Dee perez-Scott: Here's the Top 10 Ways Democrats Are Like Nazis:

1. Economic Fascism – Like the National Socialists, Democrats want to maintain the façade of private ownership while putting control in the hands of the state. Whether a business prospered or failed in the Third Reich depended on political pull – how close industrialists were to the Nazi leadership. Similarly, the Obama administration has come more and more to resemble the “crony capitalism” it denounced in 2008. Companies whose executives made lavish contributions to the Obama campaign ended up with contracts worth hundreds of millions for products that couldn’t possibly be manufactured with private financing. Solyndra is the most glaring example. The private/government partnership typical of fascism is taken a step further. In January 2011, Obama appointed General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt head of his jobs council. Need you ask which candidate GE’s executives will invest in next year to keep their jobs?

2. Cult of personality – Hitler, Stalin and Mao were its most prominent practitioners. Obama is no slouch. It started at the 2008 Democratic nominating convention in Denver. Mere mortals accept their party’s nomination at the convention site. Not Barack Obama, whose campaign packed 80,000 delirious followers into the Denver Bronco’s stadium to hear Glorious Leader-in-waiting deliver his coronation speech amidst fake Greek pillars. (It was all reminiscent of the elaborately-staged events in Nuremberg, where the masses worshipped another man-God). At Obama’s $150-million inauguration, celebrity cretins like Ashton Kutcher, Demi Moore and Cameron Diaz, pledged to their leader to “be the change” (his change). In a recent “60 Minutes” interview, the man whose hubris is in perpetual overdrive obliquely declared himself the 4th best president in American history. Why only 4th? Can the divine image on stamps, coins and statues be far off?

3. Penchant for thuggery – The Nazis used their S.A. street fighters to intimidate opponents. In 1972, during the McGovern campaign, the national Democratic Party was taken over by the New Left, whose hallmark was violent confrontations with the police during the ‘60s anti-war movement. (Obama has never disavowed ex-Weatherman Bill Ayers, who still boasts of blowing things up in the 1960s.) In answer to Tea Party activism and Republican victories in 2010, Democrats have become increasingly unhinged. In February, Massachusetts Congressman Mike Capuano told a gang of labor goons in Boston, “Every once and awhile, you need to get out in the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.” (The goons proceeded to rough-up counter-protestors.) On Labor Day, Obama appeared at a rally with AFL-CIO Capo Richard Trumka, who had earlier told Illinois UMW members to get out and “kick the sh-t out of every last” worker who crossed picket lines. Lately, we had the Occupy Wall Street Movement (the Obama Jugend) battling cops who came to evict the squatters. Totalitarians of all stripes believe adherence to their vision justifies violence.

4. They’ve come for your guns –The National Socialists inherited a firearms registration law from the Weimar Republic and preceded to make it progressively harsher. In 1938, gun ownership was limited to Nazi party members. Earlier, the Weimar registration lists were used to confiscate guns from “undesirables.” The German socialists feared guns in the hands of their opponents. Starting with the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968, every major piece of anti-Second Amendment legislation has been passed by Democrats. Fast and Furious, through which the ATF ran guns to Mexican drug cartels, was intended to discredit firearms dealers. Democrats call their gun-grabbing mania crime-prevention. Can they really be that stupid? The states with the least restrictive gun laws have the lowest crime rates. In a recent speech to the NRA, Newt Gingrich unmasked Obama’s stealth strategy – rather than push anti-gun legislation, he appoints anti-gun judges and signs anti-firearms treaties. The result is the same.

5. Undermine traditional religion while seeking to exploit it – But didn’t Hitler say he was a Christian. So does Obama. The religion mongered in the temple of Jeremiah Wright (anti-America, anti-Israel) bears the same relationship to normative Christianity that Obama-nomics does to the free market. Hitler idolized philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche and composer Richard Wagner – both militant atheists. In public, Hitler would try to use Christianity. Privately, he was contemptuous of the faith as a conspiracy of the Jews to foist their morality on happy pagans. In 1942, his deputy, Martin Bormann, flatly stated, “National Socialist and Christian concepts are incompatible.” The Democrats never miss a chance to undermine traditional religion, especially by placing Church-State fetishists on the bench. Until it was exposed by a Republican Congressman and hastily rescinded, Obama’s New PC Army tried to ban gifts of Bibles to wounded warriors at Walter Reed Army Hospital. The National Christmas Tree on the Capitol grounds has a number of ornaments with references to Obama, but nothing about Christmas or the Nativity or a crèche at the base. The Capitol police threatened to arrest Rev. Patrick Mahoney if he carried out plans to read the Christmas story or sing carols at the lighting ceremony. Totalitarians don’t like competition for the people’s loyalty. One god at a time, please.

6. Anti-progress – The Democratic Party is the Sierra Club in office. It opposes coal-mining, domestic oil production and nuclear power. If they could, Democrats would happily ban the internal-combustion engine. In 1935, the Third Reich passed a precursor of today’s environmental legislation (the Reich Nature Protection Law), which required “environmental effect reports” (environmental impact statements?) for any construction that might alter the landscape. Nazi biologist Ernst Lehmann explained: “We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and the death of nations. Only through the re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger.” Sound familiar? Had it been published in Berlin in 1935, “Earth In Balance” would have become an instant classic.

7. Intellectual apologists – The left has dominated our college campuses since the 1960s. As early as 1931, the Nazis enjoyed far more support in German universities than with the general public – among both professors and students (the later through the National Socialist German Students). Philosophers, poets and scientists lined up to pledge allegiance to the Thousand Year Reich. Hitler railed at intellectuals. The Hitler Youth barbecued books. But if there’s one thing intellectuals like even more than their pet theories it’s the power to force them on the public, which is why every totalitarian regime has its intellectual running dogs. In 2012, watch for prominent economists (like Nobel laureate Paul Krugman), writers and scientists (especially the global warming crowd) to line up behind the man who celebrates himself as the smartest president since Thomas Jefferson.

8. Anti-Jewish – Hitler’s anti-Semitism is too well known to require elaboration. Less well known is that, like the liberal left, he was appreciative of Islam and viewed Muslims as allies. Haj Amin al-Husseini – Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and uncle to Yasser Arafat – spent World War II in Berlin and recruited a Muslim SS division in the Balkans. The degeneration of the Democratic Party from Harry S. Truman, who made the Jewish state possible, to Barack Hussein Obama (who would make the Jewish state impossible to maintain) is unprecedented. Obama’s open contempt for Israel caused a heavily Jewish congressional district in New York to elect a Republican for the first time in 70 years in 2011. The Democratic think tank Center for American Progress compares Israel’s fight for survival to segregation in the pre-Civil Rights era. Obama’s ambassador to Belgium is reported to have remarked that a “distinction should be made between traditional anti-Semitism, which should be condemned and Muslim hatred for Jews (which should be tolerated?), which stems from the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians” – thus excusing the ongoing Kristallnacht in Europe, courtesy of the religion of peace. Should this be surprising from the president who sat in a pew of the Trinity United Church for 19 years and listened to Wright rant about “state terrorism against the Palestinians”? Obama’s “The Audacity of Hope” was inspired by one of the Wright Reverend’s sermons. In turn, Jeremiah gave an award to Louis, who called Judaism a “gutter religion.”

9. Practice the big lie – The Nazis were infamous for their propaganda techniques – which were actually pioneered by the Bolsheviks. Goebbels advised: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe.” Although the competition is fierce, probably the Democrats’ most outrageous lie is that they are for the middle class and all of the problems of Main Street can be laid at the door of Republicans and Wall Street. Democratic solicitude for Middle America is manifested by: giving us chronic 9% unemployment, an anti-progress tax system, crippling domestic energy production (leading to pain at the pump, among other effects), growing the national debt to shrink the economy (Obama increased the debt almost 30% in less than 3 years), leaving our borders unguarded so that blue-collar workers have to compete with hordes of illegal aliens, and a government-created crisis in the mortgage-housing market, putting homeownership out of reach for young families for decades. Democrats’ declaration of solidarity with the middle class is as sincere as Hitler’s assurances throughout the 1930s that he wanted peace – up until the moment he invaded Poland. While assuring us they have our interests at heart, Democrats invade our bank accounts and pension plans.

10. Come to power democratically, retain power dictatorially – Hitler came to power through the democratic process, then proceeded to eliminate his opponents, by banning competing parties, dissolving trade unions and, eventually, sending the leadership of both to concentration camps. Like the Nazis, Democrats believe their opponents are evil. They’ve done their best to demonize the Tea Parties and talk radio. Periodically, they threaten to revive the Fairness Doctrine and apply it rigorously to the only media they don’t control. Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe says that in 2007, he overheard a conversation between Hillary Clinton and Barbara Boxer in which they agreed that something had to be done about talk radio and “there’s got to be a legislative fix for this.” Democrats also seek to stifle dissent through hate-crimes laws and campaign spending limits. Would they go so far as to imprison opponents of the regime? The president has done a complete about-face on indefinite detention of suspected terrorists, which he swears would never, ever be used against U.S. citizens. In 2009, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said future terrorists would likely come from the ranks of Second Amendment activists, anti-tax protestors, proponents of border security and disgruntled Iraq war veterans. Connect the dots.


Comparisons are alwaysimperfect and at some point break down. Hitler had a Charlie Chaplin moustache .Obama does not.

