Working for logical immigation reform based on a stable population, a recognition of the finite nature of our natural resources and the adverse impact of continued growth on our quality of life, standard of living, national interest, character, language, sovereignty and the rule of law. Pushing back and countering the disloyal elements in American society and the anti-American rhetoric of the leftwing illegal alien lobbies. In a debate, when your opponents turn to name calling, it's a good sign you've already won.

Thursday, December 26, 2013

The American Tribe

Leading Evangelicals Show that Bible Has Been Misinterpreted

By James Robb, Tuesday, December 24, 2013, 9:08 AM EST - posted on NumbersUSA
  This is the time of year when many pro-amnesty advocates in the pulpit and the press misuse the Bible to try to try to advance their cause. This year, churchgoers are fortunate to have access to a much different explanation of scripture, thanks to the emergence of a group called Evangelicals for Biblical Immigration and to a fascinating panel recently sponsored by the Heritage Foundation to inform congressional staffers and the media.
Kelly Monroe Kullberg, who has organized Evangelicals for Biblical Immigration, is a highly respected evangelical leader. She founded the Veritas Forum at Harvard University in the 1990s, which has since grown into a world-wide movement. Her critique of the sloppy handling of Scripture used by some clergy is irenic yet wide-ranging. At the Heritage panel, she said:
God loves us all. God invites us all to be citizens in his kingdom. He places us in families, tribes and nations, and gives us biblical wisdom about shaping a thriving culture. Like gardening, growing a culture requires discernment and vision. But nowhere in Scripture do we see blanket asylum, blanket amnesty, blanket immigration. We see wise welcome to a well-meaning Ruth or Rahab (the sojourner or 'ger' in Hebrew is something like a convert and comes lawfully, as blessing), and we also at times find a Nehemiah leading his nation in the building of walls to cultivate the good and to be set apart from the ways of the 'foreigner' (the 'nekhar' or 'zar') who does not respect the laws, customs and values of the country visited -- who does not intend to advance cultural flourishing.
Mark Tooley, the president of Washington's Institute on Religion and Democracy (on whose board I serve), has been warning his fellow evangelical leaders against a one-sided approach on immigration. His remarks at the Heritage panel included this:
Christians also should be cautioned against sweeping 'comprehensive' legislative solutions to deep, pervasive political problems. Solutions to most political challenges are more typically incremental. And in our fallen world, reputed solutions, even when implemented relatively effectively, usually create new problems demanding attention. And in this particular debate we should avoid rhetoric that romanticizes immigrants no less than avoiding demonization.
Immigrants, legal and illegal, are frail humans like us all, a combination of virtues and vices. Their presence among us brings both gifts and troubles. Our prisons are full of tens of thousands of immigrants, legal and illegal, who have committed heinous crimes. There are also, of course, millions who work hard, are faithful to their families, and love their new country. Likewise, many immigrants, even while working hard, ultimately draw government benefits and services that outstrip their financial contributions, making their presence in America an additional fiscal stress upon our already fraying and probably unsustainable entitlement state. The mass legalization of 11 million illegal immigrants, as presently construed, would likely add to that stress.
Dr. James K. Hoffmeier, a professor at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, is an expert in ancient Hebrew and ancient near-east society. He takes a dim view of current Evangelical leaders who misuse Scripture for political ends. At the Heritage panel, Hoffmeier made the following points (as reported by The Christian Post):
Three different Hebrew words are translated as "foreigner" or "sojourner," Hoffmeier explained, but the most common one, by far, is ger, which appears 160 times. Under biblical law, a ger was legally recognized and entitled to certain rights, responsibilities and social benefits. They could participate in community worship. They were expected to observe kosher dietary laws. And, they could not be charged interest.
"People who are using scripture for the undocumented immigrant are trying to credit the non-legal resident with the same rights the biblical law calls for a legal foreign resident," he said.
Hoffmeier strongly rebuked open borders evangelicals for misusing the "sanctuary cities" passages found in Scripture. He stated that in ancient Israel, sanctuary cities were places where accused criminals could flee to get a fair trial. In effect, they were a change of venue. "Sanctuary" never meant escaping the law, Hoffmeier said. He said that using the sanctuary cities concept to help illegal aliens cancel out immigration penalties is completely against the "spirit and letter" of the texts.
Another evangelical speaking up against misuse of Bible passages on immigration is Dr. Carol Swain, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt Law School. At the Heritage Foundation event, Swain claimed that Evangelicals had been "manipulated" by pro-amnesty proponents who seek to overturn the law for political and economic advantage. Swain, who is black, spoke forcefully about the effect mass immigration has on minorities and white workers:
The losers tend to be low-skill, low-wage Americans. Our greatest obligation is to the people already here [legally].
Kullberg makes a strong case for a more reasoned, balanced approach on immigration than many Evangelical leaders have ever voiced:
We're for wise immigration. We're for kindness to citizens as well as kindness to guests. Immigration is a beautiful idea. As a younger missionary in several Central American nations, I never understood the need for rules and fences. The problem is that we're considering an influx of perhaps 30- or 40,000,000 new citizens in just ten years, into a near-bankrupt welfare state living on borrowed money -- America. There aren't enough jobs.
At the Heritage panel, Tooley of IRD made this remark that struck me as summing up the situation:
There are sincere people of faith on many sides of this debate. Quoting scripture and citing religious principles in support of a political argument can be fine if done with some humility and recognition that on most political issues none of us can claim to know God's will with absolute certainty.
JIM ROBB is Vice President, Operations for NumbersUSA 

