Immigration Talk with a non-hyphenated American

Dee Perez-Scott: her form of government

2012-01-21T07:27:00.000-08:00

Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Dee Perez-Scott: soon she will join the brigade

2012-01-20T12:17:00.000-08:00

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the
government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

I Grey-Haired Brigade

They like to refer to us as senior citizens, old fogies, geezers, and in some cases dinosaurs. Some of us are "Baby Boomers" getting ready to retire. Others have been retired for some time.We walk a little slower these days and our eyes and hearing are not what they once were. We have worked hard, raised our children, worshiped our God and grown old together. Yes, we are the ones some refer to as being over the hill, and that is probably true. But before writing us off completely, there are a few things that need to be taken into consideration.

In school we studied English, history, math, and science which enabled us to lead America into the technological age. Most of us remember what outhouses were, many of us with firsthand experience. We remember the days of telephone party-lines, 25 cent gasoline, and milk and ice being delivered to our homes. For those of you who don't know what an icebox is, today they are electric and referred to as refrigerators. A few even remember when cars were started with a crank. Yes, we lived those days.

We are probably considered old fashioned and out-dated by many. But there are a few things you need to remember before completely writing us off. We won World War II, fought in Korea and Viet Nam. We can quote The Pledge of Allegiance, and know where to place our hand while doing so. We wore the uniform of our country with pride and lost many friends on the battlefield.? We didn't fight for the Socialist States of America, we fought for the "Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave." We wore different uniforms but carried the same flag. We know the words to the Star Spangled Banner, America ,and America the Beautiful by heart, and you may even see some tears running down our cheeks as we sing. We have lived what many of you have only read about in history books and we feel no obligation to apologize to anyone for America.

Yes, we are old and slow these days but rest assured, we have at least one good fight left in us. We have loved this country, fought for it, and died for it, and now we are going to save it. It is our country and nobody is going to take it away from us. We took oaths to defendAmerica against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that is an oath we plan to keep. There are those who want to destroy this land we love but, like our founders, there is no way we are going to remain silent.

It was mostly the young people of this nation who elected Obama and the Democratic Congress. You fell for the "Hope and Change" which in reality was nothing but "Hype and Lies." You have tasted socialism and seen evil face to face, and have found you don't like it after all. You make a lot of noise, but most are all too interested in their careers or "Climbing the Social Ladder" to be involved in such mundane things as patriotism and voting. Many of those who fell for the "Great Lie" in 2008 are now having buyer's remorse. With all the education we gave you, you didn't have sense enough to see through the lies and instead drank the 'Cool-Aid.' Now you're paying the price and complaining about it. No jobs, lost mortgages, higher taxes, and less freedom. This is what you voted for and this is what you got. We entrusted you with the Torch of Liberty and you traded it for a paycheck and a fancy house.

Well, don't worry youngsters, the Grey-Haired Brigade is here, and in 2012 we are going to take back our nation. We may drive a little slower than you would like but we get where we're going, and in 2012 we're going to the polls by the millions. This land does not belong to the man in the White House nor to the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It belongs to "We the People" and "We the People" plan to reclaim our land and our freedom. We hope this time you will do a better job of preserving it and passing it along to our grandchildren. So the next time you have the chance to say the Pledge of Allegiance, Stand up, put your hand over your heart, honor our country, and thank God for the old geezers of the "Grey-Haired Brigade."

Author, Anon. Grey-Haired Brigade Member

Dee Perez-Scott: GOP Governor takes action on welfare front

2012-01-15T09:22:00.000-08:00

Hooray for Florida! !

I-95 will be jammed for the next month or so........Druggies and deadbeats heading North out of Florida..

Florida is the first state requiring drug testing to receive welfare! In signing the new law,

Republican Gov. Rick Scott said, "If Floridians want welfare, they better make sure they are drug-free.

Applicants who test positive for illicit substances won't be eligible for the funds for a year, or until they undergo treatment.