Dee Perez-Scott: Obama's Girl Friends

This is worth "thinking about", but I don't believe one has to think too hard to come to the "right" conclusion - it's almost unbelievable (scary, would be more appropriate) that this could happen!!

WHERE ARE THE GIRLFRIENDS of OBAMA?
I hadn't thought about this - but where are O's past girlfriends - surely he had at least one? No past girl friends popping up anywhere? Strange - strange to the point of being downright weird!
OK, this is just plain old common sense, no political agendas for either side. Just common knowledge for citizens of a country, especially American citizens, who know every little tidbit about every other president (and their wives) that even know that Andrew Jackson's wife smoked a corn cob pipe and was accused of adultery, or that Lincoln never went to school or Kennedy wore a back brace or Truman played the piano.
We are Americans! Our Media vets these things out! We are known for our humanitarian interests and caring for our 'fellow man.' We care, but none of us know one single humanizing fact about the history of our own president.
Honestly, and this is a personal thing ... but it's bugged me for years that no one who ever dated him ever showed up. Taken his charisma, which caused the women to be drawn to him so obviously during his campaign, looks like some lady would not have missed the opportunity....
We all know about JFK's magnetism, McCain was no monk, Palin's courtship and even her athletic prowess were probed. Biden's aneurysms are no secret. Look at Cheney and Clinton-we all know about their heart problems. How could I have left out Wild Bill before or during the White House?
Nope... not one lady has stepped up and said, "He was soooo shy," or "What a great dancer!"
Now look at the rest of what we know... no classmates, not even the recorder for the Columbia class notes ever heard of him.
Who was the best man at his wedding? Start there. Check for groomsmen. Then get the footage of the graduation ceremony.
Has anyone talked to the professors? Isn't it odd that no one is bragging that they knew him or taught him or lived with him.
When did he meet Michele and how? Are there photos? Every president provides the public with all their photos, etc. for their library. What has he released? Nada - other than what was in this so-called biography! And experts who study writing styles, etc. claim it was not O's own words or typical of his speech pat terns, etc.
Does this make any of you wonder?
Ever wonder why no one ever came forward from Obama's past, saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc. ?
Not one person has ever come forward from his past.
This should really be a cause for great concern. Did you see the movie titled, The Manchurian Candidate?
Let's face it. As insignificant as we all are... someone whom we went to school with remembers our name or face...someone remembers we were the clown or the dork or the brain or the quiet one or the bully or something about us.
George Stephanopoulos, notable democrat, ABC News said the same thing during the 2008 campaign. Even George questions why no one has acknowledged that the president was in their classroom or ate in the same cafeteria or made impromptu speeches on campus. Stephanopoulos was a classmate of Obama at Columbia-class of 1984. He says he never had a single class with him.
Since he is such a great orator, why doesn't anyone in Obama's college class remember him? And, why won't he allow Columbia to release his records? Do you like millions of others, simply assume all this is explainable - even though no one can?

NOBODY REMEMBERS OBAMA AT COLUMBIA
Looking for evidence of Obama's past, Fox News contacted 400 Columbia University students from the period when Obama claims to have been there, but not one remembers him. For example,Wayne Allyn Root was (like Obama) a political science major at Columbia , who graduated in 1983. In 2008, Root says of Obama, "I don't know a single person at Columbia that knew him, and they all know me. I don't have a single classmate who ever knew Barack Obama at Columbia ... EVER!
Nobody recalls him.
Root adds that he was, "Class of '83 political science, pre-law" and says, "You don't get more exact or closer than that. Never met him in my life, don't know anyone who ever met him."
At our 20th class reunion five years ago, who was asked to be the speaker of the class? Me. No one ever heard of Barack! And five years ago, nobody even knew who he was. The guy who writes the class notes, who's kind of the, as we say in New York, 'the macha' who knows everybody, has yet to find a person, a human who ever met him."
Obama's photograph does not appear in the school's yearbook, and Obama consistently declines requests to talk about his years at Columbia , provide school records, or provide the name of any former classmates or friends while at Columbia .
How can this be?
NOTE: Wayne Allyn Root can easily be verified. He graduated valedictorian from his high school, Thornton-Donovan School , then graduated from Columbia University in 1983 as a Political Science major in the same '83 class in which Barack Hussein Obama states he was.
Some other interesting questions.
Why was Obama's law license inactivated in 2002?
Why was Michelle's law license inactivated by court order?
According to the U.S. Census, there is only one Barack Obama - but 27 Social Security numbers and over 80 aliases.
WHAT!?
The Social Security number he uses now originated in Connecticut where he is never reported to have lived.
No wonder all his records are sealed!
Please continue sending this out to everyone. Somewhere, someone had to know him in school...before he "reorganized" Chicago and burst upon the scene at the 2004 Democratic Convention and made us swoon with his charm, poise, and speaking pizzazz.
One of the biggest CONS this country has ever seen, and they are getting away with it.
Obama is the most secret and devious president in history. There must be many significant things in his past that, if revealed, would quickly show those who voted for him the error of their ways. His failure to disclose his original birth certificate, his visa and financial aid application record, and all of the above indicate he is not the persona he displays to the public. He is playing the game of non-disclosure, opaqueness, and obfuscation with great adeptness. That should earn him a quick exit from the White House when his term expires if not before.

Dee Perez-Scott's Thanksgiving 2022:

"Josh, come into the dining room, it's time to eat," Dee yelled to her husband. "In a minute, honey, it's a tie score," he answered. Actually Josh wasn't very interested in the traditional holiday football game between Detroit and Washington.

Ever since the government passed the Civility in Sports Statute of 2017, outlawing tackle football for its "unseemly violence" and the "bad example it sets for the rest of the world," Josh was far less of a football fan than he used to be. Two-hand touch wasn't nearly as exciting.

Yet it wasn't the game that Josh was uninterested in. It was more the thought of eating another TofuTurkey. Even though it was the best type of VeggieMeat available after the government revised the American Anti-Obesity Act of 2018, adding fowl to the list of federally-forbidden foods, (which already included potatoes, cranberry sauce and mince-meat pie), it wasn't anything like real turkey. And ever since the government officially changed the name of "Thanksgiving Day" to "A National Day of Atonement" in 2020 to officially acknowledge the Pilgrims' historically brutal treatment of Native Americans, the holiday had lost a lot of its luster.

Eating in the dining room was also a bit daunting. The unearthly gleam of government-mandated fluorescent light bulbs made the TofuTurkey look even weirder than it actually was, and the room was always cold. Ever since Congress passed the Power Conservation Act of 2016, mandating all thermostats-which were monitored and controlled by the electric company-be kept at 68 degrees, every room on the north side of the house was barely tolerable throughout the entire winter.

Still, it was good getting together with family. Or at least most of the family. Dee missed her mother, who passed on in October, when she had used up her legal allotment of live-saving medical treatment. Dee had had many heated conversations with the Regional Health Consortium, spawned when the private insurance market finally went bankrupt, and everyone was forced into the government health care program. And though she demanded her mother be kept on her treatment, it was a futile effort. "The RHC's resources are limited," explained the government bureaucrat Dee spoke with on the phone. "Your mother received all the benefits to which she was entitled. I'm sorry for your loss."

Dee's brothers couldn't make it either. They had forgotten to plug in their electric car last night, the only kind available after the Anti-Fossil Fuel Bill of 2021 outlawed the use of the combustion engines-for everyone but government officials. The fifty mile round trip was about ten miles too far, and neither brother wanted to spend a frosty night on the road somewhere between here and there.


Thankfully, Josh's brother, John, and his wife were flying in. Josh made sure that the dining room chairs had extra cushions for the occasion. No one complained more than John about the pain of sitting down so soon after the government-mandated cavity searches at airports, which severely aggravated his hemorrhoids. Ever since a terrorist successfully smuggled a cavity bomb onto a jetliner, the TSA told Americans the added "inconvenience" was an "absolute necessity" in order to stay "one step ahead of the terrorists." Dee's own body had grown accustomed to such probing ever since the government expanded their scope to just about anywhere a crowd gathered, via Anti-Profiling Act of 2022. That law made it a crime to single out any group or individual for "unequal scrutiny," even when probable cause was involved. Thus, cavity searches at malls, train stations, bus depots, etc., etc., had become almost routine. Almost.

The Supreme Court is reviewing the statute, but most Americans expect a Court composed of six progressives and three conservatives to leave the law intact. "A living Constitution is extremely flexible," said the Court's eldest member, Elena Kagan. " Europe has had laws like this one for years. We should learn from their example," she added.


Josh's thoughts turned to his own children. He got along fairly well with his 12-year-old daughter, Brittany, mostly because she ignored him. Josh had long ago surrendered to the idea that she could text anyone at any time, even during Atonement Dinner. Their only real confrontation had occurred when he limited her to 50,000 texts a month, explaining that was all he could afford. She whined for a week, but got over it.