Sunday, October 27, 2013

Democrats Doom Democracy

The less this interests you, and the younger you are,
the more important it is that you read it!

In 1887 Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at
the University of Edinburgh, had this to say about
the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years
prior: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it
simply cannot exist as a permanent form of
government. A democracy will continue to exist up
until the time that voters discover that they can
vote themselves generous gifts from the public
treasury. From that moment on, the majority always
votes for the [liberal, progressive, democrat] candidates  
who promise the most benefits from the public treasury,
with the result that every democracy will finally
 collapse over loose fiscal policy[like Obama's],
(which is) always followed bya dictatorship."

"The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of
history, has been about 200 years. During those
200 years, these nations always progressed through
the following sequence: From bondage to
spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great
courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty
to abundance; From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy; From apathy to
dependence; From dependence back into bondage.

Illegal aliens know this better than anyone so they
come in droves, register and vote illegally, and the welfare
office their first stop after they have a  child born in the\
U.S. making the whole family eligible for public
housing and all manner of welfare benefits.


Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Traitors - Do you recognize any of these names?

The Republican Senators listed on the left below  have reneged on their promises  to vote against amnesty.  Some if not all have been bought off by Senate majority leadership with provisions in the amnesty bill that provide extra funds to the states of those GOP senators who agree to vote for the amnesty bill, S.744.

The Democrat Senators who have done likewise even though they are from "Red" States.
If you recognize the names of any of your senators, please call them to voice your extreme displeasure with their votes.  Ask them to reconsider and honor their promises.

This is another of those thousand page bills that obscure a variety of provisions that serve special interests rather than the American people.  It was largely written by representatives of La Raza, unions and the chamber of commerce.  Ordinary Americans and those with opposing view were not allowed to participate.  And don't be fooled by Senators McCain, Rubio, Flake and Graham's participation on the Gang of Eight.  They were the senators who least represented  their party's position.  No  other choice could have been worse.

It's difficult to see how this process in any way resembles the democratic process we expect from our government. 

Rubio                    Stabenow

Corker                  McCaskill

Wicker                 Donelly

Ayotte                  Hagan

Flake                     Landrieou

Hatch                   Tester

Heller                   Pryorf








Here's $4.2 Billion to Apply to the National Debt

To make a long story short, the Internal Revenue Service is responsible for assigning Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs). ITINs are issued to those who are unauthorized to work in the U.S. However, a 2011 report from the Treasury Inspector General (TIG) showed that in 2010, $4.2 billion in tax credits nationwide were paid to those same people through the Child Tax Credit; those who eligible for this credit can receive up to $1,000 in tax credits per child. So, a person who is not authorized to work in the U.S. is nevertheless able to obtain a refund check from the American taxpayer, via the IRS.

Fast forward to 2013.

The TIG completed a report in 2012 that outlines problems with the IRS’s review of ITIN applications. Among the many problems, TIG found that IRS personnel are inadequately trained to identify false or questionable documentation and identify patterns involving fraudulent tax refund claims. Additionally, a Questionable Identification Detection Team formed that would have properly handled fraudulent tax returns has been disbanded. Since the elimination of the team, the IRS’s management does not use application information to identify potential fraudulent schemes.

