DickMorris: OBAMA'S BROKEN TAX PROMISES

OBAMA'S BROKEN TAX PROMISES

Dear Friend,

In this video commentary, I discuss Obama's broken tax promises.

To access the video - Go Here Now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FC4pK5AKS48

(If the link is not active, please copy and paste it into the "Address" field of your web browser)

Please forward this email to any friends or family who may be interested in viewing my video commentary!

Thanks for watching,

Dick

CATASTROPHE by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

Full Title: How Obama, Congress And The Special Interests Are Turning A Slump Into A Crash, Freedom Into Socialism, And A Disaster Into A CATASTROPHE...And How To Fight Back

Click here to order a copy of CATASTROPHE now!

http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/?page_id=573

To view all of Dick's videos on YouTube, Go Here Now.

http://www.youtube.com/user/dickmorrisreports

Click Here To Browse Dick's New Book Catastrophe

http://browseinside.harpercollins.com/index.aspx?isbn13=9780061771040&WT.mc_id=AUTHWEB_CATAS_BROWSE_062609

Minuteman Rally - "Our Democracy Is Upside Down"

Minuteman Rally - "Our Democracy Is Upside Down"


Minuteman Protest


VICTORVILLE • Horns honked and fingers waved from traffic on Bear Valley Road on Saturday night.

The Minuteman Project protest at the intersection of Bear Valley and Hesperia roads drew both supportive and angry reactions regarding the topic of illegal immigration.

“Our democracy is upside down,” said Raymond Herrera, a national rally spokesman for the Minuteman Project, who organized the rally. “We are taking this country, this democracy, back one step at a time. We beckon the American people of the High Desert to join.”

Over 30 protesters from the Minuteman Project filled the northeast corner of the intersection, while the northwest corner hosted a smaller group of people supporting immigration and amnesty for illegal immigrants.

The two groups crossed paths, and created some heated debate, but no violence or problems occurred.
“We’re American citizens out here today just stating we want our government to take action to help the American worker,” said Robin Vidston of the Minuteman Project. “We have 14 million unemployed workers in America. We’re saying to the public, ‘hire Americans.’ We’re asking people to support businesses where Americans are hired.”

Herrera earlier reported he organized the local protest after opponents of a rally at Rep. Jerry Lewis’ office challenged him to bring the message to the High Desert.
Herrera will also be bringing the same message to an upcoming Victorville City Council meeting.

James Quigg can be reached at jquigg@VVDailyPress.com.
http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/minuteman-13277-protest-victorville.html


July 12, 2009 - 5:20 PM
JAMES QUIGG Staff Writer

why doesn't Obama talk about the high cost of medical malpractice

why doesn't Obama talk about the high cost of medical malpractice insurance?

medical malpractice insurance

President Obama never mentions this expensive cost in health care,
do you think the trail lawyer lobby bought him?

see how your congress voted on the Climate bill/Cap and tax bill

see how your congress voted on the Climate bill/Cap and tax bill

H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009

see voting record at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2009-477

Is this what you call a 'vigorous debate?'

- The Loft - http://www.gopusa.com/theloft -

Is this what you call a 'vigorous debate?


An election was held in Iran, and now people are dying. They are dying in the name of freedom -- protesting what they feel is a rigged election. Since the protests began, the Iranian government has been resorting to violence in order to stop the momentum of progress.

While people are dying in the streets of Iran, Barack Obama and his team have been calling the situation a "vigorous debate." Are you kidding me? A vigorous debate was held between Lincoln and Douglas. A vigorous debate is what you have between Michigan and Ohio State fans. People are dying! And yet, Obama will still not send a clear message to the people of Iran that America is on their side.


The White House has been quite obvious in its lack of direct condemnation of the Iranian government, despite the fact that innocent civilians, who are standing up for the most basic "American" values of freedom and democracy, are dying at the hands of a government crackdown.

During a June 19 press briefing, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs had this exchange with a reporter:

Q He said he was troubled by violence. He didn't say they shouldn't do it or directly criticize them for doing it.

MR. GIBBS: That's not the way I read it. I think when the --

Q I have the --

MR. GIBBS: I have the same transcript right here. I think when the President sits in the Oval Office and says he's: deeply troubled by what I've seen on television, and the American people are rightly troubled by that; I think when the President discusses as he did with President Lee that something has happened in Iran, where there's a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures toward the international community that have taken place in the past, and there are people who want to see greater openness, greater debate, and want to see greater democracy -- I stand strongly with the universal principle that people's voices should be heard and not be suppressed.

I think the language in the resolution is very consistent with the language that the President has used.

Q It makes direct criticism of the government, which he has not done.

MR. GIBBS: We can quibble on this. I think the President has been clear in standing up for the universal principles and deploring violence.

In other words, Barack Obama is "troubled by violence," but he does not have the fortitude to tell the Iranian government to stop.

In that same briefing, the following exchange occurred:

Q Robert, continuing on that theme, what is the White House and the President's reaction to the supreme leader of Iran warning to protestors to stop protesting and calling on -- saying that leaders will be held responsible for bloodshed?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President addressed that also on Monday, that he believes, as we have said throughout the week and as I've said throughout the week, those who wish to have their voices heard should be able to do that -- to do that without fear of violence; that that is an important universal principle that should be upheld. And I think he strongly supports that.

Q So would he criticize or condemn this particular statement from the supreme leader?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I think the President has been clear on what he believes: that he believes strongly that people should have their voices heard, that clearly there is, as he said on Tuesday, a ferment in Iran that is bringing about change.

Direct answer to the question... NO! The president will not condemn the statement because he wants to have it both ways. By doing so, he sends a clear message to the Iranian people that he is not in their corner. This is a demoralizing blow to a nation that is yearning for freedom.

On June 13, the White House described the Iranian elections this way:

Like the rest of the world, we were impressed by the vigorous debate and enthusiasm that this election generated, particularly among young Iranians. We continue to monitor the entire situation closely, including reports of irregularities.

And here is what Obama said yesterday:

And the fact that they are now in the midst of an extraordinary debate taking place in Iran, you know, may end up coloring how they respond to the international community as a whole.

More "great debate" type of non-answers! The next part was even worse:

QUESTION: So should there be consequences for what's happened so far?

MR. OBAMA: I think that the international community is, as I said before, bearing witness to what's taking place. And the Iranian government should understand that how they handle the dissent within their own country, generated indigenously, internally, from the Iranian people, will help shape the tone, not only for Iran's future, but also its relationship to other countries.

What in the world does that mean. Obama rarely talks about America... it's always the "international community." And who cares about "bearing witness." Many countries bore witness to the early actions of Hitler and did nothing! Obama talks about "shaping the tone" while Iranians are dying. I'm not talking about going to war with Iran, but the Iranian people need to believe that America is firmly on their side. Do you think they believe that?


Posted By Bobby Eberle June 2009

CANADIAN HEALTH CARE: COMING SOON TO THE USA?

Dear Friends,

In our new book, Catastrophe, we spell out exactly how the Obama health care proposals will lead to a Canadian style socialized medicine -- and we explain the consequences.

* A 16% higher cancer death rate in Canada

* An eight week wait for radiation therapy for cancer patients

* 42% of Canadians die of colon cancer vs. 31% in the US

* Cutbacks in diagnostic testing

* The best meds for chemo therapy are not available

* No way out of the system; you can't even pay for services yourself

Why is health care so bad north of the border? Because there are too few doctors to treat everybody and cost savings -- which slice medical incomes -- drive doctors out of the profession. When Obama calls for a 21% cut in Medicare fees to physicians and a $2500 cut in health costs per capita, that is exactly the kind of downward spiral in medical care quality he will bring to the United States. By making too few doctors cover too many patients, he will cut the quality of care to everybody.

As Obama's proposals make their way through Congress, it is vital that we all get up to speed on what is happening in Canada, so we can stop it from happening here. It is through word of mouth that we need to spread the information to undermine public support for the changes Obama would bring.

That's why we wrote Catastrophe. That's why we hope you read it!

Thanks,

Dick

CATASTROPHE by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

Full Title: How Obama, Congress And The Special Interests Are Turning A Slump Into A Crash, Freedom Into Socialism, And A Disaster Into A CATASTROPHE...And How To Fight Back

Click here to order a signed copy of CATASTROPHE while supplies last!

http://www.dickmorris.com

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND TELL THEM THEY CAN GET THESE COLUMNS E-MAILED TO THEM FOR FREE BY SUBSCRIBING AT DICKMORRIS.COM!

THANK YOU!

Senator CHRIS DODD'S OTHER PROBLEM

Senator CHRIS DODD'S OTHER PROBLEM


Sen. Chris Dodd, the dubious Democrat from the Nutmeg State, told a recent interviewer that it was "offensive" that the media would suggest that his wife, Jackie Clegg Dodd, has potential conflicts of interest because she sits on the boards of four pharmaceutical firms.

With Sen. Ted Kennedy ailing, Dodd is the Democratic point man for upcoming health-care legislation.

Of course, this is the 21st century. Spouses of powerful pols have their own -- often quite successful -- careers.

Of course, everybody knows that Mrs. Dodd received no special consideration because of her powerful spouse -- because Sen. Dodd says so.

That's the same Chris Dodd who "just happened" to get sweetheart mortgage loans as a "Friend of [Countrywide Financial founder] Angelo [Mozilo]" -- a relationship that is the subject of a Senate Ethics Committee probe.

That's the same Dodd who "just happened" to buy out a friend's share of an Irish cottage for well below what should have been the appraised value.