His 16-year-old son, Jason, was another matter altogether. Perhaps it was the constant bombarding he got in public school that global warming, the bird flu, terrorism or any of a number of other calamities were "just around the corner," but Jason had developed a kind of nihilistic attitude that ranged between simmering surliness and outright hostility. It didn't help that Jason had reported his father to the police for smoking a cigarette in the house, an act made criminal by the Smoking Control Statute of 2018, which outlawed smoking anywhere within 500 feet of another human being. Winston paid the $5,000 fine, which might have been considered excessive before the American dollar became virtually worthless as a result of QE13. The latest round of quantitative easing the federal government initiated was, once again, to "spur economic growth." This time they promised to push unemployment below its years-long rate of 18%, but Josh was not particularly hopeful.


yet the family had a lot for which to be thankful, Josh thought, before remembering it was a Day of Atonement. At least he had his memories. He felt a twinge of sadness when he realized his children would never know what life was like in the Good Old Days, long before government promises to make life "fair for everyone" realized their full potential. Joshn, like so many of his fellow Americans, never realized how much things could change when they didn't happen all at once, but little by little, so people could get used to them. His wife, Dee, often criticized the idea that any city or village could be like Mayberry from the TV show. Josh had dodged any confrontation on that issue but he knew that the place where he was raised had much in common with Mayberry.

He wondered what might have happened if the public had stood up while there was still time, maybe back around 2010, when all the real nonsense began. "Maybe we wouldn't be where we are today if we'd just said 'enough is enough' when we had the chance," he thought. I never should have listened to my wife regarding illegal aliens. If I had stood to her, maybe we wouldn't have a population of 400 million going on 1.3 billion. Maybe we wouldn't have natural resource shortages and water rationing.

Maybe so, Josh. Maybe so.

Dee Perez Scott: Divorce Agreement

Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:
We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.

Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.

Here is a model separation agreement:
--Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.

--We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.
--You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.
--Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.
--We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and you can go with wind, solar and bio diesel.
--You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.

--We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.
--You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, home boys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens.
--We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks.
--We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .

--You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.
--You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

--We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.
--You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McLane. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

--We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volt and Leaf you can find.
--You can give everyone health care if you can find any practicing doctors in your area..
--We'll continue to believe health care is a luxury and not a right.
--We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The National Anthem."
--I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine", "I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing", "Kum Ba Ya" or "We Are the World".

--We'll practice trickle down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.

--Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.

P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen, Barbara Streisand, & Jane Fonda with you.

Dee Perez-Scott: There are two sides to the population coin; neither is good.

Will popular democracy bring down the New World Order?

A fair question. For Western peoples are growing increasingly reluctant to accept the sacrifices that the elites are imposing upon them to preserve that New World Order.
Political support for TARP, to rescue the financial system after the Lehman Brothers collapse, is being held against any Republican candidate who backed it. Anyone who votes for a bailout of New York, California and Illinois to the tune of $35 billion as part of Obama's jobs package should be thrown out of office. The other 47 governors should be asking, "Where is the per capita bailout for our states?" Germans and Northern Europeans are balking at any more bailouts of Club Med deadbeats.

Eighty-one members of Great Britain Prime Minister David Cameron's party voted against him to demand a referendum on whether Britain should leave the European Union altogether, the worst Tory revolt ever against the EU.

Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou imperiled the grand bargain to save the eurozone by announcing a popular vote on whether to accept the austerity imposed on Greece, or default, and let the bank dominoes begin to fall. The threat faded only when Papandreou cancelled the referendum.

But the real peril is Italy, No. 3 economy in the eurozone, with a national debt at 120 percent of gross domestic product and agreed to step down. Obama should follow suit.

After the plan to save the eurozone was announced, interest rates on new Italian debt surged above 6 percent, with 6.5 regarded as unsustainable.

When Papandreou announced his referendum, the cost of Italian debt surged again. Should buyers of Italy's debt go on strike, fearing a Rome default or write-down, that is the end of the eurozone and potentially the end of the EU.

But an even larger question hangs over Rome. Will Italy survive as one nation and one people?

For the austerity demanded of Italy to deal with its debt crisis is adding kindling to secessionist fires in the north, where the Lega Nord of Umberto Bossi, third largest party in Italy, seeks to lead Lombardy, Piedmont and Veneto, with the cities of Turin, Milan and Venice, out of Italy into a new nation - Padania.

The north has long resented Rome, Naples and Sicily, seeing them as lazier and less industrious. Bossi, who calls himself "Braveheart," after the Scottish hero of the Mel Gibson movie, sees northern people as Celts who are ethnically different and separate from the rest of Italy.

The Northern League belief that people of Southern Italy caused their debt crisis, bringing on austerity, mirrors the belief of much of Northern Europe that Italy and Greece do not deserve to be bailed out.

As the north is also home to 60 percent of the immigrants who have poured into Italy - Gypsies from Romania, Arabs from the Mahgreb and Middle East - Bossi's party is aggressively anti-immigrant, as are the other surging populist parties of Europe as should all Americans in relation to the unarmed invasion from Latin America.

Americans who deplore the tough laws against illegal immigration in Arizona and Alabama might look to Italy, where the Northern League managed to have illegal entry into the country declared a felony. That's just what the doctor ordered for the U.S. if it is to survive.

The Borsi League was also behind a new law calling for sending back tens of thousands of Arab Spring migrants who arrived on the tiny Italian island of Lampedusa, which is closer to Africa than Italy.

But while resentment against the south for alleged freeloading and causing the debt crisis is bringing the secession issue to a boil, demography may be the greater threat to the national future.

Italy, says Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, president of the Italian Bishops Conference, is heading for "demographical suicide," and the reason is a low birth rate caused by its "cultural and moral distress."

According to Italy's National Office of Statistics, in 2009 the fertility rate of Italian women was 1.41 children per woman. This is only two-thirds of what is needed simply to replace Italy's existing population.

Italy's fertility rate has been below replacement levels for 35 years. By mid-century, Italy will be a nation with a birth rate that will have been below, at times far below, zero population growth for 75 years.

Italy's birth rate in 1950 was almost twice its death rate. But the death rate equaled the birth rate in 1985, exceeds it today and will be approaching twice the birth rate by 2050.

Italy is not only aging, with the median age of its population going from 43 today to 50 at midcentury, Italy is dying. If this does not change, what the world knows as Italy will not exist at the end of this century.

Like other European nations, Italy faces an existential crisis.

Her national debt is twice what the EU says is tolerable. She must undergo years of painful austerity to pay back what she has borrowed and spent. Yet a shrinking population of working age young and an expanding pool of seniors and aged to care for will make that increasingly difficult, and default on her debts increasing attractive, as it is today to the Greeks.

The Northern League, seeing the south as the source of its troubles, will grow in appeal, as those troubles grow.

If your debts are larger than your economy, your death rate exceeds your birth rate and every new generation will be one-third smaller than the previous one, what kind of future does your country have? The kind of future Italy faces.

Looking at the other side of the coin, if your population continues to grow 6 fold every 160 years as it did between 1851 and 2011, how long will it be before the last vestiges of the current standard of living and quality of life in the U.S. disappear forever? Yet, people like Bill Gates want the richer nations of the world to "redistribute their wealth" to the third world. He seems to have lost his marbles. The U.S. is heavily in debt and struggling to find a way out. Even achieving a balanced budget seems to be beyond the capability of Congress and the President. Sure let's help the poorer countries in the world to achieve negative population growth so their populations do not exceed the carrying capacity of the land and so their children do not have to die for lack of food and potable water. But until we have the national debt under control and the budget deficits converted to real surpluses, Gates should use his own foundation's money for whatever personal objectives he might have. And, by the way, Bill, you're not going to get any tax deductions for funds spent outside the U.S.

Dee Perez-Scott Doesn't Give a Damn

NBC reports the imminent birth of the 7 billionth inhabitant of the Earth and repeats what we have known for a long time: the Earth's resources are being stretched beyond their carrying capacity. Water is the critical resource with millions do not have access to potable drinking water. But that is only the tip of the iceberg because producing food for 7 billion people also requires large quantities of water. An official from the UN also points out that it takes 2000 gallons of water to produce one pair of jeans so if each of the 7 billion people had only one pair of jeans their production would require 14 trillion gallons of water.

The U.S. is a microcosm of the world. As such we should be taking action to assure our citizens do not suffer the shortages seen elsewhere in the world. Every new mouth in the U.S. requires shelter, food and water. Yet arable land and water are finite natural resources that will become increasingly scarce. Ultimately, this will result in an increase in the number hungry people in the U.S. and a reduction in the average standard of living. Providing shelter for more people not only requires the use of some finite raw materials but also increasingly requires the use of land formerly used for the production of food. One gets the impression that no one is listening or paying attention to these cogent facts; they should be at the forefront in any discussion of immigration and tax policies.

The problem is not how to divide finite natural resources among 7 billion people. The problem is how to successfully institute policies that will lead to negative population growth so that there will be enough of those finite natural resources to provide the good life for all of the Earth's inhabitants. In the U.S. a ten year moratorium on legal immigration and the systematic repatriation of all illegal aliens who are surplus to our economy.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Dee Perez-Scott: The Scarecrow of Romney Marsh

October 28, 2011

Dear Governor Romney,

I have received your latest letter asking for support for your campaign. As I indicated in a previous communication, my family is finding it difficult to support your candidacy because of your stand on illegal immigration. Your credibility regarding the jobs crisis in America can only be judged on the basis of your willingness to vigorously enforce our immigration laws. There are up to 8 million jobs in this country that are currently held by illegal aliens. An additional untold number of jobs are not available to citizens because of excessive legal immigration. It is unconscionable for any candidate to ignore those facts while professing to be a job creator. It’s time to tie our legal immigration quota more precisely to our needs for skilled labor and well-educated scientists and engineers as well as to the U.S. total unemployment rate.