Those who fail a second time would be banned from receiving funds for three years!

Naturally, a few people are crying this is unconstitutional.

How is this unconstitutional ?

It's completely legal that every other working people have to pass drug tests in order to get a J-O-B which supports those on welfare!

Dee Perez-Scott: An Actual Letter to Congress

2012-01-11T08:55:00.000-08:00

The Honorable Tom Harkin
731 art Senate Office Building
Phone (202) 224 3254
Washington DC , 20510

Dear Senator Harkin ,

As a native Iowan and an excellent customer of the Internal Revenue Service , I am writing to ask for your assistance. I have contacted the Department of Homeland Security in an effort to determine the process for becoming an illegal alien and they referred me to you.

My primary reason for wishing to change my status from U.S. Citizen to illegal alien stems from the bill which was recently passed by the Senate and for which you voted. If my understanding ofthis bill's provisions is accurate, as an illegal alien who has been in the United States for five years, all I need to do to become a citizen is to pay a $2,000 fine and income taxes for three of the last five years. I know a good deal when I see one and I am anxious to get the process started before everyone figures it out.

Simply put, those of us who have been here legally have had to pay taxes every year so I am excited about the prospect of avoiding two years of taxes in return for paying a $2,000 fine. Is there any way that I can apply to be illegal retroactively? This would yield an excellent result for me and my family because we paid heavy taxes in 2004 and 2005.

Additionally, as an illegal alien I could begin using the local emergency room as my primary health care provider. Once I have stopped paying premiums for medical insurance, my accountant figures I could save almost $10,000 a year.

Another benefit in gaining illegal status would be that my daughter would receive preferential treatment relative to her law school applications, as well as 'in-state' tuition rates for many colleges throughout the United States for my son.

Lastly, I understand that illegal status would relieve me of the burden of renewing my driver's license and making those burdensome car insurance premiums. This is very important to me given that I still have college age children driving my car.

If you would provide me with an outline of the process to become illegal (retroactively if possible) and copies of the necessary forms, I would be most appreciative.

Thank you for your assistance.

Your Loyal Constituent, (hoping to reach 'illegal alien' status rather than just a bonafide citizen of the USA )

Donald Ruppert
Burlingtond, IA

Dee Perez-Scott: Obama's Marxism on Display

2012-01-03T08:53:00.001-08:00

Dee Perez-Scott: Obama's Marxismm on Display
Subject: Washington Post looks at Obama
Well! It seems the liberal Washington Post just had an epiphany. It doesn’t matter if the recipients of this are R’s or D’s, the fact remains that this reporter got closer to the truth than anything I’ve seem come out of the Post up to now. I am not thrilled with the gaggle of wannabes being held up for evaluation (ridicule?) by the R’s, but to simply vote this guy back in with another four years f “Hope and Change” isn’t going to do us much good. It’s too bad the D’s don’t decide to go find a more moderate
candidate to run at the conventions. There is a large segment of the population who don’t have a candidate yet, on either of the two extremes. I don’t think any of us want to hear any more of: “I am more conservative, more liberal, or more progressive than he/she is.” Some of us would prefer, “I am
more reasonable in my thought processes. There are progressive and conservative things to look at, but there is an established set of values and practices which should not be thrown out or treated as politically incorrect.” I can’t imagine anybody in their right mind who would want to touch the hem of the garment of these bums.