Only after a public-interest group raised questions did the Dodds finally have the cottage re-appraised -- whereupon the property's value jumped to $660,000, from between $100,001 and $250,000 just last year.

How about that: In the midst of a worldwide recession, his vacation home doubles in value in just one year -- as property values across Ireland plunged 40 percent.

Dodd says "there's no reason" for his wife to step down from her various boards -- an ethics lawyer gave a clean bill of health on potential conflicts of interest. He further complains that raising these questions is "offensive" because the husbands of female members of Congress don't face the same scrutiny. Really?

Dodd could talk to former Senator -- now Secretary of State --
Hillary Clinton about the conflict-of-interest questions she faced,
thanks to her husband's business practices.

Nobody's picking on Chris Dodd. Not that he doesn't deserve it.

La Raza Demands Obama's Health Reform Plan Cover Illegal Aliens

La Raza Demands Obama's Health Reform Plan Cover Illegal Aliens
On Monday, June 15, the National Council of La Raza (La Raza), an open borders advocacy group, issued a statement calling upon Congress to ensure that illegal aliens are given health benefits if and when Congress considers health care reform.

La Raza's statement "strongly urge[d] President Obama and Congress to make every effort to ensure that health care reform reaches all communities" in the United States, and stressed that "one out of every three uninsured persons and roughly 40% of all uninsured children [in the United States] are Latino," and demanded "health care reform that makes coverage affordable and accessible for everyone — all families and all children."

La Raza President and CEO Janet Murguía used the statement to emphasize that "everyone in the U.S. should contribute to a new health system," and that "Latinos [would] accept their responsibility" to contribute to a new health care system and "will pay their fair share for the health coverage they need." While the statement does not reference illegal immigration specifically, or distinguish between legal and illegal aliens, it does express concern that adding new, expensive verification and documentation procedures for immigrants would "severely restrict access to health care coverage." (La Raza Press Release, June 15, 2009).

Specific research has shown that many illegal aliens lack health insurance and represent a disproportionate share of the United States' uninsured population. The Pew Hispanic Center's recent report, A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, found that 59% of illegal aliens in the United States had no form of health insurance in 2007, and that 45% of illegal alien children were also without health coverage in 2007. It also found that even the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens were insured at the low rate of 25%, and that there was a significant disparity between the volume of uninsured illegal aliens and the volume of uninsured U.S. citizens and other legal residents. (Pew Hispanic Center Report, April 14, 2009).

Pew's information has support in federal statistics: data collected by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Census Bureau for the same time frame show that approximately 33.2% of the foreign-born population in the United States (a category which does not differentiate between newly naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, and illegal aliens) were uninsured in 2007, and that almost 10 million foreign-born non-citizens lacked health insurance in 2007. (DHS Fact Sheet, February 2009).

(For more information on how illegal immigration is financially impacting the U.S. health care system, see FAIR's Legislative Updates for April 13, 2009, and April 20, 2009).

Obama audacity of speed, any regrets on giving him the federal Mastercard?

Obama audacity of speed, any regrets on giving him the federal Mastercard?

Al Sharpton: a train wreck, a plane crash waiting to happen?

Al Sharpton: a train wreck, a plane crash waiting to happen?


Sharpton Fined $285K by FEC as Result of NLPC Complaint


The wiretap picked up Hawkins telling White he believed they had raised more than $140,000 for Sharpton in the previous quarter, but Hawkins worried because Sharpton had reported only about $50,000 on his federal election filing. He’s a train wreck, a plane crash
waiting to happen,” Hawkins reportedly told White about Sharpton. These reported
allegations are not addressed in the conciliation agreement.


Al Sharpton and his group, the National Action Network (NAN), have been fined $285,000 by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) for violating a host of election laws during Sharpton’s 2004 presidential campaign
during which he received 2% of the Democratic primary vote.

NLPC, which filed Complaints against Sharpton on February 2, 2004 and February 6, 2004, was notified of the FEC action last week and made it public today. As NLPC Chairman Ken Boehm was quoted in the
New York Post [1] today:

We are pleased that the FEC has ruled on our Complaint and found that Sharpton ran
an “off the books’ presidential campaign.

Previously, the FEC ordered Sharpton to return $100,000 in taxpayer matching funds,
and denied him an additional $79,000 for which he qualified, for the 2004 campaign.

Also previously, Sharpton was fined $5,500 for late filing of disclosure documents reports
as a result of a separate Complaint filed by NLPC on April 18, 2003.

The February 2, 2004 Complaint cited information that Sharpton may have visited over 100 cities related to his presidential campaign in 2002 and 2003. This extensive political travel was not reflected anywhere in Sharpton’s FEC filings. NLPC alleged that NAN might have
underwritten this travel with large undisclosed gifts from unnamed donors.

The $285,000 fine is actually a civil penalty under a conciliation agreement between Sharpton and his groups and the FEC. According to the agreement:

…Sharpton 2004 kept poor records of its activities and expenditures,
which often resulted in NAN or other entities paying for travel expenses incurred by the campaign.

It was the practice to charge all travel expenses to Sharpton’s American Express charge card.
The card was then paid using multiple accounts owned by Sharpton, NAN and/or the Committee.

The agreement describes $509,188 in campaign-related expenses on Sharpton’s American Express card. His campaign committee paid $121,996, leaving $387,192 in illegal payments from other sources,
including $65,000 from “unknown sources.”

Sharpton claimed to the FEC that records related to these activities were destroyed in a fire.
This was the second time a mysterious fire at NAN headquarters had been cited by Sharpton.
In 1997, just after Sharpton promised to open the financial records of NAN,
he alleged they had been destroyed.

The February 6, 2004 Complaint included information first reported by Wayne Barrett in the Village Voice on January 24, 2004 in an article titled “Sleeping With the GOP” [2]
that detailed efforts by Republican consultant Roger Stone to qualify Sharpton for federal matching funds.

Although the FEC found “reason to believe” that Stone violated election law,
it exercised its “prosecutorial discretion” and took no action against Stone.

The FEC also found that fast food mogul named La-Van Hawkins, who is now incarcerated, made excessive in-kind contributions to Sharpton by hosting a fundraiser at his Atlanta home in 2003.

According to Ebony magazine, Hawkins had his private jet pick Sharpton up in New York, and swing by Detroit to pick up his personal chef. Fresh crab cakes and carved beef tenderloins were washed down by $200 bottles of Cristal champagne, According to Ebony, “Hawkins worked the crowd,
at times talking business and world politics with guests, at other times, seeming to ‘shake down’ guests for donations.”

In April 2005, more information about Sharpton’s relationship with Hawkins emerged during an unrelated corruption investigation centered in Philadelphia. Local Democratic fundraiser
Ronald A. White and Hawkins reportedly were wiretapped having a conversation in which Hawkins expressed suspicions that Sharpton had failed to report money they had raised for his campaign.

The wiretap picked up Hawkins telling White he believed they had raised more than $140,000
for Sharpton in the previous quarter, but Hawkins worried because Sharpton had reported
only about $50,000 on his federal election filing. He’s a train wreck, a plane crash
waiting to happen,” Hawkins reportedly told White about Sharpton. These reported
allegations are not addressed in the conciliation agreement.

Hawkins had every reason to be grateful to Sharpton, who called for a boycott of Burger King after Hawkins
sued Burger King for $1.9 billion in 2001. Hawkins, already an owner of 23 Burger Kings,
alleged the company reneged on a promise to let him open 225 more in order to increase
the number of minority-owned franchises. Ironically, Jesse Jackson sided with Burger King,
which had been a financial supporter of Rainbow/PUSH for twenty years.


see more info at
http://nlpc.org/stories/2009/04/19/sharpton-fined-285k-fec-result-nlpc-complaint

http://www.nlpc.org/sites/default/files/SharptonFEC2-2-04.pdf see orginal complaint.

Click here to download a 28-page pdf of the conciliation agreement and related documents. [3]

Click here to download a 11-page pdf of NLPC's February 2, 2004 FEC Complaint. [4]
Click here to download a 9-page pdf of NLPC's February 6, 2004 FEC Complaint. [5]
By NLPC Staff





Al Sharpton

Healthcare, something for nothing from Obama? doesn't smell right to me

Healthcare, something for nothing from Obama? doesn't smell right to me


something for nothing from Obama?

Young Con rap song

Young Con rap song
Young Conservatives rap song


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkeZ2P4SiY8
as seen on Bill o'Reilly show

Obama puts a 31-year-old in charge Charge of Dismantling G.M.

Obama puts a 31-year-old college dropout in charge of dismantling G.M.


The 31-Year-Old in Charge of Dismantling G.M.

WASHINGTON — It is not every 31-year-old who, in a first government job, finds himself dismantling General Motors and rewriting the rules of American capitalism.

But that, in short, is the job description for Brian Deese, a not-quite graduate of Yale Law School who had never set foot in an automotive assembly plant until he took on his nearly unseen role in remaking the American automotive industry.


By DAVID E. SANGER

is Nancy Pelosi is well beyond menopause?

is Nancy Pelosi is well beyond menopause?

or it may be she getting senile.

Morris: STICK TO YOUR GUNS, REPUBLICANS

RESISTING O'S WORLD - STICK TO YOUR GUNS, REPUBLICANS

By DICK MORRIS / EILEEN MCGANN



Gen. Colin Powell is wrong to say that the Republican Party must move to the center: Now is not the time to try for triangulation.

This is a time for the party to stand firm on its principles until this nation again comes around to the GOP's way of thinking. This process will be driven by the consequences of President Obama's program.

The challenge brought by Obama is no longer just theoretical: He means to pass the ultimate leftist agenda and has the votes to do so.