Although no one will argue that all of the jobs held by illegals could be easily filled with citizen labor, millions of them could be. Before any employer is allowed to hire or retain foreign labor, he needs to provide irrefutable proof that he has been unable to fill his jobs by offering a living wage and a hiring preference for unemployed citizens. We believe stern action against the illegals and those who hire them would free-up many jobs to unemployed or underemployed citizens. Can you think of any other way to create millions of jobs for Americans in a relatively short time?

If it was freed from the restraints that keep it from fully exploiting all domestic energy sources, the oil, gas and coal industries could create millions of new jobs. However, it will take longer for those jobs to materialize than those that could be freed up immediately through vigorous enforcement of immigration laws and a reduction in the total number of legal immigrants we allow each year. If illegals are identified, apprehended, and sent on their way home as quickly and as humanely as possible, the newspapers and employment offices would soon begin to advertise large numbers of jobs.

To do this we need to reform our immigration courts and appeal processes so that where there is prima facie evidence that a person has entered this country or is present illegally he or she can be removed quickly and efficiently. Of course, minor children, regardless of their citizenship, must always accompany their parents who are under a removal order. This does not compromise their right to exercise their birthright citizenship once they reach age 21.
How could this be done? First, we need to augment the immigration judges with a large number of immigration justices of the peace (IJOPs), appointed by the states but operating under a federal mandate. A rigid set of criteria should be provided to facilitate uniform decision-making by these IJOPs. These criteria should assure that a removal order is issued immediately for those who have been apprehended and are unable to produce evidence of their bona fides within a week.
Employers could be put on notice that they will be heavily fined or jailed if any illegals are found in their employ. The employers can protect themselves against those penalties by proving that they have used the E-verification system to check the immigration status of all employees, both potential new hires and current employees. Employers can give first priority to weeding out those among their employees have failed to provide bona fide evidence of their legal presence in the U.S. or who may have presented fraudulent documents. Employers know who they are.
E-verification must be mandated across the board for all employers and all employees and the E-verification records must be available for ICE or local authorities’ audit or inspection at all times. If any complaint of illegal hiring is received, the company involved should be subject to a full audit of employment records, payroll taxes, and E-verification usage. Well-vetted volunteers from among the ranks of the unemployed could be used to do some of the E-verification work and be offered first priority on any jobs that are freed up through that process.
Public notice should be given to all illegals that they must leave this country immediately within a short deadline like six weeks. Those who do not leave voluntarily should be sentenced in absentia to six months working on border infrastructure and transported to the border at their own or their employers’ expense as soon as they can be apprehended. These illegals should be fingerprinted, photographed, DNA’d and put into a national illegal alien data base. After they have served their sentences should be expelled with the admonition that if they return without the proper documentation, they will be classified as repeat offenders and felons subject to not less than two years of hard time.

These measures would be welcomed by the unemployed and by the taxpayers who have to pick up the tab for the cost of Medicaid, education, food stamps, and other social services currently provided to the families of illegal aliens. Teachers have had to be laid off because of the failure of states to manage their fiscal affairs properly. Obama proposes to borrow $35 billion to bail out New York, Illinois and California so that teachers can be hired to reduce class size. As a former governor, you could make common cause with the other 47 governors who would not share on a per capita basis in that bailout. The class-size problem would be quickly solved as soon as the children of illegal aliens are identified and removed from our schools. The homelands of the children of illegal aliens should be responsible for the cost of educating them, not the American taxpayers.

If employers get busy re-advertising their jobs so they can prove those limited number of cases where they must have foreign labor, there should be no problem in keeping America’s economy moving forward and meeting our labor needs. No one wants to deprive employers of the labor they need but neither do they want employers to hire illegals at the expense of unemployed citizens.
Some people will probably take the view that a few million illegal aliens will never threaten America’s culture, language, history and ideals. That is silly in view of what has already occurred in Mexifornia, Mexas, Mexazona, Mexinois and even Mexichusetts. Victor Davis Hansen, a professor of classics, has written about this in his book, “Mexifornia: A State of Becoming.”
One has to argue that if Latin culture is so great, why have so many fled their homelands to come to America illegally? The fact is much of Latin America is rife with disease, oligarchy, pestilence, joblessness, heinous crimes, gangs and drug lords. The more people there are from these countries in the U.S., the more the U.S. will begin to resemble the donor countries. Millions of illegals will simply recreate the very culture and conditions they fled their homelands to escape.

Our population is well over 300 million now. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what it will be like if we add another 300 million before the end of this century. Traffic on our roads and streets will be crushing. Everyone who wishes to go to a national park will have to apply 5-10 years in advance. There will be increasing pressure to develop public lands and encroachment on wild life habitat will increase.

Addressing the population issue helps to solve or mitigate the energy and pollution problems and also enables us to conserve other scarce resources like water. In the Southwest, water rights are being bought up by cities to serve their burgeoning populations. That deprives the farms, ranches, and orchards of the water they need to grow food for the additional people. We should all be watching with dismay the continuing plunder of the Great Plains’ Ogallala Aquifer, the largest underground reservoir in the United States and one of the largest on the planet. It once held as much water as Lake Huron. It is a treasure that took millennia to accumulate. Remarkably, it could cease to be a water resource within another generation. We are left with yet another illustration of an all too common American mindset: short on vision, mired in denial and unable to comprehend nature’s limits.

There are some who believe our population must grow to enable America’s economy to grow but, in the end, population-driven economic growth is unsustainable. The pro-growth people are false prophets who must be ignored. Well before the final unsustainable stage is reached we will feel manifold adverse impacts on our quality of life and standard of living. The decline in the American standard of living has already been in the news in just this past week or two.
“Inherent in the idea of standard of living is the level of our present and future consumption. America’s “standard of living” is generally considered a measure of how easy it is for us to satisfy our material desires. There are many ways we might look at this--how many televisions or computers we have per household, how much health care we consume on a per capita basis and how many families in our nation live below the poverty level. But however our standard of living is measured, current monetary, fiscal and tax policies will diminish it if we stay on our current path.” We cannot continue to allow our neighbors to dump their poor, uneducated people into our back yard and expect our standard of living to survive that onslaught.

Are the problems illegal aliens and excessive legal immigration cause so difficult to see? Why isn’t our policy one that promotes and enables a stable population with a soft landing for our economy? Shouldn’t we be putting our best economists to work figuring out how this can be done with the least amount of pain?

Written in the late 1800s when immigration was nearing its peak and the U.S. population was only about 50 million, Emma Lazarus’s famous sonnet posted on the base of the Statue of Liberty was an expression of her empathy for those who had fled the anti-Semitic Pogroms in Eastern Europe. The sonnet is a poignant reminder of our immigrant past but the operative word in that phrase is the word “past.” Our population has now increased six-fold. No one can deny that conditions now are different than they were in the late 1800s and therefore our immigration policies should be different.

There are many things in our past: child labor, prohibition, lack of women’s suffrage, Jim Crow laws, and segregation. Few thinking Americans want to go back to that “past” yet too many continue to cling to the idea of “our immigrant past” without a second thought about its appropriateness as a model for the fully-settled and fully-developed America of today with more than 300 million people.

Our immigrant past of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries should not be our guide for the future. The times, our society and the availability of natural resources have changed dramatically. There are several movements in the U.S. such as Zero Population Growth (ZPG) and Negative Population Growth (NPG) that have tried to impact our tax and immigration policies in a direction that would be most likely to enable us to pass on to our descendents the kind of America we have enjoyed. Even though their cogent arguments have failed to gain traction so far, it is time that we paid more attention to them, especially if we value our standard of living and quality of life.

It is as though we have convinced ourselves that population-driven economic growth can be sustained indefinitely. We seem to have ignored the fact that the “limit” of finite natural resources per capita as population grows without bounds is zero. (The more there are of us, the less there is for each of us.) Why aren’t these issues a part of the public dialogue on immigration and the unarmed invasion of illegal aliens?

Of course our nation has prospered from the generous and hopeful spirit expressed in the Lazarus sonnet but does anyone really believe that what was a good thing in the 1800s must necessarily also be a good thing today? We are indeed a Nation of laws and, although we once were, we should no longer be a Nation of immigrants. We can reconcile these two traditions by giving more substantial weight to all of the changes that have occurred in our country since the past peak of immigration. Our traditions clearly need to be rebalanced to fit the vastly changed circumstances of our country. Again, why does no one speak about immigration reform in these terms rather than in terms of a “broken system” and the conditions that prevailed over a hundred years ago?

Although a ten year moratorium on immigration would be welcomed by many, few would suggest that we close immigration indefinitely. Instead we should limit the total immigration quota to 200-250 thousand per year focused on the skilled labor and PhD scientists, mathematicians and engineers we need to remain competitive in the global economy. That number should be inclusive of all chain immigration of spouses and minor children of citizens or permanent residents, but exclusive of foreign students, temporary migrant farm workers, tourists and other workers for whom there is a demonstrated need. We should expedite citizenship for foreign students who are interested and who have completed the PhD degree in engineering, physical or biological science, mathematics, and medicine.