The TIG audited the IRS’s data system to understand how to solve this problem. When the TIG analyzed the number of times the same mailing address was used on an ITIN application, it found that 154 mailing addresses were used 1,000 or more times on ITIN applications.

For example, 123456 Peachtree Street, Atlanta GA 30312 was listed as the contact address on 1,000 or more ITIN applications submitted to the IRS. Since we are using Atlanta as an example, from 2006-2011, 12,345 ITINs were granted to individuals using a single addresses. In 2011, at only four addresses in Atlanta, 41,272 tax refunds were issued that totaled over $54 million. Each refund averaged $1,308.

While over 20 million Americans and legal immigrants struggle with unemployment or underemployment, the IRS sends refund checks to those ineligible to work in the U.S.

Sunday, June 23, 2013

Illegal Aliens Already Cost Us a Bundle

The economist Milton Friedman warned that America cannot have open borders and an extensive welfare state. He was right, and his reasoning extends to amnesty for the more than 11 million unlawful immigrants in this country.
In addition to being unfair to those who follow the law and encouraging more unlawful immigration, amnesty has a substantial price tag.
An exhaustive study by the Heritage Foundation has found that after amnesty, current unlawful immigrants would receive $9.4 trillion in government benefits and pay more than $3 trillion in taxes over their lifetimes.
That leaves a net fiscal deficit (benefits minus taxes) of $6.3 trillion. That deficit would have to be financed by increasing the government debt or raising taxes on U.S. citizens.
For centuries, immigration has been vital to our nation's health, and it will be essential to our future success. Yet immigrants should come to our nation lawfully and should not impose additional fiscal costs on our overburdened taxpayers. An efficient and merit-based system would help our economy and lessen the burden on taxpayers, strengthening our nation.
A properly structured lawful immigration system holds the potential to drive positive economic growth and job creation. But amnesty for those here unlawfully is not necessary to capture those benefits.
We estimate that when those who broke our laws to come here start having access to the same benefits as citizens do — as is called for by the Senate Gang of Eight immigration bill — the average unlawful immigrant household will receive nearly $3 in benefits for every dollar in taxes paid. The net annual cost is $28,000 per unlawful immigrant household.
Given the federal debt of $17 trillion, the fiscal effects detailed in our study should be at the forefront of legislators' minds as they consider immigration legislation.
Already, illegal immigrants impose costs on police, hospitals, schools and other services. Putting them on a path to citizenship means that within a few years, they will qualify for the full panoply of government programs: over 80 means-tested welfare programs, as well as Social Security, Medicare and ObamaCare.
The lifetime fiscal cost (benefits received minus taxes paid) for the average unlawful immigrant after amnesty would be around $590,000. Who is going to pay that tab?
Our government is now in the business of redistribution. As Nicholas Eberstadt, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, has pointed out, federal transfer payments, or taking from one American to give to another, grew from 3% of spending in 1935 to two-thirds of all spending in 2010. Adding millions of unlawful immigrants to U.S. programs will have a massive negative fiscal effect.
Our findings are based on empirical research and reflect common sense. Unlawful immigrants have relatively low earning potential because, on average, they have 10th-grade educations and low skills. Heads of households like that, whether from the Midwest or Central America, will receive, on average, four times as much in government services and benefits as they pay in taxes.
Adding millions more to bloated welfare and overburdened entitlement programs would deepen the fiscal hole our country is in.
In addition to costing taxpayers, amnesty is unfair to those who came to this country lawfully. More than 4 million people are waiting to come to America lawfully, but our dysfunctional bureaucracy makes it easier to break the law than to follow it.
Our cost estimates are in some ways conservative. The $6.3 trillion figure does not factor in the waves of unlawful immigrants who could pour into this country hoping for another future amnesty.
As scholars at the Heritage Foundation and elsewhere have explained, the immigration bill being considered in the Senate differs little from previous empty promises to secure our borders and enforce immigration laws on the books. When amnesty was granted under a similar plan in 1986, there were about 3 million unlawful immigrants; now we have more than 11 million.
Instead of forcing through a complicated, lengthy bill, Congress ought to advance piece-by-piece immigration solutions that enjoy broad support and build trust with the American people. We should move to streamline our legal immigration system, encourage patriotic assimilation to unite new immigrants with America's vibrant civil society, fulfill promises to secure our borders and strengthen workplace enforcement.
We are proudly a nation of immigrants. People the world over are attracted to America because we are a nation of laws.
Granting amnesty to those who broke the law and putting them on a path to citizenship would be unfair, would encourage more bad behavior and would impose significant costs on American families.  -- Robert Rector et al