As a result, our nation will be unrecognizable well before the 2010 elections. Business will march to a beat drummed in Washington. The top producers will be hounded by confiscatory taxation. A majority will pay nothing or receive government welfare. Our health-care system will be destroyed. Illegal immigrants will be well on their way to citizenship.

Obama's brave new world will be the subject of the 2010 elections. We believe that his Congress will be swept from power as a result.

We think that inflation will join a lingering recession -- giving us recess-flation -- and that high unemployment will continue. Voters will recognize the damage to their health care as bureaucrats weigh in to prevent them from getting the care they need. Our security and defense failures may well have cost us Pakistan, and the nightmare of a nuclear-armed terrorist state may have already come true (even before Iran).

All America will be watching the Obama fallout, and Republicans must be seen as a clear alternative -- a strong voice for reversal of the harm the president will have inflicted -- if they are to benefit from this catastrophe.

If the GOP is seen as a moderate force, a party just looking to split the difference, voters will cynically conclude that there is no distinction between the parties.

There is a season for triangulation and a season for confrontation. When America faces a new challenge -- such as what the financial crisis now poses -- we look to the left and right for new answers. We want the debate to rage. Those who seek to paper over are ignored. Such was the fate of the first President Bush in 1992 and of Sen. John McCain in 2008.

But once the debate has raged and the alternatives have been fleshed out, voters want a consensus, a Hegelian synthesis, on how to move in a new direction. They want to extract the best from each alternative and combine them. This is triangulation (a term coined by Dick).

To ignore the demand for synthesis and insist on continuing the debate is to suffer the fate of Sen. Bob Dole in 1996 and Sen. John Kerry in 2004.

This process -- polarization, debate, synthesis and action -- is how America has always moved ahead. We are not Japan; we use the debate to see the options. And we are not Italy or France; we come to conclusions and act upon them, eventually leaving the debate far behind.

Now another great debate has been born. The thesis is democratic socialism. The antithesis is free-market capitalism.

The Obama Democrats have posed the challenge. It's up to the Republicans to fight along these lines. Compromise is not an option, yet.

At some point, the synthesis will set in. But now is the time for clear alternatives and sharp disagreement. Only later can we hope to extract America from the leftist clutches into which it has fallen.

Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!

Mexican Drug Lord Orders Deadly Force

Mexican Drug Lord Orders Deadly Force


The reputed head of Mexico's Sinaloa drug cartel has instructed his army of associates to use deadly force if necessary to protect their increasingly contested trafficking operations, even against U.S. law enforcement, according to authorities here and in Washington.

The threatened offensive by Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, Mexico's most-wanted man, was described by U.S. officials as being highly unusual, given that his associates have avoided violent confrontations with American law enforcement officers, and have kept their blood feuds with fellow traffickers largely south of the border.

Guzman is believed to have delivered the message personally in early March, during a three-day gathering of his associates in Sonoita, a small Mexican town just a few miles south of the Arizona border, according to U.S. intelligence bulletins sent to several state and federal law enforcement officials.

anyone seen DHS Janet Napolitano newest girlfriend ?

anyone seen DHS Janet Napolitano newest girlfriend ?


I heard she a hottie..........................

Obama leaves the barn door open for Mexican border jumpers?

Obama leaves the barn door open for border jumpers?

importing swine ? Mexican nationals attempting to cut through border fence

importing swine ? Mexican nationals attempting to cut through border fence

Chance border visit surprises Mexican nationals attempting to cut through border fence



Traveling with three international media correspondents during one of his routine trips to survey the progress of the international border fence being erected along the California-Mexico border, Minuteman Project president Jim Gilchrist observed four Mexican nationals setting up what appeared to be a gasoline-powered metal cutting machine last week.

“The group was apparently preparing to cut through the old, unreinforced border fence in Campo, California ,” Gilchrist said.

Britt Craig of the Campo Minutemen organization, who routinely accompanies Gilchrist on the fence surveys, summoned nearby U.S. Border Patrol agents who said they would set up an observation point for that area of the fence. One agent surmised that the group was going to cut a hole in the fence large enough to drive a vehicle through laden with either illegal aliens or drugs, or both.



The Mexicans, in their early twenties or younger, retreated back into Mexico about 100 yards to a cluster of boulders, leaving the machinery under a tree about 30 feet from the border fence. There were large plastic bags stacked against one of the boulders. Gilchrist said none of the men appeared to be armed.



http://www.minutemanproject.com

anyone watching the Mexican border for more swine cases ?

anyone watching the Mexican border for more swine cases ?



looks like border security would be nice to have now.

150K jobs saved? more chocolate covered Obama bullshir

150K job saved? more chocolate covered Obama bullshir

info on Chris Simcox, Arizona senate canidate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia....


Chris Simcox (born 1961) is the American co-founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC) and the project's main spokesperson. He was formerly a kindergarten teacher at the Wildwood School in Los Angeles, California, where he taught for thirteen years. [1]

In October 2002, Simcox issued a public call to arms, inviting readers of his newspaper, the Tombstone Tumbleweed, to join a "Citizens Border Patrol Militia" whose function, Simcox said, would be to "shame the government into doing its job" of controlling the United States's border with Mexico.

He founded Civil Homeland Defense, a group which patrolled the border, and within the next two and a half years sought to assist the United States Border Patrol.

Simcox's practice of reporting illegal immigrants attempting to enter the country illegally has been controversial, and questions concerning its legality have been raised. When the Civil Homeland Defense was first formed, Simcox's opponents claimed that it is illegal for a normal citizen who is in no way affiliated with law enforcement to detain people in the United States. Simcox claimed at that time that these detentions were justified under a "citizen's arrest" policy.[2] Since the inception of the MCDC, however, their "Standard Operating Procedure" (SOP) states that "Minutemen Observe, Report, Record, and Direct Border Patrol or other appropriate emergency or law enforcement agencies to suspected Illegal Aliens or Illegal Activities."[3]

In December 2004, Simcox teamed with James Gilchrist to organize the Minuteman Project, which brought nationwide attention to the southern border. While some have accused the Minuteman members of being vigilantes, supporters claim that there has never been a case of a member of The Minuteman Project physically harming anyone.

Simcox was interviewed for the 2005 independent documentary Wetback: The Undocumented Documentary. Simcox also appeared in a 2006 documentary by Joseph Matthew and Dan DeVivo called "Crossing Arizona," and a 2007 documentary by Chris Burgard called "Border".

On April 21, 2006, Simcox sent a message to President George W. Bush asking him to send National Guard troops to guard the border or the "Minutemen" would begin construction of a wall along the border, built on private property.

Simcox has stated he does not receive a salary from Minutemen, and earns income via honoraria and fees received for speaking engagements. He claims to have sold his life story for a film that will soon go into production. [4]

Simcox is stepping down from MCDC to challenge in the 2010 Republican primary the renomination of U.S. Senator John S. McCain, III, of Arizona, the party's 2008 presidential nominee.[5]


[edit] References
^ Wagner, Dennis (2006-05-25). "Minuteman's goal: To shame feds into action". http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-24-minuteman-goals_x.htm.
^ Max Blumenthal, "Vigilante injustice", Salon, May 22, 2005. Accessed January 13, 2008.
^ "Standard Operating Procedure for Minuteman Civil Defense Corps", retrieved January 13, 2008.
^ Seper, Jerry (2006-07-20). "Minutemen not watching over funds". http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060719-091346-2988r.htm.
^ Smith, Ben (2009-04-21). "McCain Facing 2010 Primary". http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/McCain_facing_2010_primary.html?showall.

[edit] External links
Border - Documentary film featuring Chris Simcox
The Right Perspective podcast interview
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Simcox"

Senator Dianne Feinstein's hubby gets a $25 Billion sweetheart deal?

Senator Dianne Feinstein's hubby gets a $25 Billion sweetheart deal?

Senator's husband's firm cashes in on crisis


can he be charged with insider trading ?

On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation
to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband's real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties
at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.

Mrs. Feinstein's intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn't a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments - not direct federal dollars.

Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein
first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) - the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman - had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties
that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.

Read the rate list for the FDIC contract from CB Richard Ellis,
the firm Sen. Feinstein's husband heads as board chairman. (downloads 4-page pdf)

Read the correspondence between Sen. Feinstein and FDIC chairman Sheila Bair

About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum's private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE's stock closed Monday at $5.14.

Spokesmen for the FDIC, Mrs. Feinstein and Mr. Blum's firm told The Times that there was no connection between the legislation and the contract signed Nov. 13, and that the couple didn't even know about CBRE's business with FDIC until after it was awarded.


The FDIC contract "highlights the problem of a senator with a spouse
who has extensive business interests that intersect frequently with the federal government," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility
and Ethics in Washington (CREW). "Even if there is no actual conflict of interest, it often has the appearance of a conflict."

A 'very sweet deal'?

Real estate specialists also question the government's generosity in the CBRE contract.
The firm, known for its commercial real estate services, is to be paid monthly maintenance fees for each foreclosed property it handles, as well as commissions and incentives. The total compensation can range from 8 percent of the sales price on many residential properties to 30 percent for properties worth $25,000 or less. A smaller firm also won a slice of the work with similar terms, records show.
Most real estate agents earn no more than 6 percent on residential, even on foreclosed properties, and
CBRE doesn't have as much experience in foreclosure sales as other firms, the experts said.