The Washington Post
August 18, 2011
Obama: The Affirmative Action President by Matt Patterson
(columnist - Washington Post, New York Post, San Francisco Examiner)
Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass
hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages. How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many
into thinking he could manage the world's largest economy, direct the world's most powerful military, execute the world's most consequential job?
Imagine a future historian examining Obama's pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a "community organizer"; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote "present"); and finally an unaccomplished single term in the United States Senate, the
entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions. He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as a legislator.
And then there is the matter of his troubling associations: the white-hating, America-loathing preacher who for decades served as Obama's
"spiritual mentor"; a real-life, actual terrorist who served as Obama's colleague and political sponsor. It is easy to imagine a future historian
looking at it all and asking: how on Earth was such a man elected president?
Not content to wait for history, the incomparable Norman Podhoretz addressed the question recently in the Wall Street Journal: To be sure, no white candidate who had close associations with an
outspoken hater of America like Jeremiah Wright and an unrepentant terrorist like Bill Ayers, would have lasted a single day. But because Mr. Obama was Black, and therefore entitled in the eyes of liberaldom to have hung out with protesters against various American injustices, even if they were a bit
extreme, he was given a pass.
Let that sink in: Obama was given a pass -- held to a lower standard -- because of the color of his skin. Podhoretz continues: And in any case, what did such ancient history matter when he was also so articulate and elegant and (as he himself had said)
"non-threatening," all of which gave him a fighting chance to become the first black president and thereby to lay the curse of racism to rest?

Podhoretz puts his finger, I think, on the animating pulse of the Obama phenomenon -- affirmative action. Not in the legal sense, of course. But certainly in the motivating sentiment behind all affirmative action laws and regulations, which are designed primarily to make white people, and especially white liberals, feel good about themselves. Unfortunately, minorities often suffer so that whites can pat
themselves on the back. Liberals routinely admit minorities to schools for which they are not qualified, yet take no responsibility for the inevitable poor performance and high drop-out rates [and dumbing down] which follow.
Liberals don't care if these minority students fail; liberals aren't around to witness the emotional devastation and deflated self esteem resulting from
the racist policy that is affirmative action. Yes, racist. Holding someone to a separate standard merely because of the color of his skin -- that's affirmative action in a nutshell, and if that isn't
racism, then nothing is. And that is what America did to Obama.
True, Obama himself was never troubled by his lack of
achievements, but why would he be? As many have noted, Obama was told he was good enough for Columbia despite undistinguished grades at Occidental; he
was told he was good enough for the US Senate despite a mediocre record in Illinois; he was told he was good enough to be president despite no record at all in the Senate. All his life, every step of the way, Obama was told he was good enough for the next step, in spite of ample evidence to the contrary. What could this breed if not the sort of empty narcissism on display every time Obama speaks?
In 2008, many who agreed that he lacked executive qualifications nonetheless raved about Obama's oratory skills, intellect, and cool character. Those people -- conservatives included -- ought now to be deeply embarrassed. The man thinks and speaks in the hoariest of clichés, and that's when he has his teleprompter in front of him; when the prompter is
absent he can barely think or speak at all. Not one original idea has ever issued from his mouth -- it's all warmed-over Marxism of the kind that has failed over and over again for 100 years.

And what about his character? Obama is constantly blaming anything and everything else for his troubles. Bush did it; it was bad luck; I
inherited this mess. It is embarrassing to see a president so willing to advertise his own powerlessness, so comfortable with his own incompetence. But really, what were we to expect? The man has never been responsible for anything, so how do we expect him to act responsibly?
In short: our president is a small and small-minded man, with neither the temperament nor the intellect to handle his job. When you understand that, and only when you understand that, will the current erosion
of liberty and prosperity make sense. It could not have gone otherwise with such a man in the Oval Office.

(Reader comment: I think too many miss the fact that Obama's intentions are to ruin this country; reduce it to a third-world country level; redistribute the
wealth that it produces and make it suffer. He was taught to hate America.)

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

2011-12-23T18:52:00.000-08:00

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

2011-12-07T14:57:00.000-08:00

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:

2011-11-29T07:56:00.000-08:00

"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

2011-11-24T13:03:00.000-08:00

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.

2011-11-06T09:18:00.000-08:00

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

2011-10-29T10:02:00.001-07:00

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

2011-10-28T14:48:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-25T11:36:00.000-07:00

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?

2011-10-21T12:53:00.000-07:00

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

2011-09-22T08:53:00.000-07:00

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

2011-09-16T15:06:00.000-07:00

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!