Read More At Investor's Business Daily:
Follow us: @IBDinvestors on Twitter | InvestorsBusinessDaily on Facebook

Let the Border Patrol Certify when the Borders are Srcure

By now it is clear that you can't trust those damn Democrats.  In 1986 they promised secure border in return for amnesty for more than a million illegal aliens.  Border security never hap pended. They lied.  Eleven million illegals later make that crystal clear.  And yet now the Democrats prompted by La Raza are back at the table again trying to sell us another bill of goods. 
It's hard to see why anyone doesn't realize by now that there is only one way to secure the borders  and that is to stop rewarding illegal aliens with the opportunity to stay and work while they ultimately force the Congress into yet another amnesty.  
Likewise there is only one way to ascertain whether the border is secure.  We must have a secret poll of all border patrol and related front line officials administered and reported by an outside agency such as one of the large accounting firm or as Charles Krauthammer suggests below when he  s".... some independent body certifies that the border is essentially closed."
Is a bipartisan immigration deal at hand? It’s close. Last week, the AFL-CIO and the Chamber of Commerce worked out a guest-worker compromise that allows in foreign workers on a sliding scale of 20,000 to 200,000, depending on the strength of the economy.
Nice deal. As are the other elements of the Senate’s bipartisan Gang of Eight plan — the expansion of H-1B visas for skilled immigrants, serious tracking of visa overstayers and, most important, a universal E-Verify system that would make it very risky for any employer to hire an illegal immigrant.
But there’s a rub. It’s the perennial rub. Are Democrats serious about border enforcement? It’s supposed to be the trigger that would allow illegal immigrants to start on the path to citizenship.
Why is a trigger necessary? To prevent a repeat of the 1986 fiasco where amnesty was granted and border enforcement never came — giving us today’s 11 million living in the shadows. Yet just a week ago Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, referring to border enforcement, averred that “relying on one thing as a so-called trigger is not the way to go.” Regarding legalization, “there needs to be certainty.” But not for border security?
And she’s the person in charge of securing that border. Now listen to President Obama: “Given the size of the border, it’s never going to be 110 percent perfect. What we can do is to continue to improve it.”

The usual Obama straw man. Who’s asking for 110 percent enforcement? And the need is for something a lot more than just improvement. The objective is to reduce a river to a trickle. It’s doable. The two border sections with triple fencing outside San Diego reduced infiltration by 92 percent. (If the president tells you that fences don’t work, ask him why he has one around the White House.)

To be sure, the Gang of Eight enforcement trigger is not ideal. The 11 million get near-instant legalization — on the day, perhaps six to nine months after the bill is signed, when Homeland Security submits a plan (with the required funding) to achieve within a decade 90 percent apprehension and 100 percent real-time surveillance.
This plan triggers “probationary” legalization, which in reality is permanent, because once the 11 million register, it is inconceivable their status would be revoked.
Let’s be clear. A mere DHS enforcement plan is a very weak trigger. I would prefer legalization to occur later, once the plan is actually carried out and some independent body certifies that the border is essentially closed.
But that simply will not happen. Democrats control the Senate and the White House, and they will only agree to a weaker trigger. Which is? Legalization first — i.e., living here openly without fear of deportation but nothing more until the border is controlled. Until then, no one even starts on the path to citizenship — no green card, no naturalization.

So why is Obama undermining even that compromise, asserting that “this earned pathway to citizenship” must not be “put off further and further,” that it must be “certain” — not contingent on verifiable benchmarks of border closure?

Are he and Napolitano signaling to their hard-core open-border constituency that they will try to sabotage passage of any law that has a serious enforcement trigger, or that they will try to sabotage enforcement if a strict law is nonetheless enacted?

Why? Isn’t border control an elementary principle of sovereignty? What country deliberately forfeits the right to decide who gets to join its communal life?

Remember: We’re not talking about the 11 million already here who will be legalized as a matter of both practicality and compassion. We’re talking about the next 11 million. Without border enforcement, they will be here. If you don’t build it — the fence, the visa-tracker, E-Verify — they will come.

Why deliberately create the next immigration crisis? Is it because you coldly calculate that this wave and the next are destined to be partisans of your political party? Talk about placing party over country.