"From everything I know about it, it is a very sweet deal and went to somebody
who is less than qualified in dealing with foreclosed residential properties.
Their expertise is in commercial real estate," said Cynthia Kenner, a Colorado
real estate agent who specializes in selling bank-owned residential properties
and last year helped sell more than 600 foreclosed properties.
"There are companies that are more experienced in selling such properties than CB Richard Ellis," she added.


see source at ...........
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/senate-husbands-firm-cashes-in-on-crisis/
by Chuck Neubauer (Contact)

this has also been reported on by Glen Beck tv show and the Bill O'Reilly Factor


Richard Blum,Chuck Neubauer ,CB Richard Ellis,Senator Dianne Feinstein

Chris Simcox vs Mccain in 2010 senate primary

Minuteman founder to run for Senate against McCain


PHOENIX --The founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps is expected to announce his intentions to challenge Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain of Arizona next year.

Chris Simcox is expected to make the announcement Wednesday. He already has a Web site promoting his candidacy for the U.S. Senate in 2010.

Simcox says on the site he represents conservative values and will always put the United States first.

Neither Simcox nor a McCain spokeswoman responded to calls for comment. McCain will be seeking his fifth term to the Senate.

Simcox's Web site says the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps patrols the U.S. southern border and reports illegal immigrants to authorities.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2009/04/21/minuteman_founder_to_run_for_senate_against_mccain/

looks like Mccain will have a real challenger for his 2010 senate

looks like Mccain will have a real challenger for his 2010 senate seat, new blood would be refreshing



www.mccainalert.com

Texas considering secession ?

Democrats: Texas gov should disavow secession talk



AUSTIN, Texas – In a state that once was its own nation, a Republican governor who talked about secession without completely dismissing the idea has Democratic lawmakers in an uproar.

Gov. Rick Perry, in comments following an anti-tax "tea party" Wednesday, never did advocate Texas breaking away from the United States but suggested that Texans might at some point get so fed up they would want to leave the union. That was enough to feed opinions for and against secession on Web sites, cable TV and talk radio across the nation.

At the Texas Capitol on Thursday, Rep. Jim Dunnam of Waco, joined by several fellow Texas House Democrats, said some people associate talk of secession with racial division and the Civil War and that Perry should disavow any notion of seceding.

"Talk of secession is an attack on our country. It can be nothing else. It is the ultimate anti-American statement," Dunnam said at a news conference.

State Sen. Rodney Ellis, a Houston Democrat, said that by not rejecting the possibility of secession out of hand, Perry "is taking a step down a very dangerous and divisive path encouraged by the fringe of Texas politics."

The Democrats are proposing a House resolution expressing "complete and total disagreement with any fringe element advocating the 'secession' of Texas or any other state from our one and indivisible Union."

Perry emphasized Thursday that he is not advocating secession but understands why Americans may have those feelings because of frustration with Washington, D.C. He said it's fine to express the thought. He offered no apology and did not back away from his earlier comments.

Perry's remarks Wednesday were in response to a question from The Associated Press as he walked away from the Austin rally, where some in the audience had shouted "Secede!" during his speech. The governor said he didn't think Texas should secede despite some chatter about it on the Internet and his name being associated with the idea.

"We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot," Perry said Wednesday.

A day later, Perry said he found the fascination with the remark interesting.

"I refer people back to my statement and I got a charge out of it," he said. "I was kind of thinking that maybe the same people that hadn't been reading the Constitution right were reading that article and they got the wrong impression about what I said. Clearly I stated that we have a great union. Texas is part of a great union. And I see no reason for that to change."

Texas was a republic from 1836, when it declared independence from Mexico, to 1845, when it became a U.S. state.

Perry has been speaking out against the federal government lately over federal economic stimulus spending. He's also in a tough race for re-election against a fellow Republican, U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, whom he is trying to portray as a Washington insider.

Perry spokeswoman Allison Castle criticized Dunnam, saying he was "trying to distract from the fact that yesterday thousands of Texans, including many in his own district, expressed their extreme displeasure at Washington's rampant taxation, big spending and bloated government."

Dunnam suggested Perry is positioning himself for his political future.

"We all knew he wanted to be president. I just didn't know it was president of the Republic of Texas," he said to chuckles from onlookers.


By KELLEY SHANNON,
Associated Press Writer

OBAMA, GM: YOU BREAK IT, YOU OWN IT

OBAMA, GM: YOU BREAK IT, YOU OWN IT

By DICK MORRIS



GM, now renamed Government Motors, has a new CEO:
President Barack Obama.
By replacing the head of the company and demanding a restructuring of its board in return for further TARP aid, Obama has taken upon himself the responsibility for the future of the company. As Gen. Colin Powell said when Bush was considering invading Iraq and toppling the Saddam Hussein government there: "If you break it, you own it." Now it is Obama's company.

This move will backfire big time! The auto giant is very, very unlikely to be saved by this current TARP infusion. Doubtless it will need more in the near term. But the resentment now focused on the management of the company will then turn to Obama. Having demanded a replacement of the management, it is he who will be held responsible for the company's future.

And each time GM asks for more money, Obama will face a choice: take personal responsibility for laying off 100,000 auto workers or anteing up the additional cash. By inserting himself so deeply into the management of the company, Obama makes himself central to its future. If Obama lets the company fail, having already extended credit, he will have all of Michigan on his case. If he keeps coming up with more and more tax money, he will earn the contempt of the voters.

Socialism has its price. By taking over the management of a company, you become the determinant of its fate in the public's mind.

Obama does not seem to realize that government takeover is the beginning, not the end, of the problem. He should have stuck with being president and left making cars to others.

And, as the new CEO of General Motors, what will his policy be on corporate compensation? Will the public tolerate his letting his new company pay salaries sufficient to attract the talent necessary to salvaging the firm? Or will he have to rely on a bunch of kids right out of school, willing to work for one or two hundred thousand a year, for the company's salvation?

When it comes to the hard work of cutting retiree health benefits, reducing salaries, laying off workers and closing plants, is Obama willing to resist calls for his intervention? Is he up for taking the blame for all the "heartless" measures GM will have to take to salvage its future? He has put himself squarely in a position to pay a steep political price for his assumption of power at GM.

Most troubling is the sense that Obama cannot have thought this through. He can't have planned this. President Clinton used to say at strategy meetings that we needed to think three or four moves ahead and not just "kick the can down the road." Obama is clearly not following his predecessor's advice. He realized GM needed money. He knew the public would have a fit if he gave it. So he decided that he would appease his electorate by exacting blood from the company's management and directors by using his guillotine on some of its old gray heads.

But, had he thought before he acted, he would have realized that it would have been far better to have criticized GM from a distance even as he extended more money -- rather than to, in effect, take over the company.

The president's protestations that the government does not want to own a car company are quite beside the point. It's his now, and he better figure out what to do with it.

Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!
***COPYRIGHT EILEEN MCGANN AND DICK MORRIS 2009. REPRINTS WITH PERMISSION ONLY***

The Coming Depressflation and YOUR Money

The Coming "Depressflation"...And YOUR Money

Dear Fellow American,

Have you ever heard of a "depressflation"?

No surprise if you haven't. It's a term I coined myself, to describe the imminent -- and inevitable -- result of the Democrats' plans for "rescuing" the economy.

Think 1970s-style "stagflation" but much, much worse: massive inflation, even hyperinflation, together with Depression-like economic stagnation. A depressflation.

Why is this inevitable? Because with a bi-partisan consensus that deficits are vital in fighting the crisis (or easing the pain) there is no constraint on Obama and his party. The sky is the limit on spending, to the tune of a trillion-plus dollars over the next two years alone.

And there are only two ways to pay for it: (1) printing more money, which causes inflation, and (2) hiking taxes, which kills investment, businesses and jobs.

Then the question will be: When will we realize that government intervention is magnifying, not solving the problems that caused the crisis? When will the patience of the public with Obama's remedies run out?

My guess is that it won't be until 2012 -- or after.

In the meantime, however, there are ways to protect yourself and your family from the coming "depressflation."

It's crucial to understand: Hard times for America does not necessarily mean hard times for you. As a very wise investment expert of my acquaintance, Nicholas Vardy, likes to say, "No matter what the state of financial markets, there is always a strategy out there that can make you money."

The key, Vardy explains, is to recognize opportunities wherever they may be and, more importantly, detach yourself from old investment themes that no longer work.

Vardy himself, an American based in London, is a master at crafting such cutting-edge investment strategies -- which he then passes on to subscribers to his Global Stock Investor investment newsletter.

So, for instance, back in mid-2007 Vardy was months ahead of the curve in spotting the coming boom in "soft" (agricultural) commodities -- recommending stocks like Canadian fertilizer giant Potash, which shot up quickly in price before coming back down to earth, by which time his subscribers had safely banked profits of 82% in just over three months time.

And that's nothing compared to the magic Vardy performed for his subscribers during these past few months, now on record as some of the worst in Wall Street history.

Consider this: Since October 2008, which wiped out close to $7 trillion in shareholder wealth, Vardy's Global Stock Investor portfolio's open positions are up as much as 11%.

Compared to the 7% decline in the Dow during the same time, that's incredible.

How does Nicholas Vardy do it? If I knew, I'd be in his business, not mine. But I'm sure those countless hours he spends sharing investment ideas with Europe's top money managers has something to do with it -- not to mention his graduate degrees from Stanford and Harvard.

Don't get me wrong: Nicholas Vardy is no elitist snob. Though he makes his "real" money managing money for a few wealthy clients, he also likes to "spread the wealth" -- not through higher taxes (sorry, Obama), but by helping people like you and me make profitable investments.

Full disclosure: I receive a percentage of each subscription sold, but even if I didn't, I'd want you to know about this amazing service. Nicholas' advice is rock solid. If you check into it, you'll thank me later.