2011-09-16T07:47:00.000-07:00

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

2011-09-05T11:05:00.000-07:00

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

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

2011-09-05T10:37:00.000-07:00

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.

Dee Perez-Scott: Here's what your president should say next Thursday.

2011-09-02T18:36:00.000-07:00

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

'My Fellow Americans: As you all know, the defeat of the Iraq regime has been completed.

Since Congress does not want to spend any more money on this war, our mission in Iraq is complete.

This morning I gave the order for a complete removal of all American forces from Iraq . This action will be complete within 30 days. It is now time to begin the reckoning.

Before me, I have two lists. One list contains the names of countries which have stood by our side during the Iraq conflict. This list is short. The United Kingdom , Spain , Bulgaria , Australia , and Poland are some of the countries listed there.

The other list contains every one not on the first list. Most of the world's nations are on that list. My press secretary will be distributing copies of both lists later this evening.

Let me start by saying that effective immediately, foreign aid to those nations on List 2 ceases indefinitely. The money saved during the first year alone will pretty much pay for the costs of the Iraqi war.

THEN EVERY YEAR THEREAFTER IT WILL GO TO OUR SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM SO IT WON’T GO BROKE IN 20 YEARS.

The American people are no longer going to pour money into third world Hell holes and watch those government leaders grow fat on corruption.

Need help with a famine? Wrestling with an epidemic? Call France ...

In the future, together with Congress, I will work to redirect this money toward solving the vexing social problems we still have at home. On that note, a word to terrorist organizations. Screw with us and we will hunt you down and eliminate you and all your friends from the face of the earth.

Thirsting for a gutsy country to terrorize? Try France or maybe China.

I am ordering the immediate severing of diplomatic relations with France, and Russia. Thanks for all your help, comrades. We are retiring from NATO as well.

I have instructed the Mayor of New York City to begin towing the many UN diplomatic vehicles located in Manhattan with more than two unpaid parking tickets to sites where those vehicles will be stripped, shredded and crushed. I don't care about whatever treaty pertains to this. You creeps have tens of thousands of unpaid tickets. Pay those tickets tomorrow or watch your precious Benzes, Beamers and limos be turned over to some of the finest chop shops in the world. I love New York.

A special note to our neighbors: Canada is on List 2. Since we are likely to be seeing a lot more of each other, you folks might want to try not ticking us off for a change.

Mexico is also on List 2. Its president and his entire corrupt government really need an attitude adjustment. Keep your tired, your hungry, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, and the wretched refuse of your teeming country. Give your people the government and the freedom they deserve. Stop dumping your problems in our backyard.

I will have a couple thousand extra tanks and a few infantry divisions sitting around. Guess where I am going to put 'em? Yep, border security.

Oh, by the way, the United States is abrogating the NAFTA treaty - starting now. Mexican trucks and smugglers will no longer be welcome on our highways. You can unhitch at the border. We’ll take it from there.

We are tired of the one-way highway. Immediately, we'll be drilling for oil in Alaska -which will take care of this country's oil needs for decades to come. If you're an environmentalist who opposes this decision, I refer you to List 2 above: pick a country and move there.

It is time for America to focus on its own welfare and its own citizens. Some will accuse us of isolationism. I answer them by saying, ‘exactly.'

Nearly a century of trying to help folks live a decent life around the world has only earned us the undying enmity of just about everyone on the planet. It is time to eliminate hunger in America. It is time to eliminate homelessness in America.
To the nations on List 1, a final thought. Thank you guys.
We owe you and we won't forget.

To the nations on List 2, a final thought: You might want to learn to speak Arabic.

God bless America ...
Thank you and good night.'

Dee Perez-Scott's Sophistry

2011-08-23T13:09:00.000-07:00

The shame and embarrassment this society is facing is that we allowed illegal immigration to metastasize into its current crisis.