Or perhaps Obama intends this to be a poison pill: (1) Demonstrate unmistakable bad faith on enforcement. (2) Undermine the Gang of Eight’s already weak border-control “trigger.” (3) And thus force Republicans to defeat this “immigration reform” — as newly defined and newly defanged of enforcement.

Obama seems to want an issue, not a solution — a potent political issue for Democrats to demagogue in 2014 and 2016 and forever. If so, given the Democrats’ incessant and lachrymose expressions of compassion for those living in the shadows, this would be the ultimate in cynicism. per Robert .Krauthammer

Monday, June 10, 2013

Vote Against Cloture on Amnesty Bill

Tell your Senators Deceptions Will Not Be Tolerated. Filibuster The Gang-Of-Eight Amnesty Bill!


In a matter of hours, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will bring the Gang-of-Eight Amnesty bill to the floor of the Senate. It will take only 41 votes to deny him cloture and kill this Amnesty bill. Tell your senators that the American people expect them to vote against cloture or any motion to proceed.  You must do this today to have any effect!  Phone, fax or email your senators now.

Here's what your senators need to hear:
"I am are going to be blunt. You may be thinking that you can vote in favor of  cloture and then vote against the legislation after it hits the floor.  The American people will not be fooled by this deception.  You need  to vote "no" on any motion to proceed.

If you vote "yes" on cloture, you won't get away with telling the American people that you opposed Amnesty.  Disabuse yourself of that ridiculous notion right now.

Put another way, a vote in opposition to filibustering the Gang-of-Eight amnesty bill will be viewed as a vote in favor of Amnesty... PERIOD!

This Gang-of-Eight Amnesty bill can't be fixed and it should not be debated. The sooner you kill this fraudulent immigration legislation, the sooner you can enact real immigration reform. Kill it now!  Vote "no" on cloture or any motion to proceed.

Friday, June 7, 2013

Dee Perez -Scott's Top Ten -- Only in Progressive America

Pretty sad, especially #1
 TOP-10 "Only In America" Observations:

10) Only in America…could 
politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a 
$35,000.00 a plate campaign fund-raising 

9) Only in America…could 
people claim that the government still 
discriminates against black Americans when they 
have a black President, a black Attorney General, 
and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is 
black while only 12% of the population is 

8) Only in America…could 
they have had the two people most responsible for 
our tax code, Timothy Geithner (the head of the 
Treasury Department) and Charles Rangel (who 
once ran the Ways and Means Committee), 
BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in 
favor of higher taxes.

7) Only in America…can 
they have terrorists kill people in the name of 
Allah and have the media primarily react by 
fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the 

6) Only in America…would 
they make people who want to legally become 
American citizens wait for years in their home 
countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for 
the privilege, while they discuss letting 
anyone who sneaks into the country 
illegally just 'magically' become 
American citizens.

5) Only in 
America…could the people who believe in 
balancing the budget and sticking by the 
country's Constitution be thought of as 

4) Only in America…could 
you need to present a driver's license to cash a 
check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

3) Only in 
America…could people demand the 
government investigate whether oil 
companies are gouging the public because the 
price of gas went up when the return on equity 
invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon 
Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis 
shoes (Nike).

2) Only in America…could 
the government collect more tax dollars from the 
people than any nation in recorded history, still 
spend a Trillion dollars more than it has 
per year - for total spending of 
$7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that 
it doesn't have nearly enough money.

1) Only in America…could 
the rich people - who pay 86% of all income taxes 
- be accused of not paying their "fair share" by 
people who don't pay any income taxes at 