Let's face it, the next few years will be tough ones for America. But, to repeat, they don't have to be tough ones for you -- if you find and follow sound investment advice like the brilliant investment strategies in Nicholas Vardy's Global Stock Investor. I urge you to give it a try.

Obama's CAP and Tax plan, smells like trickle down taxation

Obama's CAP and Tax plan, smells like trickle down taxation



Obama's CAP and Tax plan, smells like trickle down taxation for all Americans.

Any taxes / limits placed on utilities /business will definitely passed on to all consumers. Public utilities will merely add this proposed cost on your next utility bill.

Another negative, business may look outside the USA for expansion,
rather than dealing with this energy burden problem.


when the smoke does settles, who do you think will wind up paying this indirect tax?

Congress gives bonuses(your tax $$$) to thier staff

Congress gives bonuses(your tax $$$) to thier staff


Lawmakers Have Long Rewarded Their Aides With Bonuses



By BRODY MULLINS and LOUISE RADNOFSKY
WASHINGTON -- While Congress has been flaying companies for giving out bonuses while on the government dole, lawmakers have a longstanding tradition of rewarding their own employees with extra cash -- also courtesy of taxpayers.

Capitol Hill bonuses in 2008 were among the highest in years, according to LegiStorm, an organization that tracks payroll data. The average House aide earned 17% more in the fourth quarter of the year, when the bonuses were paid, than in previous quarters, according to the data. That was the highest jump in the eight years LegiStorm has compiled payroll information.

Total end-of-year bonuses paid to congressional staffers are tiny compared with the $165 million recently showered on executives of American International Group Inc., which is being propped up by billions of dollars of U.S. government subsidies. But Capitol Hill bonuses provide a notable counterpoint to the populist rhetoric and sound bites emanating from Washington these past weeks.

Last year alone, more than 200 House lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats, awarded bonuses totaling $9.1 million to more than 2,000 staff members, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of office-disbursement forms. The money comes out of taxpayer-funded office budgets, and is surplus cash that would otherwise be forfeited if not spent.

Payments ranged from a few hundred dollars to $14,000. Lawmakers, at their own discretion, gave the money to chiefs of staff, assistants, computer technicians, and more than 100 aides who earned salaries of more than $100,000 a year.

This has gone on for many years. There is no prohibition against handing out excess cash. The lawmakers say it is a nice incentive to get staff to conserve budgets, and it rewards hard work and long hours.

"Most aides could make more money elsewhere, but choose to work on Capitol Hill because they believe in public service," said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a California Democrat who along with other top House leaders awarded bonuses. (Senators also give bonuses, but documents showing those payments aren't yet available.) Mr. Daly said bonuses are a small perk for underpaid government employees.

Polls Reaffirm Americans Support Immigration Enforcement

Polls Reaffirm Americans Support Immigration Enforcement
Three polls released last week by Rasmussen Reports reaffirm what true immigration reformers have known for years: the American public overwhelmingly supports enhanced border security and strengthened interior enforcement of our immigration laws. The results of these polls further undermine the arguments of amnesty advocates who claim that the American people want "comprehensive" immigration reform.

The first Rasmussen poll, released March 16th, focused on border security. According to the poll, 79% of voters support using troops on the U.S.-Mexico border to protect Americans from drug-related violence. The 79% figure marked a 21% jump in support for the use of the U.S. military along the border in just two months. Only 10% of U.S. voters oppose putting U.S. troops on the border to fight drug violence, while 11% say they are unsure. Strong support for placing U.S. troops on the border may stem from the fact that 82% of U.S. voters are concerned that Mexican drug violence will spill over into the United States, including 50% who say that they are very concerned. The poll also found that more than six in ten Americans say that the Department of Homeland Security should continue to build a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border. (Rasmussen Reports, March 16, 2009). The release of the poll came just days after President Obama and other members of his administration expressed reluctance to deploy members of the National Guard to the border. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, March 16, 2009).

The second Rasmussen poll, released March 17, highlighted strong support for local law enforcement of immigration laws. According to the poll, 73% of voters say that police officers should automatically check to see if someone is in the country legally when the officer pulls that person over for a traffic violation, while only 21% disagree. Furthermore, 67% of voters say that if law enforcement officers know of places where immigrants gather to find work, they should conduct surprise raids to identify and deport illegal aliens. (Rasmussen Reports, March 17, 2009). The poll's findings came less than two weeks after House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) questioned the success of the 287(g) program - which allows Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to enter into agreements to train state and local law enforcement agencies in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. (See FAIR's Legislative Update, March 9, 2009).

A third Rasmussen poll, released March 18, shows that nearly seven in ten voters support strict government sanctions on employers who hire illegal aliens. Only 22% say that employers should not be punished, while another 10% are not sure. Nearly half of U.S. voters support sanctions for landlords who rent or sell property to illegal aliens, while 36% are opposed to such penalties. (Rasmussen Reports, March 18, 2009). These findings came just eight days after the Senate voted to kill an amendment offered by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) to the $410 billion Omnibus Appropriations bill (H.R. 1105) that would have reauthorized the E-Verify program - which prevents employers from hiring illegal aliens in the first place - through September 2014. (See FAIR's Action Alert, March 10, 2009).

OBAMA'S JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU

OBAMA'S JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU

By DICK MORRIS



Does President Obama truly believe that he can castigate and condemn Wall Street on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays and then secure its cooperation on the other days of the week?

Does he not understand that when he ignites a public furor over AIG bonuses and then incites Congress to pass a punitive tax, he sends shivers down the spines of every other corporate executive who makes a lot of money?

Does he seriously believe that Wall Street investors will not worry that their winnings, should they join the Treasury as partners in risky investments, would be subject to public abuse, publicity and confiscatory taxation?

Of course he realizes that his rhetoric makes it unlikely that his program will succeed. He obviously gets it that the entire concept of a public-private partnership is impossible amid a climate of waging class warfare, taxing the rich and heaping contempt on anyone who makes money. The president is quite bright and certainly understands that you cannot shake hands with your right while you launch a roundhouse with your left.

So why does Obama persist in his aggressive rhetoric? Why does he continue to treat Wall Street as something out of Dante's Inferno?

Because he's just not that into you! He doesn't really care if the public-private partnerships work out.

He sends Geithner out to announce the program because he doesn't want to make it his own. When he announces a stimulus plan or a new spending bill, it's Obama's moment before the teleprompter. But the public-private partnerships he leaves to his Treasury secretary to announce.

The most rational explanation for Obama's puzzling conduct -- sabotaging his own program by way of his own rhetoric -- is that he truly wants to be forced to nationalize the banks in pursuit of his ultimate goal of a socialist economy.

Obama has to oppose nationalization today in order to achieve it tomorrow. He has to show the country and the world that he is doing all he can to help the private sector to sort things out with government help. He must ostentatiously invite the hated demons of Wall Street to join him in rescuing the banks in order, later, to say that he did his best to avoid having to take over the banks. Only then will nationalization be an acceptable alternative -- when he has run out of other options.

Meanwhile, he makes sure the private sector won't play ball by going after their bonuses, sending an implicit message to the other executives on Wall Street that reads: Stay away.

Even when he takes over the banks, as he almost inevitably will, he is going to have to dress up the nationalization as a temporary measure forced on him by the economy and the previously unrealized depth of the problem. He will cite the example of Sweden, where the government nationalized the banks only temporarily and returned them to private hands quickly.

You can't be for nationalization. But Obama hopes to accomplish it nonetheless.

Already, in the TARP and TALF programs, we can see how eager he is to use government power to manipulate the once-private sector. Consider the mandates piling up on any financial institution that takes government funds: limits on executive pay, corporate travel and conferences; a strong Buy American recommendation; and aggressive action to get them to make consumer loans. Can affirmative action, low-income lending and diversity outreach be far behind?

If Obama can bring banks and the healthcare industry under government control, we will have de facto socialism. Is this Obama's goal? It is obviously where he is headed.

Is Obama a socialist? Rather than throw around labels, let's do the math. The best measure of whether an economy is government- or private sector-oriented is the percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) that flows through government expenditure. Before the current fiscal crisis, the major nations stacked up as shown in the chart on page 27.

Obama's stimulus package, alone, comes to about 6 percent of GDP, vaulting the United States past Japan to 40 percent on the list above. If we add in the extra spending in the supplemental appropriations bill and the likely increases for healthcare, the total government percentage will rise well past 40 percent and probably close in on the United Kingdom's 43.

That's pretty socialistic, but Obama has three more years to get us up around Germany and really ruin our economy!

Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!

PLEASE FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY AND TELL THEM THEY CAN GET THESE COLUMNS E-MAILED TO THEM FOR FREE BY SUBSCRIBING AT DICKMORRIS.COM!

Dick Morris: MARK LEVIN'S TIMELY REMINDER

MARK LEVIN'S TIMELY REMINDER

By Dick Morris

In more normal times, we would not need Mark R. Levin's treatise Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto. We would know which side to be on and the points in his Manifesto would be, well, manifest.

But in this day, when a socialist sits in the White House, committed to expanding what Levin calls the "soft tyranny" of government regulation to every aspect of our economic and corporate life, we all need to read and remember what Levin writes in his new book.

Levin defines, again for us, what it means to be free and in the private sector. Why do we need this reminder? Don't we all remember from the Reagan days?

But the more you read Levin's remarkable book, the more you realize how we have all been lured into socialism, how much we have already surrendered. Liberty and Tyranny makes us understand who we are, where we want to go, and what the detours we must eschew along the way are.