Illegal immigration is an out-of-control disaster where a democratic society allowed a relentless flood of illegal immigrants to contravene its laws ; violate its borders; overwhelm its infrastructures and social systems; diminish employment possibilities for its indigenous uneducated and poor; and degrade its way of life

The inscription at the base of the Statute of Liberty concludes, "I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" It says nothing about welcoming people who bypass our entry doors by climbing walls, swimming rivers and sneaking under or over border fences.

Stop aiding illegal aliens who break the law. Give your loyalty to your country and to your fellow citizens, not to foreigners and foreign interests.

The legal citizens of this country need to rally and demand the enforcement of our current immigration laws to protect our borders from those who desire to violate the law by entering the country illegally.

Let us not become confused by current sophistry used to excuse the breaking and entering and staying illegally in the United States. Equating this issue with "civil rights" and a "modern-day trail of tears" is yet another sordid effort by the left to convince people that the United States is being unfair in its policies of immigration.

The message that we ought to feel guilty about any problems experienced by people who freely choose to ignore our immigration regulations and enter illegally is nonsense.

If we have the intestinal fortitude to enforce immigration laws, then any future illegal alien rallies in Washington, D.C., and New York ought to be attended by I.C.E. agents with orders to round up all illegal aliens in the vicinity. That would send a message to "undocumented" individuals that we in this country are serious about the idea of following the rule of law and resent having non-citizens demanding rights inconsistent with their illegal status.

Dee Perez-Scott: End of History

2011-08-23T08:27:00.001-07:00

How long do countries have until their populations disappear?

As The Economist reports this week, many women in the richer parts of Asia have gone on “marriage strike”, preferring the single life to the marital yoke. That is one reason why their fertility rates have fallen. And they are not alone. In 83 countries and territories around the world, according to the United Nations, women will not have enough daughters to replace themselves, unless fertility rates rise. In Hong Kong, for example, a cohort of 1,000 women would be expected to give birth to just 547 daughters, at today’s fertility rates. (That gives Hong Kong a “net reproduction rate” of just 0.547, in the language of demographers.) If nothing changed, those 547 daughters would be succeeded by just 299 daughters of their own, and so on. At that rate, according to some back-of-the-envelope calculations by The Economist, it would take about 25 generations for Hong Kong’s female population to shrink from 3.75m to just one. Given that Hong Kong’s average age of childbearing is 31.4 years, it could expect to give birth to its last woman in the year 2798. (That is some time after its neighbour, Macau, which has a higher reproduction rate, but a much smaller population.) By the same unflinching logic, Japan, Germany, Russia, Italy and Spain will not see out the next millennium. Even China, which has a recorded history stretching back at least 3,700 years, has only about 1,500 years le

Dee Perez-Scott: Misguided Liberal

2011-08-22T08:02:00.000-07:00

This was never given as a commencement address. It was read on Neal Boortz's radio program and in his book. It is a liberal's nightmare. Enjoy.

"I am honored by the invitation to address you on this august occasion. It's about time. Be warned, however, that I am not here to impress you; you'll have enough smoke blown up your bloomers today. And you can bet your tassels I'm not here to impress the faculty and administration. You may not like much of what I have to say, and that's fine. You will remember it though. Especially after about 10 years out there in the real world. This, it goes without saying, does not apply to those of you who will seek your careers and your fortunes as government employees.

This gowned gaggle behind me is your faculty. You've heard the old saying that those who can - do. Those who can't - teach. That sounds deliciously insensitive. But there is often raw truth in insensitivity, just as you often find feel-good falsehoods and lies in compassion. Say good-bye to your faculty because now you are getting ready to go out there and do. These folks behind me are going to stay right here and teach.

By the way, just because you are leaving this place with a diploma doesn't mean the learning is over. When an FAA flight examiner handed me my private pilot's license many years ago, he said, 'Here, this is your ticket to learn.' The same can be said for your diploma. Believe me, the learning has just begun.

