal weapon” that he intended to bring into California. The witnesses said Powelson wrapped the military-style weapon in a blanket and hid it in the back of his truck’s camper shell. According to the consultants, the purchase was also witnessed by a male companion of Powelson, identified only as “Tom,” a known anti-Semitic who Gilchrist had banned from the Minuteman Project.

Later that week Powelson brought the weapon to the Tustin residence of Deborah Peterson (alias Deborah Courtney), 55, and passed it around for inspection. “It’s illegal as all Hell,” he laughed as he handed the weapon to Tim Bueler, 19, who was living at Peterson’s home at the time. Bueler said he “moved out of Peterson’s place” very soon after the incident with the weapon. “They are crazy,” Bueler said, “to be fooling around with illegal guns.”

Also handling the weapon was Deborah Peterson’s live-in boyfriend, Paul Sielski, 40, a fugitive wanted by Maryland law enforcement authorities. Sielski, a convicted wife-beater, has since been arrested by clever deputies from the Orange County Sheriff’s Department fugitive task force. He is scheduled for extradition to Maryland on May 16 where he faces up to 20 years in prison, apparently for fleeing prosecution for other crimes.

Bueler said he did not know if the weapon Powelson handed him was a semi-automatic or an automatic (machinegun) weapon. He said only that Powelson told him “It is illegal as all Hell.”
The two consultants for Gilchrist did not purchase any guns, nor do they own any. Gilchrist was informed by the consultants of what they thought appeared to be alleged gun smuggling on February 25, 2007. He immediately contacted Costa Mesa Police, since Powelson uses an address in the 700 block of Joann St. in Costa Mesa as his residence. Powelson also claims to own a home in Arizona and a residence in Nevada. Also, he claims to have a driver’s license issued by Nevada. Telephone calls about the incident were also made to the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

When asked why the consultants waited so long to tell Gilchrist about Powelson’s assault weapon, Gilchrist said “They were scared. One of them is a 19-year-old kid who needed a place to live and who was told ‘keep your mouth shut’. The other witness really believed he would be harmed (shot) if he spoke up about it. Eventually, I coached them into ‘fessing up’ about it.”

This revelation brings serious questions about the involvement, if any, that immigration law advocacy groups like the California Coalition for Immigration Reform (CCIR) may have with the smuggling of illegal weaponry into California. It is unknown if Powelson brought only one illegal weapon into California, or many.

“It begs the question: How many?” Gilchrist asked. “And where would those weapons be and what might be their purpose? Finally, what other contraband might be coming into California under the guise of an ‘immigration law enforcement activist group’?”

After all,” he added, “how can immigration law advocates insist on immigration law enforcement if some of the activists might be blatantly breaking serious laws themselves?”

Saturday, May 26, 2007




















The reason for collecting this info from viewers is actually because Dobbs could not get this info from the gov't. Not surpringly, they also have no numbers on the number of jobs that are given away to foreigners right here in America:
Interview With Labor Secretary Elaine Chao

DOBBS: The White House today said the decline in the unemployment rate to 6 percent is evidence that President Bush's tax cuts are working. Lou currently 4.5 percent..

Joining me now for more on labor is the secretary of the Department of Labor, Elaine Chao.

Good to have you with us, Secretary.

ELAINE CHAO, SECRETARY OF LABOR: Nice to be here. Thank you.

DOBBS: Secretary Chao, these numbers surprised most economists, 6 percent. Do you believe this means that the economy has turned, that now we're going to see substantial job creation?

CHAO: I think the labor market rebound has begun in earnest.

And the numbers are actually more positive than you paint. In the last three months, there have been 287,000 new jobs; 126,000 new jobs was created in the last month, far surpassing expectations of 65,000 new jobs. And then, last month, I had announced that 57,000 new jobs were created. And the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which produces these numbers, went back and revised the data based on actual results. And we found that, in fact, over the past three months, job creation has been more robust than had been expected.

DOBBS: Secretary Chao, you better get that whip out and fix those people over at BLS, so they get those numbers right the first time.

(LAUGHTER)

CHAO: They do a wonderful job. They do a wonderful job. But it's just the nature. These revisions occur all the time. And, as you well know, we have revisions twice a year as well, on top of the monthly revisions.

DOBBS: Absolutely.

And while everyone is pleased to see this unemployment rate come down, and we all hope that it will come down more, there's still nine million Americans out of work in this country, two million of them long-term unemployed. These numbers and the 126,000 jobs created last week, most of them were the retail sector. They were not high-paying jobs. These are lower-paying jobs, for the most part. But the good news is... Where did you get this information Lou? Why do not mention the source? Numbersusa?Broderpatrol? Minuteman Groups? or you making up numbers again?