Although highly-skilled applicants should enjoy immigration priority, we should level the playing field for all others so that they have an equal opportunity with that of the adult relatives of citizens or permanent residents. Adult relatives have traditionally made their own way and made their own choices. They need no special dispensation in the immigration rules. The new quota will reaffirm our rich tradition of welcoming immigrants who can benefit our country rather than those who would strain our budget and further stretch our finite natural resources. To do otherwise will certainly result in America’s decline. The time has come for an exclusionary immigration policy. All nations and all potential immigrants must be put on notice that we have only a limited need and capacity for new legal immigrants and it will be our policy to carefully meter future immigration.

There is a broad consensus around building a solution that stops the flow of illegal aliens across our borders and prevents employers from hiring them. The problem is our unwillingness to take the steps necessary to bring that consensus to fruition. We cannot stop the flow of illegal aliens by granting those already here a pathway to citizenship. We cannot stop employers from hiring them unless we implement E-Verification across the board immediately and severely penalize every employer who fails to use that system to avoid hiring illegals. The best way to accomplish both objectives is vigorous and continuous internal enforcement based on mandatory E-verification across the board for all employers, public and private, and all employees, current and potential new hires.

Some say the repatriation of a significant number of illegal aliens is not feasible. From a logistical point of view, they are dead wrong. Using a heavily damaged transportation system, eight million ethnic Germans were repatriated back to the heartland of Germany from the East in less than a year following the end of World War II. Many died because of a lack of food and warm clothing during the winter journey in 1945. They were given thirty minutes to appear at the railroad depot and allowed only one suitcase.

No one proposes such draconian measures for the illegals in this country. The advocates of the repatriation of large numbers of illegals favor a systematic, humane approach based on E-verification of work status and attrition through enforcement with due advance notice to the illegals that they are expected to leave voluntarily. Those who choose to ignore that notice will have to face the consequences. We must send the message that if you come here without the proper papers, we will catch you and send you home at your own expense or that of your employer, after you have served a six month sentence working on border infrastructure. Repeat offenders should face hard time for a minimum of two years.

Over the past several years we have invested a great deal of resources into strengthening our borders by increasing staffing and improving infrastructure. We have yet to revise the rules of engagement so that there is no catch-and- release at the border or internally. Recently, usurping the power of Congress, Obama has ordered the courts to review all of the cases where illegals are already under removal orders and release those who have no criminal records. Instead, all of those illegals should have been deported immediately. That is the quickest way to clear up any backlog in the immigration courts. If they can’t produce the proper documentation within a week that is prima facie evidence that they are here illegally and may have entered illegally. They should be summarily dealt with without further delays or appeals. Although visa-overstays may have entered legally, if their visas have expired, they are now present in the U.S. illegally and must leave immediately. We have gotten really sloppy about visa enforcement. Visa overstays must be put on notice that they will be treated in a similar fashion to those who have entered illegally.

After notice has been given and posted, illegals apprehended at the border or internally must be sentenced immediately to at least six months working on border infrastructure. It is estimated that an illegal alien who persists in his or her attempt to get across the border has an ultimate probability of success of about 95%. Illegal aliens believe that if they can escape the immediate environs of the border and the clutches of the border patrol, they will be home free. This constitutes a strong argument for vigorous internal enforcement as a part of any immigration reform.

The East Germans found to their dismay that even mine fields, machine gun towers, multi-layered fences and walls did not deter those who wished to escape to the West. Why? Because the escapees knew if they made it, they would never be repatriated? We need to take that lesson to heart.
The East German experience illustrates the need for the expeditious repatriation of a large enough number of illegal aliens to send the clear message that if you come here without proper authorization, we will catch you, sentence you to work on border infrastructure for at least six months. You will then be expelled to your homeland with the admonition that if you return you will do hard time as a felon and a repeat offender. This is the clear solution to border security. This approach has not been implemented to a sufficient degree to send a message to those who would violate our borders. Quick sentencing and repatriation are the sine qua non of border security. Our borders will never be secure without them.

Your position on illegals appears to be the same as Obama’s. He and you apparently want illegal aliens who are already here to step out of the shadows and onto a responsible path to citizenship by demonstrating sound character, a commitment to America, and a strong work ethic. By advocating that position you not only undermine our laws and the rule of law but ignore the most effective border security measure we have, quick apprehension and removal.

You can’t compete with Obama for the Hispanic vote. He has already given the racist organization La Raza everything it asked for including funding and de facto amnesty. We have to appeal to Hispanic citizens on the basis of their own enlightened best interests. They are or will be adversely impacted by the decline in our standard of living and quality of life just like everyone else. They are sustained by the same finite natural resources as everyone else. They don’t enjoy congested highways and streets anymore than anyone else does. One would hope that they also have some interest in clean air and water and the environment in general. Some of them must be among the unemployed who could get jobs if the illegals were expelled and the border secured. The number of jobs available in America is limited right now. Our Hispanic citizens deserve to have access to those that are now held by illegals willing to work for substandard wages while being paid under the table. Surely, an articulate candidate like yourself can get this message across and convince them that illegal aliens are not in their enlightened self-interest or the national interest. All civilized societies are based on the rule of law. Subverting the immigration laws simply leads to more lawlessness like that observed along our southern border.

As long as unemployment hovers between a total of 9% and 15%, those affect will fundamentally disagree with any amnesty for the illegals already present in our country. The common understanding of amnesty is any measure that would allow the illegals to remain here and work and profit from their illegal presence. In looking for what Obama has called that “illusive middle ground”, the beginning point always seems to be amnesty for those who are already here. That is not the middle ground -- not even close! We tried that in 1986 and it failed for lack of enforcement. Now we must try a different approach. We can determine those among the millions of illegals are essential to our economy and who are not. We can determine what labor needs can be met by utilizing our unemployed first. That is the middle ground and that is where we should begin.

We need to develop broad domestic coalitions to deal with this problem and how to proceed. That consensus will never be achieved as long as proposals include a blanket amnesty for all illegal aliens.

I hope you will give these ideas careful thought and become more forthright and decisive in your future remarks on the subject of immigration in general and illegal aliens in particular. Obama has already usurped the role of congress on immigration. I’m surprised that none of the GOP candidates have belabored this point ad infinitum. Surely one among you must have the courage to speak out on the issue of this usurpation and all of the lies Obama has told as he pursues his rules for revolution based on the Alinsky Model.

Yours for a secure future for America, a stable population, and a continued high standard of living and quality of life for our children,