Now, I realize that most of you consider yourselves Liberals. In fact, you are probably very proud of your liberal views. You care so much. You feel so much. You want to help so much. After all, you're a compassionate and caring person, aren't you now? Well, isn't that just so extraordinarily special. Now, at this age, is as good a time as any to be a liberal; as good a time as any to know absolutely everything. You have plenty of time, starting tomorrow, for the truth to set in.

Over the next few years, as you begin to feel the cold breath of reality down your neck, things are going to start changing pretty fast... including your own assessment of just how much you really know.

So here are the first assignments for your initial class in reality: Pay attention to the news, read newspapers, and listen to the words and phrases that proud Liberals use to promote their causes. Then, compare the words of the left to the words and phrases you hear from those evil, heartless, greedy conservatives. From the Left you will hear "I feel." From the Right you will hear "I think." From the Liberals you will hear references to groups -- The Blacks, the Poor, The Rich, The Disadvantaged, The Less Fortunate. From the Right you will hear references to individuals. On the Left you hear talk of group rights; on the Right, individual rights.

That about sums it up, really: Liberals feel. Liberals care. They are pack animals whose identity is tied up in group dynamics. Conservatives think -- and, setting aside the theocracy crowd, their identity is centered on the individual.

Liberals feel their favored groups have enforceable rights to the property and services of productive individuals. Conservatives, I among them I might add, think that individuals have the right to protect their lives and their property from the plunder of the masses.

In college you developed a group mentality, but if you look closely at your diplomas you will see that they have your individual names on them. Not the name of your school mascot, or of your fraternity or sorority, but your name. Your group identity is going away. Your recognition and appreciation of your individual identity starts now.

If, by the time you reach the age of 30 you do not consider yourself to be a conservative, rush right back here as quickly as you can and apply for a faculty position. These people will welcome you with open arms. They will welcome you, that is, so long as you haven't developed an individual identity. Once again you will have to be willing to sign on to the group mentality you embraced during the past four years.

Something is going to happen soon that is going to really open your eyes. You're going to actually get a full time job!

You're also going to get a lifelong work partner. This partner isn't going to help you do your job. This partner is just going to sit back and wait for payday. This partner doesn't want to share in your effort, but in your earnings.

Your new lifelong partner is actually an agent; an agent representing a strange and diverse group of people; an agent for every teenager with an illegitimate child; an agent for a research scientist who wanted to make some cash answering the age-old question of why monkeys grind their teeth. An agent for some poor demented hippie who considers herself to be a meaningful and talented artist, but who just can't manage to sell any of her artwork on the open market.

Your new partner is an agent for every person with limited, if any, job skills, but who wanted a job at City Hall. An agent for tin-horn dictators in fancy military uniforms grasping for American foreign aid. An agent for multi-million dollar companies who want someone else to pay for their overseas advertising. An agent for everybody who wants to use the unimaginable power of this agent's for their personal enrichment and benefit..

That agent is our wonderful, caring, compassionate, oppressive government. Believe me, you will be awed by the unimaginable power this agent has. Power that you do not have. A power that no individual has, or will have. This agent has the legal power to use force, deadly force to accomplish its goals.

You have no choice here.. Your new friend is just going to walk up to you, introduce itself rather gruffly, hand you a few forms to fill out, and move right on in. Say hello to your own personal one-ton gorilla. It will sleep anywhere it wants to.

Now, let me tell you, this agent is not cheap. As you become successful it will seize about 40% of everything you earn. And no, I'm sorry, there just isn't any way you can fire this agent of plunder, and you can't decrease its share of your income. That power rests with him, not you.

So, here I am saying negative things to you about government. Well, be clear on this: It is not wrong to distrust government. It is not wrong to fear government. In certain cases it is not even wrong to despise government for government is inherently evil. Yes ... a necessary evil, but dangerous nonetheless...somewhat like a drug. Just as a drug that in the proper dosage can save your life, an overdose of government can be fatal.