Sunday, June 2, 2013

Dee Perez-Scott --Obama overlooks the most important gun issue

“The single most important factor that has caused the political left to demand an end to private firearms ownership is that the underclass has, over the last fifty years, expanded exponentially, bringing with it an exponential increase in crime.  Many of these criminals come from the single-parent families encouraged by the welfare system, a dysfunctional government give-away favored by the far left.  The absence of fathers has led large numbers of children to seek gangs as a substitute for parenting not available at home.  Not content with having created an entire class of welfare-bred criminals, the political left now seeks to protect this underclass by rendering ordinary citizens defenseless against crime perpetrated by these criminals.”
In sum, both blacks and whites are part of this criminal underclass, but, as Juan Williams points out, blacks, a 13% minority, are doing 54% of the killing and dying.  That needs to be said.
Why is this happening?  According to Juan Williams, the out of wedlock birth rate for blacks is now 72%.  This leads to more than 70% of black mothers being on welfare raising more than 70% of black children without fathers.
That’s part of the problem.  Another part, Williams says, is:
“a dysfunctional gangster-rap culture that glorifies promiscuity, drug dealers and the power of the gun.”
So now we have black culture of violence financed by the welfare system producing what are – by any measure – distorted values.  One might think this needs to be addressed.
Not so.  The President of the United States recently invited the gangster rapper Jay-Z to his inauguration.  Jay-Z is the black poster boy for the value system that Juan Williams says is destroying the black community.  Inviting him to the presidential inauguration is, by implication, an endorsement of the mindlessness characteristic of Jay-Z and his supporters.
But Obama is not a moralist.  He is a politician who panders himself to the black vote and avoids criticizing the criminal culture that has enslaved his people.  Obama made no move toward gun control until a white madman killed young children at Sandy Hook.  In Obama’s mind, that single act instantly transformed the “gun problem” into a white (not black) problem.  It is about white misconduct, not about blacks, black culture or black behavior.
Guess what. It’s still about blacks.  They are victims and killers in disproportionate numbers.  An occasional white maniac does not erase that.  People who want to reduce homicide by gun need to focus on curbing a black culture that has caused the problem in the first place.
Banning guns to cure black murderousness, crime and cultural deficiencies is like banning popsicles to deal with an outbreak of the Ebola virus.

Friday, May 3, 2013

Congress has always believed in our gulibility

Is the Gang of Eight Plan “Amnesty”?
A study of other recent amnesties indicates that it is


WASHINGTON, DC (May 3, 2013) — The “Gang of Eight” senators argue that their bill (S.744) is not an amnesty because illegal immigrants would have to pay a fine and fulfill other requirements as a condition of legalization. Yet seven recent tax and parking-ticket amnesties imposed conditions and payments on those who violated the law, and in every case these programs were considered to be an amnesty by elected officials, the public, and the media. Like the Schumer-Rubio immigration bill, each of  the amnesties discussed below set aside the normal penalty but still required payments.
Examples of recent amnesties:
  • In 2012 Rhode Island offered what the state government and media outlets explicitly called a “tax amnesty”. The state even created the to promote it. The amnesty allowed certain taxpayers to pay overdue taxes plus seventy-five percent of interest due by November 15. The remaining interest and civil and criminal penalties were waived.
  • The town of Huntington, N.Y., just completed a parking ticket program described as an amnesty by the town board, town supervisor, and local media. To qualify for the amnesty, past due tickets issued January 1, 2005, or later had to be paid by April 30, 2013. The person had to pay the ticket value plus any penalties, but could do so at a 40 percent discount.
  • In 2009 Louisiana ran what the state itself called a “tax amnesty”, even setting up a “Tax Amnesty Website”. The media also referred to it as an amnesty. The program covered past due taxes from 2001 or later. If taxes owed and 50 percent of interest  were paid during the two-month amnesty period, the remainder of the interest plus civil penalties were waived.
More examples at:

Members of the Senate’s Gang of Eight have argued that S.744 is not an amnesty. On his website promoting S.744, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) states that, “No one gets amnesty”. He argues that because the beneficiaries have to meet requirements and pay fines it is not an amnesty. He even states, “no undocumented immigrant is rewarded with anything”. Similarly, Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) argued in a National Review opinion article, “This bill ensures that no illegal immigrant will be given amnesty or rewarded for illegal behavior.”  When asked if the bill was amnesty in a recent interview Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) stated, “not at all.” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) also claimed in a recent interview that the bill is not amnesty.
Despite claims to the contrary, S.744 is similar to the tax and parking ticket amnesties discussed above. The normal penalty for being in the United States illegally is that the alien must leave the country. Under S.744 this penalty is set aside and illegal immigrants who arrived prior to January 1, 2012 are given legal status and can remain in the country. They must also pay a fee of $500 initially, and undergo a background check. Like all the amnesties discussed above, S.744 includes conditions and payments. If S.744 is not an amnesty, then none of the tax and parking ticket amnesties discussed above are amnesties, even though everyone involved with them considers the programs to be amnesties.
“The Schumer-Rubio immigration bill is an amnesty, and those who claim otherwise are not being honest with the American people,” said Steven Camarota, Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies.

Wednesday, May 1, 2013

Notorious GAng of Eight N Immigration Bill bodes ill for U.S. Population Growth -- Dee Perez-Scott Loves It!