He begins by eloquently defining what it means to be for us to live in civil society as free people:

"...the individual in civil society strives, albeit imperfectly, to be virtuous - that is restrained, ethical, and honorable. He rejects the relativism that blurs the lines between good and bad, right and wrong, just and unjust and means and ends."

The very comprehensiveness of Levin's book reminds us of the broad offensive of the Obama Administration. It aims not simply to expand government, but to contract our freedom. Levin spells out how. Freedoms we take for granted - like being able to provide medical care for your family - are at risk in this new socialist regime we have elected.

The leading contribution of the Levin book is to define and explain "soft tyranny." It is soft tyranny that requires us to sit by passively while our ethic of cultural assimilation is replaced by a permanent enshrining of diversity. It bids we let our rights to our own property, that we have worked for and acquired, be sublimated to government power disguised as human rights. It asks that we elevate the demand for equality over that for economic initiative and the incentives which propel them. Soft tyranny wants us to wait on a global consensus to act, even when inaction leads to genocide in Bosnia, homicide in Iraq and nuclear armaments in Iran.

But there are no posters for socialism. It advances masked. Its soft tyranny is presaged by a20softer seduction as its coils tight around us. Mark Levin's book explains what the soft tyrants are trying to do and how we can fight back.

One would wish we didn't need such a book at this time. But we do!

Get Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto

http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Tyranny-Conservative-Mark-Levin/dp/1416562850

Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!

AIG gave $99K to Senator John Mccain ?

AIG gave $99K to Senator John McCain ?

looks like senator John McCain is in the top 5 recipient of cash from AIG,
will he return it.




click here to email McCain and express your opinion

will Senator Chris Dodd get a rentention bonus in 2010 or the boot in 2010 election?

will Senator Chris Dodd get a rentention bonus in 2010 or the boot in 2010 election?

that shithead Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut

that shithead Senator Chris Dodd from Connecticut

Jay Leno even mention Chris Dodd got over $100k from AIG, this was not a joke.


Over the years, Dodd has been the top recipient of campaign contributions from AIG employees. During 2007-2008, when he ran for president, he received nearly $104,000 from AIG employees and their families, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that monitors money in politics.

Shithead senator Chris Dodd top recipient of campaign cash from AIG

Senator Chris Dodd getting rebates from AIG ?


Some of the worst blows came amid the furor over $165 million in bonuses American International Group Inc. paid some of its employees while receiving billions of dollars in federal bailout money.

After first denying it, Dodd admitted he agreed to a request by Treasury Department officials to dilute an executive bonus restriction in the big economic stimulus bill that Congress passed last month. The change to Dodd's amendment allowed AIG to hand out the bonuses and sparked a blame game between Dodd and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

Dodd was guarded Thursday when asked about Geithner.

"This is obviously a matter that obviously should have been dealt with differently, but we are where we are," he said.

Republicans branded Dodd's reversal "astonishing and alarming" and fingered Dodd as the top recipient of campaign cash from AIG employees over the years.

OBAMA FEELS HEAT IN POLLS

OBAMA FEELS HEAT IN POLLS

By DICK MORRIS

Published on March 17, 2009

He may not be paying much attention to the stock market, where $11 trillion of pensions, investments and 401(k)s have been destroyed, but you can be sure that President Obama is paying attention to the polls showing diminishing support for his policies.

Of course, in presidential polling, all numbers are not equally important. Obama got 52 percent of the national vote. So when his approval drops, as it has, from 65 percent on Inauguration Day to 56 percent now (according to Rasmussen), he is playing with house money. Most of those who are coming to negative conclusions about his administration didn't vote for him in the first place.

But there are ominous signs in the data.

So far, Obama's administration has been characterized by two main programs: the stimulus spending and bank bailouts. But the polls indicate problems with each pillar of his package.

The public generally approves of his stimulus proposals. CNN found that voters approved of his economic program in general by 59-40, while Pew Research discovered that they backed his stimulus program specifically by 56-35.

But the problem is that voters don't think the stimulus package will work. CNN's poll, while showing broad approval of his programs, also found that voters did not believe his economic proposals would work, by 22-64. In fact, the CBS survey data indicates that 48 percent feel that the "economy would improve without government intervention," while only 41 percent agreed that intervention was "necessary."

If voters approve of the stimulus program, even while they are pessimistic about its impact and question its necessity, they are downright hostile to the bank bailouts. CBS found that they disapproved of the bailouts by 37-53 and noted that "48 percent are mostly resentful toward Obama's policies toward banks and financial institutions." While Pew found 48-40 approval of the bailouts, it also noted that 87 percent are "bothered by the bank bailout."

So Obama has one program that is popular but won't work and another that is downright unpopular.

And his presidency is dependent on how they work out.

Clinton could sustain his presidency with small-bore initiatives. But Obama can't. Stem cell research is well and good, but it's not the central concern of the nation at the moment.

Some news organizations like to compare how Obama is doing with how other presidents fared. Specifically, at this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush was at 58 percent approval while Clinton stood at 53 percent. By that measurement, Obama's 56 percent would seem in the normal range.

But Clinton won with only 42 percent of the vote in 1992, and Bush got 49 percent. Obama, of course, won 52 percent of the vote. So here's how the vote-to-popularity ratio stacks up:

• Clinton: Vote 42%; Job Approval 53%; Difference +11%

• W. Bush: Vote 49%; Job Approval 58%; Difference + 9%

• Obama: Vote 52%; Job Approval 56%; Difference + 4%

...not very good.

And let's remember that Clinton lost control of Congress in 1994 while Bush's presidency -- heading downward -- was saved by his excellent response to Sept. 11.

But presidential popularity is not going to be the key determinant of Obama's political success or failure. The unemployment rate is going to fill the role of political harbinger. And that front is unlikely to be favorable. Despite the current reports of a false dawn -- based on ratings that, while still dropping, have slowed somewhat in their descent -- we are in for a long, hard haul in trying to turn this economy around. And Obama's vigorous pronouncements that he plans to raise taxes in two years are not going to help induce the economy's most prodigious spenders -- the wealthy -- to step up to the checkout counter.

Obama's fate is deeply linked to the economy. These days, that's like being tied to an anchor.

Obama's Lies -- and YOUR Money

Obama's Lies -- and YOUR Money


Dear Reader,

You know what really irritates me about liberals? (Besides the fact that they're spineless little girls in pretty dresses who can't play rough because it musses up their hair...)

They always think liberalism fixes the problem -- even when it was liberalism that caused the problem in the first place!

Case in point, the Financial Meltdown of 2008 (and counting). To hear liberals tell it, it all goes back to Ronald Reagan -- who with his seductive "B-actor" charm fooled America into thinking that by slashing taxes, regulation, and government spending we could unleash free enterprise and create a new wave of prosperity.

Sure, liberals concede, that seemed to work for, oh, the better part of three decades, but now we're paying the price for all that "greed." The solution? A return to the pre-Reagan policies of Jimmy Carter, LBJ, FDR... Speaking of which, what will victory look like in the "War on Poverty"? When are they going to produce an "exit strategy" from that quagmire?

Unfortunately, the facts -- as always when you're talking about liberal theories -- tell a different story. A story in which all the major villains, it turns out, have one thing in common: government.

That's right. From the "Community Reinvestment Act" that pressured banks into affirmative-action lending, to those "government-sponsored enterprises" Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- who bought up all the resulting subprime loans and repackaged them as "investment grade" securities -- the greasy thumb-prints of government were all over this fiasco from beginning to end.

But those, as I say, are facts. And facts have no place in the fantasy world of Democratic policy-makers. Nor does history -- true history, that is, as opposed to the public-school propaganda that teaches, for instance, that FDR's New Deal got us out of the Great Depression, when in reality it only deepened and prolonged it.

But the question remains: What can those of us in the fast-dwindling, Reality-Based Community do to survive financially as the Obamacrats prepare a "New New Deal" that threatens to outspend the original by about ten thousand to one?

Personally, I don't have a clue. But thank goodness I know of someone who does.

His name is Mark Skousen, Ph.D., editor of the investment newsletter Forecasts & Strategies -- and he just might be the smartest financial advisor working today.

Don't let that "Ph.D." fool you -- this is no pointy-headed leftist like Obama's economic team who seem to think that all the economy needs in order to flourish are more liberals running the economy.

Skousen, after all, launched his career by predicting during the 1980-82 recession -- and to the scornful laughter of nearly all the other so-called experts -- that "Reaganomics will work."

Boy, did he get that right. And boy, has he gotten it right ever since:

Like when he issued a "sell everything" recommendation to his Forecasts & Strategies subscribers just 41 days before the stock market crash of 1987 -- then told them to get fully invested again several weeks later, just in time for the recovery.


And when he called the Gulf War of 1990 "a turning point for U.S. stocks" -- and the Dow subsequently began a bull market that didn't end for nearly 10 years.


And when he told his subscribers in 1995 that the NASDAQ would double, and then double again -- which is exactly what it did.


And when, just weeks before the NASDAQ collapsed in 2000, he warned his subscribers that tech stocks were dangerously overvalued.


And when, in 2006 -- more than two years before the financial meltdown -- he warned subscribers that "we clearly are headed for fiscal disaster," and showed them how to protect themselves.
What's Skousen's secret? I think it begins with understanding the real laws of economics -- not the warmed-over Marxism that passes for "new thinking" to Obama's media groupies.

And here's the best thing about Mark Skousen. He knows how to make you money no matter how bad things get in the financial markets and the economy overall.

After all, he points out, the late billionaire John Templeton -- whom Money magazine called "the greatest stock-picker of the 20th century" -- began to build his vast fortune in the depths of the Great Depression.