CHAO: But that's not really true.

DOBBS: I beg your pardon?

(CROSSTALK)

CHAO: That's not really true.

Of the long-term unemployed, that number has dropped as well in the past month. So we are beginning to see a drop in the long-term unemployed. We saw a drop in the number of jobless claims filed. That is a leading indicator. The unemployment rate is a lagging indicator. And even that has shown that there's been a drop from 6.1 percent to 6 percent. And then, as a leading indicator, the jobless claims have fallen again to well over 380,000. So with GDP growth of the last quarter hitting well over 7.2 percent, and having productivity increases over 8.1 percent, which are phenomenal numbers, clearly, the economy is in full gear and the labor market...

DOBBS: Full gear?

CHAO: I think it's very strong.

DOBBS: Full gear?

CHAO: It's very strong.

DOBBS: Secretary Chao, if I may argue with you, then.

CHAO: Yes.

DOBBS: We have to create 150,000 jobs just to keep pace with population growth. We have 6 percent unemployment. We're far from being in full gear, Secretary Chao.

CHAO: Well, full gear means that the economy is fully engaged.

DOBBS: I understand what it means.

(CROSSTALK)

CHAO: Thank you.

What it also means is that, again, with GDP growth of 7.2 percent and a productivity growth of 8.1 percent, the productivity growth cannot continue at this level without creating permanent jobs. We're also seeing increases in temporary help supply. That's, again, a precursor to permanent hiring.

DOBBS: Right.

CHAO: And we're also seeing the average number of hours worked increase.

DOBBS: Secretary Chao, if I may...

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: We're losing hundreds of thousands jobs to outsourcing as well. We have 10 million illegal aliens in the country. The Labor Department is doing absolutely nothing on the issue of . Lou do not mention the source how many jobs were outsourcing and he rumbling on the numbers of unlawful inmigrants from 10, 12 and know 20 millions. What a pathetic liar.
(CROSSTALK)

CHAO: Oh, that's not true at all. Lou, you know better than that. The Labor Department does a lot of things.

DOBBS: Let me give you a couple of examples, if I may, Secretary Chao. For example, we went through a number, with the Department of Labor, to get some sort of sense of who is tracking this. We are told that the Department of Labor will fully support illegal aliens in their labor -- legal issues.

CHAO: I'm not so sure who you were talking to, Lou.

But, clearly, this is a larger issue, the whole issue of illegal immigrants, than just Labor Department.

(CROSSTALK)

CHAO: We serve the work force. And for people who are out of work, we have $12 billion publicly funded work force training program.

We also spend about $58 billion in unemployment insurance. For the illegal immigrant that you're talking about, H-1B visas, for example, which I think some of your people may have alluded to, that has a cap of 66,000 annually. So it's a very small part of the whole work force.

(CROSSTALK)

DOBBS: Secretary Chao, I personally wanted this to be just a wonderful, congratulatory discussion.

CHAO: Well, thank you.

DOBBS: But since you -- if you want to be confrontational, let me bring

(CROSSTALK)

CHAO: No, not at all.

DOBBS: Give me the Labor Department's best report, if you will, on the number of H-1B and L-1 visa holders in this country right now and for whom they're working. He mention many times that he is not against legal Inmigrant. So what's the purpose to question this information Lou

CHAO: H-1B visas has an annual cap now of 66,000. And that has been actually underutilized because of the high-tech situation.

DOBBS: Secretary Chao, I asked how many are in the country now working and where? Does the Labor Department have any idea?

CHAO: No. We have a work force of 146,000. So I can't tell you that.

DOBBS: One hundred forty-six.

CHAO: We do not track that. But, annually, it's a 66,000 ceiling.

DOBBS: Right. Secretary Chao, I congratulate you on what I hope and we all hope is a wonderful turn in the employment situation in this country. CHAO: Thank you.

Well, we want to help every worker that's out of work, as the president has said. We are optimistic, but not complacent. Every person -- we want to make sure that every person who wants a job will indeed get one.

DOBBS: We're with you all the way.

CHAO: Thank you.

DOBBS: Thank you very much, Elaine Chao, secretary of the Department of Labor.

Lou why you never show the other side of the unemployment rather than just blame unlawful inmigrants? Why you are not report how many womans after pregnancy desire to stay home and not go back to work? This is part of the unemployment rating, people desire to go back to school? people who who had been injuried? people who desire to establish their own business? Why you are not exposed the numbers for people just looking a real job? or you making up the numbers base on the people are outside of the freeways looking for a job? all of this is part of the equation of unemployment. Why you have not exposed the both side of the subject?

Just look at this link and see for yourself the behavior from the Minuteman group.http://www.minutemenunvarnished.com/minutesite/home.html