Dee Perez-Scott Ignores Sharia Law

Dee Perez-Scott has been notably silent about the legislative and constitutional developments following the so-called “Arab Spring.” She repeatedly expresses her support for illegal aliens and her tolerance for Islam even though she would be told to “sit down and shut up” if Sharia Law came to her neighborhood. If she were to be raped, God forbid, she would then have to produce four male witnesses to support her charges and to avoid being charged herself and being subjected to stoning under Sharia law. Maybe she thinks she would be able to flaunt Sharia Law in the same way she flaunts her disregard for immigration laws.
Under the Obama Administration policies, the removal tyrants like Khadafy, Assad, Hussein, Mubarak and others, as expected, is resulting in Islamic law (shari’a) being imposed as the basis of countries’ legal systems. Comments by Libya’s interim leader raised new questions about just how progressive the so-called “Arab spring” will turn out to be. The answer seems to be “not very.”
Islamists are playing prominent roles in the transitions in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt, and are also believed to be a factor in the uprising against Syrian President Bashar Assad.
Praise for the removal of Muammar Khadafy – or of Assad, should he go – are being muted by growing concerns that Iran may not be altogether wrong when it characterizes the regional upheavals as an “Islamic awakening” rather than the ushering in of greater democracy.
Libya’s National Transitional Council (NTC) leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil raised eyebrows Sunday when he told a rally in Benghazi that the country’s post-Khadafy legal system will be based on shari’a.
His declaration that “any law that violates shari’a is null and void legally” implied that Islamic law would not merely be one of several sources of inspiration, but the ultimate one. Although not unexpected, this should send shudders through the Western world especially among feminists, and believers in religious tolerance and basic human rights.
Abdul-Jalil’s comments appeared to preempt a process spelled out by interim Prime Minister Mahmoud Jibril a day earlier – an election within eight months, followed by the drafting of a new constitution, which will then be put to a national referendum.
On Monday, Abdul-Jalil told a press conference in Benghazi that he wanted to assure the international community that Libyans were “moderate Muslims.” He also said that in his earlier remarks he had been to a temporary constitution. What is the likelihood that Sharia having been included in a temporary constitution will be later excluded in the final document submitted to a national referendum?
A draft constitutional document for the transitional stage,” released by the NTC last August, declared that “Islam is the religion of the state and the principal source of legislation is Islamic jurisprudence (shari’a).”
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said disingenuously on Monday the administration was encouraged by Abdul-Jalil’s “clarification.”
“We seek a democracy that meets international human rights standards, that provides a place for all Libyans, and that serves to unify the country,” she told a briefing. Is this further evidence of Obama’s audacity of hope? More likely the NATO assistance to the rebels in Libya will have enabled the country to jump from the pot into the fire as far as human rights are concerned. It won’t be long before they begin re-creating the Libyan version of the anti-American sentiment that pervades the Islamic world.
Asked whether the U.S. government had any objection to shari’a forming the basis of countries’ legal systems, Nuland replied, “We’ve seen various Islamic-based democracies wrestle with the issue of establishing rule of law within an appropriate cultural context. But the number one thing is that universal human rights, rights for women, rights for minorities, right to due process, right to transparency be fully respected.”
Nuland added, “I would simply say that the term [shari’a] is – has a broad application and is understood differently in different places and by different commentators.” Undoubtedly it is fully misunderstood by the Obama Administration or encouraged as a part of his treasonous outreach to Islamic nations.
Although shari’a covers a broad range of matters, it is most notoriously associated with “hudud” punishments, including the death penalty for apostasy, and stoning, flogging and amputations for other offenses. (“Hudud” – literally “limitations imposed by Allah” – are enforced in countries like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and some Nigerian states.)
Women face severe discrimination under shari’a, according to rights advocacy groups. The legal testimony of a woman carries less weight than that of a man, and in some countries a rape victim must present four male Muslim witnesses to back her allegation – or risk being charged with adultery herself. Dee Perez-Scott doesn’t seem to mind. At least she hasn’t been nearly as adamant in her opposition to the implications of Muslims in the U.S. as she has in supporting outlaws who violate U.S. immigration laws.
Even apparently mundane aspects of shari’a can be problematic, and may lead to the loss of inheritance, loss of access to children, and the annulment of marriage in family law cases. Businesses may face penalties if they contravene the prohibition on charging or paying interest. One wonders what appeal these provisions have for Perez-Scott.
Tunisia, Egypt, Syria
In Tunisia, where the “Arab spring” began late last year, elections held at the weekend will give rise to a national assembly tasked with drafting a new constitution. Provisional results show the vote was dominated by Ennahdha, an Islamist party that declares itself to be “moderate.”
The English translation of the Ennahdha party platform stated: “[t]he Movement considers that Islamic thought is in need of constant innovation so that it can keep up with progress and contribute to it, stemming from its belief that Islam accepts anything that is beneficial and encourages it such as the International conventions on human rights, and which are generally compatible with Islamic values and objectives.”
On the other hand, Ennahdha and most other Tunisian parties favor retaining in the new constitution an article declaring that Islam is the official religion.
“Whether this formulation of Islam as the state religion will only be perfunctory or whether it will have a significant impact on the legal framework is difficult to foretell, given the still-untested nature of the political landscape and the growing religious conservatism of parts of Tunisian society,” Amna Guellali, a Tunisia researcher for Human Rights Watch, wrote last week.
A Human Rights Watch briefing paper, based on Tunisian parties’ responses to a questionnaire, found that most parties want new constitution to protect rights such as freedom of expression, although some differed over issues such as reserving the presidency for Muslims and the right of non-Muslims to proselytize.
In post-Mubarak Egypt, Islamists are expected to do well in a drawn-out parliamentary election process, due to begin in a month’s time.
Islamists account for two of four major blocs in the contest – the Muslim Brotherhood-dominated “Democratic Alliance,” and the Salafist Nour party-led “Islamist Alliance.” (The other two are the liberal/center-left “Egyptian Bloc” and the left-leaning “Revolution Continues bloc,” according to Cairo’s Al Ahram daily.)
The Muslim Brotherhood is campaigning under its traditional “Islam is the solution” banner while the Salafists have pledged to push for the implementation of shari’a.
As in Tunisia, the elected government will draw up a new constitution. Coptic Christians were especially troubled last March when a provisional constitution was adopted that left intact an article upholding Islam as the state religion and the principles of shari’a as “the principal source of legislation.”
In Syria, the extent to which Islamists are driving the protests aimed at removing Assad remains unclear for now.
An opposition Syrian National Council formed in Istanbul has a 29-strong general secretariat representing opposition factions including the Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Syria since 1982), Kurds, liberals and independents.
Of the 29 secretariat members, 19 have been named publicly. According to Mideast expert and author Barry Rubin, 10 of the 19 are Islamists.
On October 19 Libya’s NTC said it was recognizing the Syrian National Council as that country’s “legitimate authority.”
Iraq, Afghanistan too
Years before the “Arab spring,” troubling aspects of shari’a survived the toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Baathist regime in Iraq.
In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai’s government signed a new constitution into law in January 2004 which claims to uphold freedom of religion but enshrines the primacy of shari’a.
Article two states that Islam is the official religion, but “followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites within the limits of the provisions of law.”
Article three, however, states that “no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.” Article 149 says adherence to the tenets of Islam “cannot be amended.”
Two years after the constitution was approved, Christian convert Abdul Rahman was sentenced to death for apostasy, and it was only after the U.S. and other coalition countries put pressure on Karzai that was allowed to seek asylum abroad.
Iraq’s 2005 constitution states that freedom of religion is upheld, but also says no law may be passed that “contradicts the undisputed laws of Islam.”
Iraqi Christian leaders made a last minute plea for the clause to be removed of amended, without success.

Dee Perez-Scott: How much have you contributed to this decline in our standard of living?

By encouraging illegal aliens and their 14th Amendment parasite offspring, members of La Raza are major contributors to the decline in the American standard of living and quality of life.

Old-fashioned parents know how important it is to teach their children the “value of a dollar.” Uncle Sam doesn’t seem to have learned this lesson though, which has grave implications for our future standard of living.

For most of this decade, the Federal Reserve has pursued a policy of having a “weak” dollar, a dollar that’s cheap in relation to other currencies. Current Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke prevailed on former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan to adopt this policy, and Bernanke is now continuing it. And if continued much longer, a weak dollar policy—combined with overspending and bad tax policy--will irreparably reduce America’s standard of living.

Inherent in the idea of standard of living is the level of our present and future consumption. America’s “standard of living” is generally considered a measure of how easy it is for us to satisfy our material desires. There are many ways we might look at this--how many televisions or computers we have per household, how much health care we consume on a per capita basis and how many families in our nation live below the poverty level. But however our standard of living is measured, current monetary, fiscal and tax policies will diminish it if we stay on our current path.

Now, clearly some people benefit from a weak dollar. Farmers and other exporters who sell abroad benefit because their products are cheaper (and thus more attractive) on world markets. But because we purchase so many more foreign goods than we export, a weak dollar policy is very bad for consumers and decreases our purchasing power.

Over the last 20 years, America’s appetite for foreign goods has increased multifold. And it is not that easy just to “buy American.” In many cases, there may not be an American choice in a particular product category and if there is, the “American” product may still have significant foreign content in it. This means that as the dollar weakens, our purchases of foreign goods cost much, much more. We will see our household purchasing power decline in future years as effects of the weak dollar policy filter through our economy.

Another effect of a weakening dollar is that investors fear holding assets in dollars. And so the steadily weakening dollar has produced capital flight from the U.S. which harms our economy, as investors seek assets denominated in other, stronger currencies. This leads to a downward spiral as dollars become less and less desirable.

U.S. per capita gross domestic product (GDP) has fallen over 25% since 2000 when measured in euros (a more stable gauge of value than the weak dollar), according to top Wall Street economist David Malpass. Germany’s GDP has overtaken America’s GDP on a per capita basis. And America’s standard of living relative to the rest of the world is falling off a cliff -- with President Obama’s policies giving it a two-armed push over the edge.

Spending plays a major role. The Obama budget also includes record shattering federal spending increases and trillion dollar annual deficits, doubling the national debt in five years, and tripling it in ten. The Administration’s own budget numbers now show total Federal debt reaching $23.3 trillion in 2019. That debt will exceed 100% of GDP by 2011, giving us the honor of the 7th highest government debt-to-GDP ratio in the world. As Judy Shelton recently reported in The Wall Street Journal, that puts us in the company of Zimbabwe, Lebanon, Singapore, Jamaica, Japan, and Italy.

To put our national debt in perspective -- a country cannot even join the European Union unless its government debt-to-GDP ratio does not exceed 60%. This means that even if we wanted to join the EU, our economic fundamentals may soon be seen as too weak.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) projects that under current policies, the federal debt will climb to almost 300% of GDP by 2040. Even during World War II, the national debt peaked at 113% of GDP. This was only a temporary condition and at least we vanquished Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in return for spike in the debt. Now, huge debts are a way of life in America. Obama’s budget busters include increasing federal welfare spending by one third in just his first two years, with total welfare spending soaring to $1 trillion by 2014 and $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years, according to the Heritage Foundation.

Consider also the effect of taxes. President Obama’s budget provides for increasing the capital gains tax rate by 33% at the start of 2011. The top federal income tax rate would also increase by almost 30% if a health care reform bill similar to the one passed by the House this weekend becomes law. These prospective tax increases on earnings in dollars would cause further capital flight, increasing the downward spiral of the dollar and our standard of living.

These soaring tax rates and crushing deficits will lead to a continued decline of American living standards. Based on the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office’s GDP and inflation assumptions, continued declines in household wealth holdings are projected from 2009 to 2014, with real U.S. per capita GDP falling to below 2000 levels. So much for the Obama recovery.

But the hit to our standard of living could be much worse than even these numbers show. The economy has performed substantially worse this year than was assumed in the Obama budget, with our growth lower and unemployment at a much higher level. Economists predict that these negative trends will continue in the near future. -- This means future deficits and debt will be far higher than the administration projects.

Unlike our government, Americans have drastically cut back on their discretionary spending in response to frightening economic conditions. In some cases, Americans have done this because they are unemployed and can’t afford to spend, but many others have done this out of fear of what may be to come. We may think that it is appropriate for Americans to learn to consume less. But even if we chose now voluntarily to reduce our consumption of cars, electronics and houses, we still want to be able to afford to purchase them in the future.