Maybe you're not looking to be a billionaire. Maybe you're just looking to keep your head above water while the Obamacrats do their best to sink the economy. Either way, Mark Skousen can help -- and I urge you to give his Forecasts & Strategies a try.

The cost? Less than the tip on a John Edwards haircut -- in today's dollars, that is. After Obama gets done driving down the value of the dollar it wouldn't be enough to buy Governor Rod Blogojevich a haircut.

Click here to learn more.

Sincerely,

Ann Coulter

P.S. My friend Dr. Mark Skousen has just identified 6 "Obama-Proof" investments to help you survive -- and thrive -- during the presidency of "The One We Have Been Waiting For." It's all part of a FREE Investor's Dossier Dr. Skousen has prepared called "Obamanomics and Your Money."

AIG paid $1M-plus bonuses to 73 workers

Cuomo says AIG paid $1M-plus bonuses to 73 workers

ALBANY, N.Y. – Troubled insurance giant American International Group paid bonuses of $1 million or more to 73 employees, including 11 who no longer work for the company, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo said Tuesday.

Cuomo subpoenaed information from AIG on Monday to determine whether the payments made over the past weekend constitute fraud under state law. Contracts written last March guaranteed employees 100 percent of their 2007 bonus amounts for 2008, "despite obvious signs that 2008 performance would be disastrous in comparison to the year before," Cuomo said.

President Barack Obama and Washington lawmakers have blasted AIG for paying more than $160 million in bonuses to employees of its Financial Products division, the unit primarily responsible for the meltdown that led to a federal bailout of the company, while the company has received billions in taxpayer bailout funds.

Cuomo said AIG mailed the retention bonus checks Friday.

In a letter Tuesday to Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services, Cuomo outlined the bonus and contract information and asked the panel to take up the issue at a hearing scheduled for Wednesday.

By MICHAEL VIRTANEN, Associated Press Writer Michael Virtanen

Ninth Circuit Upholds Arizona Illegal Alien Hiring Law

Ninth Circuit Upholds Arizona Illegal Alien Hiring Law


On Monday, March 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected a request to revisit a September 2008 decision by a three-judge panel that upheld an Arizona employer sanctions law that penalizes employers for hiring illegal workers. Opponents - including business interests that support illegal immigration like the Arizona Contractors Association, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce & Industry and the pro-illegal immigration advocacy group Chicanos Por La Causa - claimed that the Legal Arizona Workers Act violated the U.S. Constitution and federal law. These interest groups claimed that the three-judge panel had wrongly rejected their claims. In refusing to rehear the case, the Ninth Circuit effectively affirmed the panel's earlier decision, which concluded that the Arizona law did not interfere with the federal government's authority to enforce immigration laws and that it did not violate employers' rights.

(Phoenix Business Journal, March 10, 2009 and Maricopa County Attorney's Office.)

THE COMING "DEPRESSFLATION"...AND YOUR MONEY

THE COMING "DEPRESSFLATION"...AND YOUR MONEY



You may recall that, in one of my recent columns, I coined the term "depressflation" to describe the inevitable result of the Democrats' plans to "rescue" the economy.

A "depressflation," I explained, would be like the "stagflation" of the 1970s, only worse: massive inflation, even hyper-inflation, together with Depression-like economic stagnation.

Why is this inevitable? Because with a bi-partisan consensus that deficits are vital in fighting the crisis (or easing the pain) there is no constraint on Obama and his party. The sky is the limit on spending, to the tune of a trillion-plus dollars over the next two years alone.

And there are only two ways to pay for it: (1) printing more money, which causes inflation, and (2) hiking taxes, which kills investment, businesses and jobs.

Then the question will be: When will we realize that government intervention is magnifying, not solving the problems that caused the crisis? When will the patience of the public with Obama's remedies run out?

My guess is that it won't be until 2012 -- or after.

In the meantime, however, there are ways to protect yourself and your family from the coming "depressflation."

It's crucial to understand: Hard times for America does not necessarily mean hard times for you. As a very wise investment expert of my acquaintance, Nicholas Vardy, likes to say, "No matter what the state of financial markets, there is always a strategy out there that can make you money."

Full disclosure: I receive a percentage of each subscription sold, but even if I didn't, I'd want you to know about this amazing service. Nicholas' advice is rock solid. If you check into it, you'll thank me later.

The key, Vardy explains, is to recognize opportunities wherever they may be and, more importantly, detach yourself from old investment themes that no longer work.

Vardy himself, an American based in London, is a master at crafting such cutting-edge investment strategies -- which he then passes on to subscribers to his Global Stock Investor investment newsletter.

So, for instance, back in mid-2007 Vardy was months ahead of the curve in spotting the coming boom in "soft" (agricultural) commodities -- recommending stocks like Canadian fertilizer giant Potash, which shot up quickly in price before coming back down to earth, by which time his subscribers had safely banked profits of 82% in just over three months time.

And that's nothing compared to the magic Vardy performed for his subscribers during these past few months, now on record as some of the worst in Wall Street history.

Consider this: Since October 2008, which wiped out close to $7 trillion in shareholder wealth, Vardy's Global Stock Investor portfolio's open positions are up as much as 18%.

Compared to the 16% decline in the Dow during the same time, that's incredible.

How does Nicholas Vardy do it? If I knew, I'd be in his business, not mine. But I'm sure those countless hours he spends sharing investment ideas with Europe's top money managers has something to do with it -- not to mention his graduate degrees from Stanford and Harvard.

Don't get me wrong: Nicholas Vardy is no elitist snob. Though he makes his "real" money managing money for a few wealthy clients, he also likes to "spread the wealth" -- not through higher taxes (sorry, Obama), but by helping people like you and me make profitable investments.

Let's face it, the next few years will be tough ones for America. But, to repeat, they don't have to be tough ones for you -- if you find and follow sound investment advice like the brilliant investment strategies in Nicholas Vardy's Global Stock Investor. I urge you to give it a try.

Click here to learn more.

http://www.globalstockinvestor.com/visitor.php?offer=358

Sincerely,

Dick Morris

P.S. Right now, for a limited time, you can get a full year of Nicholas Vardy's Global Stock Investor for about the cost of a mid-priced dinner for two. Of course, with all the great investment tips you'll be getting, you'll be able to afford lots of dinners -- high-priced ones at that. Click here to learn more.

http://www.globalstockinvestor.com/visitor.php?offer=358

Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns!

Morris :does Obamaknow what he is doing?

BOGGLED BAM - CAN PRESIDENT GET JOB DONE?

By DICK MORRIS / EILEEN MCGANN


The furor over the huge federal spending under President Obama - a $1.75 trillion deficit, 13 percent - obscures an even more basic question: Does he know what he is doing?

That is, does he know how to do anything other than spend?

His stimulus package, of course, took no special ability: He left the details to Democrats in Congress. But his two other major initiatives - his banking - and mortgage-relief plans - are both flawed and unlikely to solve their respective problems.

Indeed, they're so wide of the mark as to prompt questions not of Obama's ideology but of his basic competence.

The bank-bailout plan seems to be largely stillborn. Having wished that the private sector would flock to invest in toxic assets if offered the right incentives, the Treasury secretary is still hoping. Crossing his fingers seems to have replaced effective policy in his planning.

To date, no massive infusion of private-sector capital seems in view and Washington is doing little more than writing checks to prop up the failing banks. That doesn't take a genius. But the difficult task of relieving the banks of toxic assets so they can rekindle the flow of loans seems to be beyond the ability of the president and his administration.

Perhaps Obama privately isn't so concerned about the banks or the businesses that need the credit markets restored. Those are Republican interest groups, right? But he surely must want his mortgage-rescue plan to work - the homeowners facing foreclosure tend to be Democratic constituents.

But this plan, too, falls far short of the mark.

Incredibly, it excludes anyone who has lost their job and can't afford to make their payments even if they were to spend 31 percent of their income trying to do so. If you can't come close to affording your mortgage, even if only because of a (hopefully temporary) loss of employment, forget about it: Obama is not going to help you.

Nor will he help you if your mortgage exceeds your home's value. One out of five mortgages now falls into this category - and the continued fall in property values will put more and more homeowners in it. But they can expect no help from Obama's rescue plan.

Why would a liberal be so callous? Why would he leave so many out in the cold? Could it be that the administration simply can't figure out how to help these folks? That the president couldn't devise a counter to his financial advisers, who presumably wanted to exclude these folks?

It was Clinton-era Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros who urged Fannie Mae to spend 42 percent of its money buying mortgages for lower-income people and who suggested that they no longer require down payments. And it was his successor, Andrew Cuomo, who upped the ante to 50 percent of the Fannie Mae portfolio.

After Democrats inveigled people to buy homes they could not afford, how can they justify passing a plan that excludes them from assistance?

It appears that Obama is at sea when it comes to financial policy, economic-recovery planning and credit-rescue efforts. We're stuck not only with a socialist but seemingly an incompetent one.

Go to DickMorris.com to read all of Dick's columns.
Published in the New York Post on March 16, 2009

E-Verify hits 100,000 employers, is your employer using it ? jobs for Americans

E-Verify hits 100,000 employers, is your employer using it ? jobs for Americans

NJ temprary Senator Mendez working against this E verify program, please email him at www.senate.gov with your opinion



E-Verify hits 100,000
The number of employers signed up to use E-Verify hits 100,000 employers. Bill Tucker reports.

see a quick video at
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2009/01/08/ldt.tucker.e.verify.employment.cnn?iref=videosearch

Your job: Push for Tougher Enforcement Legislation

Texas, Utah Continue Push for Tougher Enforcement Legislation

On Thursday, February 26, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott issued a legal opinion that concluded that a proposed state law that would suspend the business license of any employer that hires illegal aliens would be constitutional under federal law. The AG found that the legislation proposed in Texas - which closely mirrors an Arizona law - does not conflict with the federal government's constitutional role in immigration matters.