Now let's address a few things that have been crammed into your minds at this university. There are some ideas you need to expunge as soon as possible. These ideas may work well in academic environment, but they fail miserably out there in the real world.

First is that favorite buzz word of the media and academia: Diversity! You have been taught that the real value of any group of people - be it a social group, an employee group, a management group, whatever - is based on diversity. This is a favored liberal ideal because diversity is based not on an individual's abilities or character, but on a person's identity and status as a member of a group. Yes, it's that liberal group identity thing again.

Within the great diversity movement group identification - be it racial, gender based, or some other minority status - means more than the individual's integrity, character or other qualifications.

Brace yourself. You are about to move from this academic atmosphere where diversity rules, to a workplace and a culture where individual achievement and excellence actually count. No matter what your professors have taught you over the last four years, you are about to learn that diversity is absolutely no replacement for excellence, ability, and individual hard work. From this day on every single time you hear the word "diversity" you can rest assured that there is someone close by who is determined to rob you of every vestige of individuality you possess.

We also need to address this thing you seem to have about "rights." We have witnessed an obscene explosion of so-called "rights" in the last few decades, usually emanating from college campuses.

You know the mantra: You have the right to a job. The right to a place to live. The right to a living wage. The right to health care. The right to an education. You probably even have your own pet right - the right to a Beemer for instance, or the right to have someone else provide for that child you plan on downloading in a year or so.

Forget it. Forget those rights! I'll tell you what your rights are. You have a right to live free, and to the results of 60% -75% of your labor. I'll also tell you have no right to any portion of the life or labor of another.

You may, for instance, think that you have a right to health care. After all, Hillary said so, didn't she? But you cannot receive healthcare unless some doctor or health practitioner surrenders some of his time - his life - to you. He may be willing to do this for compensation, but that's his choice. You have no "right" to his time or property. You have no right to his or any other person's life or to any portion thereof.

You may also think you have some "right" to a job; a job with a living wage, whatever that is. Do you mean to tell me that you have a right to force your services on another person, and then the right to demand that this person compensate you with their money? Sorry, forget it. I am sure you would scream if some urban outdoorsmen (that would be "homeless person" for those of you who don't want to give these less fortunate people a romantic and adventurous title) came to you and demanded his job and your money.

The people who have been telling you about all the rights you have are simply exercising one of theirs - the right to be imbeciles. Their being imbeciles didn't cost anyone else either property or time. It's their right, and they exercise it brilliantly.

By the way, did you catch my use of the phrase "less fortunate" a bit ago when I was talking about the urban outdoorsmen? That phrase is a favorite of the Left. Think about it, and you'll understand why.

To imply that one person is homeless, destitute, dirty, drunk, spaced out on drugs, unemployable, and generally miserable because he is "less fortunate" is to imply that a successful person - one with a job, a home and a future - is in that position because he or she was "fortunate." The dictionary says that fortunate means "having derived good from an unexpected place." There is nothing unexpected about deriving good from hard work. There is also nothing unexpected about deriving misery from choosing drugs, alcohol, and the street.

If the Liberal Left can create the common perception that success and failure are simple matters of "fortune" or "luck," then it is easy to promote and justify their various income redistribution schemes. After all, we are just evening out the odds a little bit. This "success equals luck" idea the liberals like to push is seen everywhere. Former Democratic presidential candidate Richard Gephardt refers to high-achievers as "people who have won life's lottery." He wants you to believe they are making the big bucks because they are lucky. It's not luck, my friends. It's choice. One of the greatest lessons I ever learned was in a book by Og Mandino, entitled, "The Greatest Secret in the World." The lesson? Very simple: "Use wisely your power of choice."

That bum sitting on a heating grate, smelling like a wharf rat? He's there by choice. He is there because of the sum total of the choices he has made in his life. This truism is absolutely the hardest thing for some people to accept, especially those who consider themselves to be victims of something or other - victims of discrimination, bad luck, the system, capitalism, whatever. After all, nobody really wants to accept the blame for his or her position in life. Not when it is so much easier to point and say, "Look! He did this to me!" than it is to look into a mirror and say, "You did this to me!"