The decline of America’s standard of living can be reversed with a dramatic change in course to pro-growth economic policies. But American voters need to wake up, or face declining standards of living far into the future. While a Susan B. Anthony dollar may be larger than a euro in size, it will take change to our fiscal and monetary policies to make the value of our dollar approach that of the euro any time soon.

Mallory Factor is the co-chairman and co-founder of the Monday Meeting, an influential meeting of economic conservatives, journalists and corporate leaders in New York City.

Dee Perez-Scott: Obama goes too far

Barack Obama has gone too far. He's exceeded his constitution authority one too many times. And the only questions that now remain are: What is Congress going to do about it?... and just as important: What are you going to do about it?

Of course, we're not the only ones saying that Obama's Backdoor Amnesty Decree is way out of bounds. David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, two former Justice Department officials in the Reagan and Bush administrations, tell us that "there is little question that the line has been crossed."

And there you have it. We could say that Barack Obama has declared himself King, but Rivkin and Casey have something to say on that score as well. They point out that King James II of Britain "was deposed in no small part because he claimed the right to generally suspend laws enacted by Parliament and to dispense with law in individual cases."

And a number of Congressmen are also calling for an investigation and former-Congressman Tom Tancredo has gone so far as to call on Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against Barack Obama for his back-door amnesty decree. Specifically, Tancredo said that Republicans should not use the excuse of the upcoming 2012 election to shirk their Constitutional duties. It's not enough to simply say that we agree.
Yes, the line has been crossed and we're not going to let this issue go away! Barack Obama has gone too far. He's crossed the line one too many times, and now is the time for our elected officials in Congress to stop kicking the can down the road do their Constitutional duty and hold Barack Obama and his administration accountable.

It's time for Congress to finally grow some spines and send Barack Obama a message that they should have sent him long ago. You are NOT above the law, Mr. Obama. And you are NOT the law.

Dee Perez-Scott: Another La Raza Member

Cecilia Munoz, former and perhaps current official of La Raza and also the White House director of Intergovernmental Affairs compared the federal crime of being in the country illegally to jaywalking. With this kind of idiot running around the White House there is no wonder America is struggling to recover from the current recession.

"If you were running the police department of any urban area in this country, you would spend more resources going after serious criminals than after jaywalkers. DHS (the Department of Homeland Security) is doing the immigration equivalent of the same thing," Munoz told the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute (CHCI) conference on Monday.

What Munoz overlooks is that if you round up all of the illegal aliens you will have captured all of those who are guilty of the most serious crimes as well as all of those who have entered or remain in this country illegally. She and DHS apparently believe that all of the most serious criminals are going to sew a scarlet letter “C” on their clothing so they can easily be sorted out from the population that shelters them and on which they prey. It is the sorting process that is the waste of government resources. If we simply sweep them all up and repatriate them with the admonition that if they return without the proper documentation, they will do hard time for 2-5 years for the first offense and longer sentences for repeat offenses. They will be considered felons and treated accordingly.

The way to make the most of limited police and DHS resources is to focus on the communities where illegals are most likely to be found and permit states and local governments to provide all citizens with the means to prove their bona fides quickly and painlessly. The police departments in New York City and other cities have an enforcement model that has produced excellent results. Focus on all of the crimes in a neighborhood no matter how trivial and the overall crime rate will go down. This is the model that should be used on illegal aliens -- enforce the law against them even if as Munoz describes them, “they are merely jaywalkers” and the whole problem will be solved.

Munoz was referring to the administration's new policy of "prosecutorial discretion," outlined in a June memo from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, which falls under DHS. Under the new policy, immigration officials will prioritize deportation orders, acting only on those involving people convicted of serious crimes or those who pose a national security or public safety threat.

This is a serious error on the part of the Administration. Instead of wasting their time on prioritization, they should simply deport, without recourse or further appeal, all of those who are already under a removal order. Let them file any appeal from their homeland.

The memo also directs ICE agents to consider how long an individual has been in the U.S., whether that person has a spouse or children who are U.S. citizens, and whether that person has a serious criminal record. Crime victims, witnesses to crimes, or people who are charged with minor traffic violations, would avoid deportation under the ICE guidance. This selective enforcement of the law is a travesty and an abomination that all loyal citizens should object to strenuously with their Congressional representatives. Some would consider this usurpation of the role of Congress and abuse of prosecutorial discretion as ground for impeachment. Prosecutorial discretion was never intended to apply to an entire class of individuals. Rather it was designed to provide a modicum of flexibility in a small number of cases of special merit.

Munoz said the administration is acting within its authority - "but we also all understand that even as we use our administrative authority, make the right enforcement judgments, it is not the permanent solution for anybody, it doesn't solve our immigration problems. In order to do that, we need the Congress of the United States."

Why? Having already usurped the role of Congress by using executive authority to overturn votes already taken, why stop now. Why not continue to govern by decree rather than by law. Throw open the borders, fire the border patrol and the ICE agents and let the police deal with the common criminals among the illegals.

Munoz also indicated that the administration's new "discretion" policy is part of a "progression" of "work that's been going on for several years." To most Americans this will sound more like a retrogression of work. If we are going to indulge in that type of activity, the next Administration should go back to the Eisenhower era and order a new sweeping “Operation Wetback”.

"We have 10 million, 11 million undocumented people in this country and it's abundantly clear to anybody who's paying attention that we're not going to deport that entire population," said Munoz.

She apparently is the one who is not paying attention. That population is a huge problem for those who love America and who are untainted by the La Raza-style ethnocentrism and racism. She has taken a page out of Jeremiah Wright’s bible. She might just as well have said, “’g** d*mn America’ we are going to convert it into Mexico Norte and there is nothing you can do about it.” Well, she is exhibiting the perverse characteristic Warren Buffet referred to when he said, "There seems to be some perverse human characteristic that likes to make easy things difficult."
It would be extremely easy to remove all 12-20 million illegals if we had someone competent in charge of DHS and Intergovernmental Affairs. Put the job of repatriation up for bids by private business with the authority to confiscate any and all property of the illegals to pay their way home and provide for a reasonable profit margin. Further, allow the bid winner to charge employers of illegals for any unrecovered costs. This approach would rid the U.S. of all of the illegals who are not essential to our economy and who are not holding jobs citizens are willing to fill if offered a living wage at the American standard. Employers would have to provide irrefutable proof that they have made a good faith effort to hire citizens before they can even consider retaining or hiring illegals.

Munoz said, "It's not humanly possible. It's ridiculously expensive...and so what DHS is doing for the first time is trying to have a strategy around the law-enforcement work that it does, and so while it's enforcing the law vigorously, as [Congressman Luis Gutierrez] points out, it's also making strategic judgments about who is a priority for enforcement and who isn't."

What she really meant is "making political judgments about who is a priority for enforcement and who is not." Sorry Munoz, no cigar! That statement reveals your true lack of intellect. This, moreover, is the height of arrogance, stupidity and complicity. It has already been demonstrated that millions of people can be repatriated in less than a year. In 1945-6 eight million ethnic Germans were repatriated back to Germany’s heartland from the Eastern Territories using a transportation system heavily damaged by the war. By putting the job in the hands of a private company with the appropriate authority, there should be no expense to the government. If the illegals paid their way here, they can certainly pay their way home, after a six month sentence working on border infrastructure and after they have been photographed, fingerprinted and DNA’d. That information could be shared with all of the police departments across the country and would surely result in the solution of many crimes and the identification of the hardened criminals among the illegals.

Dee Perez-Scott: Here's a jobs plan you should support!

Now it’s time to pay for the U.S. Jobs Repatriation Act. Oh, you haven’t heard of that new legislation?

Well, it’s not exactly a White House, Congressional, or even a candidate proposal. It comes directly from yours truly.

In my previous two columns, I outlined how the elimination of tax loopholes could be achieved by implementing a 20% flat corporate tax.

It would provide the advantage of lowering taxes for small businesses and raising taxes on the corporations who have avoided paying their fair share of tax for many years. In addition, I stated that jobs don’t need to be created, they already exist.

These existing jobs simply have the wrong workers occupying the positions, namely foreigners, not Americans. Employers should not be asked to create additional jobs they don’t need, and we all know that no amount of bribery will make that happen.

Therefore, the solution is for corporations to simply fire their foreign employees and replace them with American employees. Now comes what some say is the hard part, but actually, it’s rather easy.

Yes, I know that corporations hire foreign workers because it’s cost effective. It’s not because of skill or work ethic, it’s just cheaper, so lets just eliminate that excuse.

First, calculate the exact cost to the corporation per non-U.S. employee. Next, develop a reasonable wage for a U.S. worker based upon the community in which the employee resides.

At that point, the exact cost to repatriate the jobs will be known. That cost per employee would then be credited against the dollars the corporations will pay under the new 20% flat tax.

This makes the action of rehiring Americans cost-neutral.

Here’s an example: An American worker with an annual salary of $35,000 per year vs. a foreign worker with an annual salary of $5,000 per year = $30,000 x 10,000 workers = a $300,000,000 credit.

As a result, the corporation walks away with the same cost. The U.S. government, though losing corporate tax, would collect income tax from the American workers.