(Office of the Attorney General of Texas, February 26, 2009; The Dallas Morning News, February 27, 2009). The legislation is currently pending in the Texas state legislature and, if passed, would provide the state with additional enforcement measures to ensure employers are not hiring illegal aliens, but instead hire only workers who are authorized to work in the United States.

Meanwhile, on Monday, March 2, Utah lawmakers rejected a last-minute attempt by supporters of illegal immigration to delay implementation of legislation which strengthened in-state enforcement measures and barred illegal immigrants from receiving state benefits. Senate Bill 81, which is set to go into effect on July 1, 2009, includes provisions that: (1) require that public employers and state contractors use a "Status Verification System" to confirm that newly hired employees are eligible to work in the United States; (2) make it illegal for an employer to discharge U.S. citizen workers and replace them with illegal workers; (3) mandate applicants for public benefits demonstrate legal presence in the United States; and (4) empower local law enforcement to inquire about the citizenship and immigration status of arrestees.

Everify and the Job Creation Bill

$800 Billion Economic Stimulus and Job Creation Bill Includes

No Protections for U.S. Workers



The whirlwind legislative process that played out in the month between President Obama’s inaugural and Presidents Day resulted in the most massive government spending in history. The intent of the legislation is to jump start the sputtering economy with an infusion of borrowed cash, and to create or preserve some 4 million jobs. At the end of January, an estimated 25 million workers in the U.S. were either unemployed, involuntarily working part-time, or had given up hope of finding jobs.

While American taxpayers and future generations of Americans are being asked to take a nearly trillion dollar gamble that the stimulus bill will work as advertised, the legislation included no safeguards to ensure that the jobs created will actually be filled by legal U.S. workers. The failure to provide protections that jobs created under this program are not filled by illegal aliens was not an oversight. It was a conscious and deliberate decision of the congressional leadership and the Obama administration.

In putting together the largest government spending (and borrowing) package in the history of mankind, the House acted first. The bill approved by that body in late January included provisions that would have provided reasonable assurances that legal U.S. workers would get to fill the jobs created with taxpayer dollars. By unanimous consent, the House approved two key amendments:

A four-year reauthorization of the E-Verify program. Offered by Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), this amendment would have ensured that the highly accurate program that allows employers to verify a worker’s Social Security number could continue to operate.
A requirement that employers who receive stimulus money use the E-Verify system. This amendment, authored by Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), would have ensured that legal U.S. workers, not illegal aliens, would be able to fill newly created jobs.

In early February, the Senate got to work on their version of the stimulus bill. Amendments identical to the Calvert and Kingston provisions of the House bill were written by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) to be added to the Senate legislation. However, these amendments were not part of the bill that the Senate passed on February 11—not because they were rejected by a vote of the full body, but because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) refused to allow them to be offered.

U.S. WORKERS DELIBERATELY SOLD OUT

The two versions of the economic stimulus package then went to a conference committee, where the many differences between them were ironed out by a handful of members of the respective bodies. For the vital worker protections provided by the Calvert and Kingston amendments to become part of the legislation signed by President Obama, all the Senate negotiators needed to do was accept the House language.

Exactly what transpired in these closed door sessions is unknown. However, congressional sources close to FAIR’s government relations staff report that the Calvert and Kingston amendments were stripped from the bill by order of the two congressional leaders, Sen. Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Reports indicate that the removal of these protections for U.S. workers occurred without debate or explanation.

any regrets giving Obama access to the your federal Mastercard / Visa card ?

any regrets giving Obama access to the your federal Mastercard / Visa card ?



www.mccainalert.blogspot.com

does Obama have the balls to veto the porky Omnibus Spending Bill?

does Obama have the balls to veto the porky Omnibus Spending Bill?

that was a major promise he made during his campaign,
will he disappoint the people who voted for him.

where does Obama put his personal millions ?

where does Obama put his personal millions ?

he has made a lot of money from his 2 autobiographies,
which I never bought, is here buying GM . Ford AIG Citcorp stocks ?

First Amendment Under Fire

Senator Jim DeMint (R) South Carolina
First Amendment Under Fire

Senator. DeMint, chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, said he will offer the Broadcaster Freedom Act as an amendment to the D.C. Voting Rights bill. The Broadcaster Freedom Act prevents the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. Senator DeMint will join Lou tonight.

see more at CNN Lou Dobbs site

what's this cap-and-trade policy bullshit ?

what's this cap-and-trade policy bullshit ?

sounds like Obama new taxes for all businesses, who will merely pass this cost onto the consumer.

looks like tax, walks like a tax, sounds like a tax for everyone to bear.

California Supreme Court to Hear In-State Tuition Challenge

California Supreme Court to Hear In-State Tuition Challenge

Last fall, a California Appeals Court issued a resounding ruling declaring the state’s policy of granting in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens attending state-run colleges and universities to be unconstitutional. In early January, the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the case and resolve the matter.

The challenge to the California policy was initiated in 2005 by FAIR and the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) on behalf of 80,000 U.S. citizen students who were denied the same tuition benefits the state afforded to illegal aliens. The suit, Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, contends that the California law explicitly violates a 1996 federal law which requires states that make in-state benefits available to illegal aliens to make the same benefit available to all U.S. citizens, whether residents of that state or any other state.

The Appeals Court ruling is the first to address the merits of policies that grant in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens. The 84-page ruling declared emphatically that the California policy violates both the equal protection clause and privileges and immunity clause of the U.S. Constitution. Though the ruling in a state court is enforceable only in California, it sets an important legal precedent that will inevitably open the door to challenges of other state policies that grant in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens.
IRLI will continue to play a crucial role in the legal effort to clear the final hurdle of the California Supreme Court and ensure that this important judicial victory for the interests of American citizens is upheld.

Foe of Immigration Enforcement Named as Secretary of Labor

Foe of Immigration Enforcement Named as Secretary of Labor

For American workers, 2008 was a disastrous year. The U.S. economy lost nearly 2 million jobs during the last four months alone, and most economists see things getting worse before they get better.
Unfortunately, President Obama’s choice to head the Department of Labor gives millions of unemployed and underemployed American workers little hope of gaining access to the 8 million jobs estimated to be held by illegal aliens or raising wages depressed by cheap foreign labor. In appointing Rep. Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) as Secretary of Labor, the president chose an implacable foe of immigration enforcement generally, and specifically enforcement in the workplace. Coupled with the selection of Janet Napolitano as Secretary of Homeland Security, there is little reason to expect either department to vigorously enforce laws against businesses that employ illegal aliens.

During her time in Congress, Solis supported or co-sponsored just about every effort to grant amnesty to illegal aliens and expand the number of foreign guest workers in the U.S. While a member of the California Legislature, Solis fought to provide taxpayer supported benefits and services to illegal aliens and to allow them to obtain driver’s licenses.
In Congress, Rep. Solis has co-sponsored or supported numerous bills that would have harmed American workers, including:
The AgJOBs amnesty, which would have granted green cards to virtually every illegal alien employed in some agriculture-related industry.
The 2007 STRIVE Act, which would have granted amnesty to most illegal aliens in the U.S. In addition, the bill would have allowed an additional 400,000 to 600,000 foreign guest workers to enter the U.S. labor force each year.
The DREAM Act, which would have granted green cards to illegal aliens who entered the country before age 16, and would have granted them subsidized college tuition benefits.
The Department of Labor can play a significant role in preventing the employment of illegal aliens. It is the department’s responsibility to promote “the welfare of the job seekers, wage earners, and retirees of the United States by improving their working conditions, advancing their opportunities for profitable employment…[and] helping employers find workers.”
While President Obama has embarked on an ambitious jobs creation program to deal with the unemployment crisis, millions of existing jobs could be made available to American workers by enforcing laws against employing illegal aliens. Given Secretary Solis’s long history of siding with illegal aliens, if she is confirmed by the Senate in that position, it will require strong direction from the White House to ensure that the Labor Department fulfills its stated mission.

FAIR will be reaching out to Congress and the new administration to stress the added importance, in this time of economic crisis, of vigorous enforcement against employers who rob American workers of job opportunities and seek to suppress wages. The first test of the Obama administration’s and the Congress’s commitment to protecting American jobs is likely to come in early March when the E-Verify program will need to be reauthorized. (See FAIR op-ed, page 7.)

Obama does another flip /flop on earmarks?

Obama does another flip /flop , this time on earmarks?

latest federal budget bill currently being debated includes
over 8,600 earmarks.

what the piss?

hire Americans /buy American

What is the Coalition for the Future American Worker?
The Coalition for the Future American Worker (CFAW) is an umbrella organization of professional trade groups, population/environment organizations,and immigration reform groups. CFAW was formed to represent the interests of American workers and students in the formulation of immigration policy.

CFAW believes that American workers are the best, most creative,
most productive and highly motivated in the world. Americans,
in large numbers, have responded to the challenges set forth
by the new global and technological economy.
In the space of one generation, American workers have made the transition from the industrial economy of yesterday to create the most advanced and productive economy in the world.

American workers can meet any future challenges.
CFAW believes that in the fast-paced economy of the future,
American companies must commit to providing American workers
and students with the training and opportunities they will
need to continue to contribute to America's prosperity.



http://www.americanworker.org/

buy American hire Americans sounds good to me

buy American, hire Americans sounds good to me.


just another reason we need E-verify to ensure any stimulus tax dollars are routed to Americans.