33 million!!!!!
That's the number our analysts came up with after nearly two weeks deciphering the 844-page bill created by the "Senate Gang of Eight" to give amnesty to illegal aliens.
Unbelievably, the 11 million illegal aliens to be given work permits are merely the visible Trojan Horse. As bad as that amnesty is, it is distracting the nation from the fact that inside the bill is something far worse than the amnesty -- WORK PERMITS FOR 22 MILLION FOREIGN CITIZENS in addition to the 11 million illegal aliens!
11 million + 22 million = 33 million.
And the 33 million is just the first 10 years. It looks like the bill possibly could dole out around 20 million lifetime work permits every decade after that. We're still working on those numbers.
33 million is the number that should start every conversation about the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill being rushed through the Senate Judiciary Committee by Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vermont).
And it's the number that has to stop this bill before it can do unalterable damage to our country. No matter what your Members of Congress may think about giving an amnesty to 11 million, they can't possibly justify immediately over the next decade adding 33 million more potential competitors for scarce U.S. jobs.
LIKE ADDING 20 LARGEST U.S. CITIES ............................ ALL OVER AGAIN
Our cities, suburbs, towns and rural areas already have 20 million Americans who want a full-time job but can't find one.
It is hard to imagine what adding another 33 million foreign citizens with work permits would look like.
But try this:
33 million is like adding an entire new city of New York, PLUS . . .

. . . adding duplicate cities of Los Angeles, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix and San Antonio, PLUS . . .
. . . also adding duplicate cities of San Diego, Dallas, San Jose, Jacksonville and Indianapolis, PLUS . . .
. . . finally adding duplicates of Austin, San Francisco, Columbus, Fort Worth, Charlotte, Detroit, El Paso, Memphis and Boston!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If Congress passes this bill it would be like re-creating ALL of the Top 20 cities in the United States, filling them entirely with foreign citizens and giving them lifetime work permits to compete with America's struggling workers -- and in just 10 years time.

Immigration Bill Doesn’t Secure the Border

Must Washington fix our broken southern border? You bet.
Will the comprehensive immigration reform bill help? You bet it won’t.
The number one flaw of the bill is it starts by giving amnesty to the unlawfully present population in the United States. As soon as the bill passes, those in the country contrary to U.S. immigration law are granted status to stay.
Amnesty immediately creates an incentive for illegal border crossings and overstays. Thus, the bill’s strategy would drive up the cost of securing the border. To make matters worse, the draft law states that anyone who was present in the U.S. before 2012 qualifies—creating massive opportunity for fraud, since there is no proof required that applicants have been here for several years.
While supporters of the bill trumpet its “border security” features, in reality, the law delivers nothing new—other than the promise of spending a lot more money and running up our debt.
The bill trashes fiscal discipline, exploiting “a loophole in the Budget Control Act (BCA) that allows Congress to spend more than allowed under the spending caps adopted in 2011.”
In other words, Washington is willing to draft a bounced check to justify an amnesty bill.
To make matters worse, there is very little likelihood that that Americans will get much for the next border security buck spent.
The Secretary of Homeland Security has repeatedly stated that our borders “have never been more secure.” In the past five years, the White House has never asked for this additional border security funding. Yet, this bill lavishes billions of additional spending on the department with no clear requirements on how the money is spent. At least $2 billion could legitimately be labeled the Secretary’s slush fund.
Supporters of the bill trumpet requirements to “certify” border security, yet its standards are in some ways weaker than existing law. Present law requires gaining “operational control” of the whole border, while this bill sets standards only for “high-risk” sectors. Since smuggling trails shift to where the security is not, even if the standards were attained in one area, the traffic would just go somewhere else.
In addition, the Department of Homeland Security has been trying unsuccessfully to define credible metrics for border security since 2004. Even if it had effective “triggers,” that does not guarantee a secure border. Border crossing conditions constantly change. Even if the goal is achieved, there is no guarantee it will stay that way.
We can do more to secure our borders. But we don’t need an amnesty bill and bogus border triggers to make our borders safe and sovereign. Nor does Washington need to throw more buckets of money toward border security.
Our government could cooperate more effectively with Mexico and the border states. Congress could modernize our legal immigrant and non-immigrant programs, including effective temporary worker programs. The government could enforce our workplace and immigration laws.
In short, the promise of border security in this case is merely an excuse for a bloated bill that would promise anything to push amnesty, regardless of cost or practicality.