More importantly, $350 million would be infused into the local economy, and the multiplier effect on other businesses would be truly enormous. --Bill Tatro

The Obama Watch: Dee Perez-Scott: Here's another speech for Obama

The Obama Watch: Dee Perez-Scott: Here's another speech for Obama

Dee Perez-Scott: Here's another speech Obama should make.

WOULDN'T IT BE GREAT TO TURN ON THE TV NEXT THURSDAY AND HEAR THE U.S. PRESIDENT GIVE THE FOLLOWING SPEECH?

'My Fellow Americans: As you all know, our greatest national priority is to put citizens back to work. That is why I am taking this opportunity to inform the Congress and all Americans what I propose to do to create jobs and stimulate our economy. But before I do that I have some confessions to make.

First, I have ignored my oath of office by failing to enforce our immigration laws. I have permitted millions of illegal aliens to enter and remain in this country and have undermined the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in the discharge of their duties.
I have endangered our security by allowing sleeper cells to be created and staffed from the illegal population.

Second, Using the Saul Alinsky play book, I have taken us down the road toward Socialism when we all know that capitalism is what built our great country and made America what it is today – the envy of all other countries of the world.

Third, I squandered billions of TARP dollars on handouts to unions and special interest organizations like ACORN and La Raza that supported my candidacy to this office. I lost billions on the General Motors bailout.

Fourth, I talked about shovel-ready projects that would put America back to work without any provision to make sure only citizen workers would benefit. I admit that was a gross exaggeration. There were few such projects and the money has now been wasted.

Fifth, I lied so many times I can’t remember them anymore. A member of Congress pointed that out publicly when he said, “You lie!” He was right. I lied when I said that I didn’t know Rod Blagojevich and had only seen him at a distance at a football game. There are many photographs and much phone call evidence that indicates to the contrary. Therefore, I have to admit that I lied.

Sixth, I lied when I said that Obamacare would not apply to illegal aliens. There was no mechanism in the bill to verify the eligibility of applicants and no penalty for fraudulent applications. The bill therefore allows illegal aliens full access to government subsidized health care. I lied.

Seventh, I admit that the birth certificate I released the public had been modified and I hereby direct the State of Hawaii to release without delay the original long form document for examination by the experts. I may have lied when I claimed to have been born in the U.S. I have refused to allow the public access to all of my records, visas, financial aide applications, Illinois legislative records, my wife's thesis and my own academic records. The combination tends to indicate that I have something to hide or that I have lied about my past.

Eighth, I lied when I denied that I was a de facto Muslim. Every action that I have taken since I have been in office has proved to the contrary, from my bowing to foreign potentates to my celebration of Ramadan and my praises for Islam. I knew I could never achieve my personal goals unless I professed to be a Christian even if it was in the Black Theology church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

I cannot put America back to work without the help of the Congress and the American people but I can begin by repealing my executive orders and those of some of my predecessors that have contributed to our national debt and to the lack of jobs for citizens. Yesterday, I repealed Executive Order 13166 which required government services, proceedings and publications to be available in many languages. This is a luxury we can no longer afford and I will encourage all of the states to take similar action to make sure that taxpayer funds are not used for multi-lingual ballots, services and other publications. We will provide Public Interpreters for those who cannot afford one or who do not have a relative who can serve in that capacity. For all others, interpreters will be a billable expense. I am asking the Congress to pass a bill that will require real fluency in spoken and written English before citizenship can be granted.

The executive order I recently issued to cause our immigration courts and agents to focus solely on the criminal elements within the illegal alien communities is hereby rescinded in its entirety. In its place, I have issued a new executive order requiring the expeditious deportation of all illegal aliens and detainees who cannot prove that they legally entered and are legally present in the U.S. I want the states to appoint Immigration Justices of the Peace with federal authority and mandate to adjudicate routine immigration cases. This should enable a decision to be made in every case within 24 hours of the detainees’ arrival at a detention facility. These IJOPs will be embedded in the detention facilities so they can adjudicate routine immigration cases immediately upon the arrival of a detainee. Due process will allow only one week for appeal. The final decision of the IJOPs is not appealable.

I have directed the DHS to provide the states with a rigid set of criteria on which the IJOPs must base their decisions. In general, if the detainees cannot present proof of their bona fides within a one week appeal period, they will be deported without recourse. They will be finger printed, DNAed, and photographed and admonished that if they return without the proper documentation, they will do hard time for not less than two years or five years for a repeat offender. I have further directed the DHS to propose such other changes in the current law that may be necessary to assure the achievement of these goals, the securing of our borders, and the punishment of illegal aliens and those who employ them.

(I will ask the Congress to limit the Office of the Presidency’s ability to issue executive orders except those that are clearly within the scope and pursuant to the implementation of the laws passed by the Congress and making the issuance of any other executive orders an impeachable offense as a usurpation of the role of Congress)

The basis for the appeal of deportation orders will be very limited. First, If any employer can present irrefutable proof that: (1) he has paid all of the payroll taxes and withholding required for past and present illegal aliens in his employ; and (2) that he is unable to fill his jobs by offering a living wage at the American standard for each job and skill level as determined by the Department of Labor in consultation with local unions, professional organizations and state government, that may be a possible basis for a successful appeal and the granting of a green card provided the alien can also pass a background check and a medical exam and agrees to provide a DNA sample.

Second, family separation or unification will never be permitted as a basis for an appeal.

Third, visa overstays will not be allowed any special privileges; if their visas have expired, they must leave. The only exception to this rule will be foreign PhD students in engineering, physical science, mathematics and medicine who are interested in becoming American citizens. They may apply under a fast track citizenship plan with the endorsement of the faculty of their departments and who are fluent in English.

Fourth, illegal aliens may not be detained for more than one year. If their cases have not been resolved by the end of that period, they must be deported without recourse. Difficult cases involving requests for political asylum will be handled only by immigration judges. State-licensed Immigration Justices of the Peace will focus on routine cases where political asylum requests are not involved and where the detainee has not been able to present proof of his or her bona fides. Their decisions are not appealable. Aliens under a removal order must take their minor children with them regardless of the citizenship of the children. This action will not keep the children from exercising their citizenship rights later when they reach age 21.

I ask the Congress to quickly pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that will:
(1) reduce the total number of legal immigrants allowed to not more than 200,000 annually, focused on the applicants most likely to be able to help us remain competitive in the world marketplace;

(2) modify the meaning of the 14th amendment to assure that illegal aliens, foreign students, and tourists are not considered within the jurisdiction of the U.S. for the purpose of achieving birthright citizenship for their children born in the U.S.;

(3) reduce the types of visas to four: students, tourists; business travelers; and temporary migrant farm workers;

(4) level the playing field so that adult relatives of U.S. citizens or permanent residents must compete with all other applicants;

(5) prohibits the entry into and presence of female aliens in the U.S. who are pregnant or who become pregnant;

(6) authorize the construction of triage and obstetric hospitals north and south of the borders with the cost of construction being shared with our neighboring countries but the staffing to be provided by our neighbors;

(7) make failure to enforce immigration laws an impeachable offense for all federal officials from the president on down;

(8) reduce funding for Medicaid and education for any state or municipality that fails to provide full police authority to ask any individual stopped for another violation to prove his or her legal presence in the U.S. and in the absence of such proof, to deliver that individual to the nearest federal detention facility for immediate processing and deportation as appropriate;

(9) authorize a DREAM act that is significantly strengthened over the previous versions presented to the Congress to require as a minimum of a 4 year enlistment in the armed forces for every applicant and providing for the continuous audit of all applications and the enforcement with appropriate penalties for fraudulent applications up to immediate deportation. Also, the act must remove any rights of the applicants to sponsor other relatives for permanent residency or citizenship.

I erred in usurping Congress’s role in the case of the DREAM act. It would be appropriate to judge me as having thumbed my nose at the Congress by doing by executive fiat what the Congress has already refused to do. In doing so I have indulged in another impeachable offense in the eyes of many. I appear to have taken the indefensible step of governing by decree.

In view of the difficult financial circumstances we are in I understand the reluctance of the Congress to approve any tax increases or any measures that will increase the national debt. I am therefore directing that all foreign aid to countries that have voted against the U.S. or failed to support our position in the UN at least 75% of the time be terminated immediately and those funds be reallocated to some job creation ideas from both sides of the aisle as agreed upon by the Congress.

I have further directed that our troops be removed from Afghanistan and Iraq by the end of this year. With the approval of the Pakistani government, we will provide a significant force in Pakistan to help guard its nuclear weapons and assure that they do not fall into the wrong hands. We will ask India and Pakistan to engage in serious negotiations leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons in both countries as soon as possible.

We will ask the Congress to delay indefinitely any further implementation of the heath care reform act until our national debt is no more than 18% of our GDP.

We will ask the governors to identify the types of unemployment that are most prevalent in their states and to suggest how best those pockets of highest unemployment can be eliminated in a permanent and productive way without wasting taxpayers’ money.

We will ask the Justice Department to ascertain how the $60 billion of fraud in Iraq and Afghanistan can best be recovered and the culprits punished.

Now obviously I can’t do this unilaterally. I freely admit that I have already taken some ill-advised actions of that nature by abusing my power to issue executive orders. I will need the help of every member of Congress and the American people to bring my proposals to fruition.
Finally, because of my many lies, failures to enforce the law and usurpations of Congressional authority, I will not seek a second term. If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve. This should enable us all to put our undivided energy into the creation of jobs and the restoration of our economy and the value of the dollar.