Uncomfortable Facts

By Patrick J.. Buchanan

Barack says we need to have a conversation
about race in America ..
Fair enough.
But this time,
it has to be a two-way conversation..
White America needs to be heard from,
not just lectured to....
This time,
the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions,
grievances and demands heard.
And among them are these:

America has been the best country on earth for black folks.
It was here that 600,000 black people,
brought from Africa in slave ships,
grew into a community of 40 million,
were introduced to Christian salvation,
and reached the greatest levels
of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known..
Jeremiah Wright ought to go down on his knees
and thank God he is an American.

no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks
than white Americans.
Untold trillions have been spent since the '60s
on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements,
Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans,
legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits
and poverty programs designed
to bring the African-American community
into the mainstream.
Governments, businesses and colleges
have engaged in discrimination against white folks --
with affirmative action,
contract set-asides and quotas --
to advance black applicants over white applicants.
Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools
and individuals all over America
have donated their time and money to support
soup kitchens, adult education, day care,
retirement and nursing homes for blacks.
We hear the grievances.
Where is the gratitude??

Barack talks about new 'ladders of opportunity' for blacks.
Let him go to Altoona ?
And Johnstown ,
and ask the white kids in Catholic schools
how many were visited
lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships
for 'deserving' white kids...?
Is white America really responsible
for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates
for African-Americans are seven times those of white America ?
Is it really white America 's fault that illegitimacy
in the African-American community has hit 70 percent
and the black dropout rate from high schools
in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or,
first and foremost,
a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism,
its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime,
and especially interracial crimes of violence.
Is Barack Obama aware
that while
white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time,

black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Barack aware
that black-on-white rapes are 100 times
more common than the reverse,
that black-on-white robberies
were 139 times as common
in the first three years of this decade
as the reverse?

We have all heard
ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley,
the Duke rape case and Jena .
And all turned out to be hoaxes.
But about the epidemic of black assaults
on whites that are real,
we hear nothing.

Sorry, Barack,
some of us have heard it all before,
about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.
This needs to be passed around because,
this is a message everyone needs to hear!!! 

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Dee Perez-Scott gets it Baxkwards -- Again!

Dee has become an advocate for the offspring of illegal aliens to permit them to join the armed forces.  I have been an advocate for a 4 year enlistment as a minimum qualification for eligibility under the DREAM Act.  College is not a substitute for service to our country as a form of redemption for the illegal acts of their parents.  Moreover, the parents of these children should never be allowed to a pathway to citizenship.  The ability to remain and work in this country would represent a major compromise on the part of those who would prefer to see them all systematically deported.  Citizenship is and should be unacceptable in any immigration bill.

Congress Threatens Personal Freedoms


As Barack Obama begins his second term in office, trust in the federal government remains mired near a historic low, while frustration with government remains high. And for the first time, a majority of the public says that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms.
1-31-13 #1The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Jan. 9-13 among 1,502 adults, finds that 53% think that the federal government threatens their own personal rights and freedoms while 43% disagree.
In March 2010, opinions were divided over whether the government represented a threat to personal freedom; 47% said it did while 50% disagreed. In surveys between 1995 and 2003, majorities rejected the idea that the government threatened people’s rights and freedoms.
The growing view that the federal government threatens personal rights and freedoms has been led by conservative Republicans. Currently 76% of conservative Republicans say that the federal government threatens their personal rights and freedoms and 54% describe the government as a “major” threat. Three years ago, 62% of conservative Republicans said the government was a threat to their freedom; 47% said it was a major threat.
By comparison, there has been little change in opinions among Democrats; 38% say the government poses a threat to personal rights and freedoms and just 16% view it as a major threat.
People who say they have guns in their households continue to be more likely than those who do not to say that the government is a threat to their personal rights and freedoms. About six-in-ten (62%) in gun-owning households see the government as a threat, compared with 45% of those without guns; this gap is no larger today than it was three years ago.
The survey finds continued widespread distrust in government. About a quarter of Americans (26%) trust the government in Washington to do the right thing just about always or most of the time; 73% say they can trust the government only some of the time or volunteer that they can never trust the government. Explore a Pew Research interactive on Public Trust in Government: 1958-2013.

I would argue that much of this  is due to the unAmerican influence of organisation's like La Razaand its members like Dee Perez-Scott who placea everything except La Raza in  distant second place.  Their lack loyalty to American  is obvious from all of their writings and positions.  When was the last time any of them thought about or questioned the effect of our rising population