The key to accepting responsibility for your life is to accept the fact that your choices, every one of them, are leading you inexorably to either success or failure, however you define those terms.

Some of the choices are obvious: Whether or not to stay in school. Whether or not to get pregnant. Whether or not to hit the bottle. Whether or not to keep this job you hate until you get another, better-paying job. Whether or not to save some of your money or saddle yourself with huge payments for that new car.

Some of the choices are seemingly insignificant: Whom to go to the movies with. Whose car to ride home in. Whether to watch the tube tonight, or read a book on investing. But, and you can be sure of this, each choice counts. Each choice is a building block - some large, some small. But each one is a part of the structure of your life. If you make the right choices, or if you make more right choices than wrong ones, something absolutely terrible may happen to you. Something unthinkable. You, my friend, could become one of the hated, the evil, the ugly, the feared, the filthy, the successful, the rich.

The rich basically serve two purposes in this country. First, they provide the investments, the investment capital, and the brains for the formation of new businesses. Businesses that hire people. Businesses that send millions of paychecks home each week to the un-rich.

Second, the rich are a wonderful object of ridicule, distrust, and hatred. Few things are more valuable to a politician than the envy most Americans feel for the evil rich.

Envy is a powerful emotion.. Even more powerful than the emotional minefield that surrounded Bill Clinton when he reviewed his last batch of White House interns. Politicians use envy to get votes and power. And they keep that power by promising the envious that the envied will be punished: "The rich will pay their fair share of taxes if I have anything to do with it." The truth is that the top 10% of income earners in this country pays almost 50% of all income taxes collected. I shudder to think what these job producers would be paying if our tax system were any more "fair."

You have heard, no doubt, that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Interestingly enough, our government's own numbers show that many of the poor actually get richer, and that quite a few of the rich actually get poorer. But for the rich who do actually get richer, and the poor who remain poor, there's an explanation, a reason. The rich, you see, keep doing the things that make them rich; while the poor keep doing the things that make them poor.

Speaking of the poor, during your adult life you are going to hear an endless string of politicians bemoaning the plight of the poor. So, you need to know that under our government's definition of "poor" you can have a $5 million net worth, a $300,000 home and a new $90,000 Mercedes, all completely paid for. You can also have a maid, cook, and valet, and a million in your checking account, and you can still be officially defined by our government as "living in poverty." Now there's something you haven't seen on the evening news.

How does the government pull this one off? Very simple, really. To determine whether or not some poor soul is "living in poverty," the government measures one thing -- just one thing. Income.

It doesn't matter one bit how much you have, how much you own, how many cars you drive or how big they are, whether or not your pool is heated, whether you winter in Aspen and spend the summers in the Bahamas, or how much is in your savings account. It only matters how much income you claim in that particular year. This means that if you take a one-year leave of absence from your high-paying job and decide to live off the money in your savings and checking accounts while you write the next great American novel, the government says you are 'living in poverty."

This isn't exactly what you had in mind when you heard these gloomy statistics, is it? Do you need more convincing? Try this. The government's own statistics show that people who are said to be "living in poverty" spend more than $1.50 for each dollar of income they claim. Something is a bit fishy here. Just remember all this the next time Charles Gibson tells you about some hideous new poverty statistics.

Why has the government concocted this phony poverty scam? Because the government needs an excuse to grow and to expand its social welfare programs, which translates into an expansion of its power. If the government can convince you, in all your compassion, that the number of "poor" is increasing, it will have all the excuse it needs to sway an electorate suffering from the advanced stages of Obsessive-Compulsive Compassion Disorder.

I'm about to be stoned by the faculty here. They've already changed their minds about that honorary degree I was going to get. That's OK, though. I still have my PhD in Insensitivity from the Neal Boortz Institute for Insensitivity Training. I learned that, in short, sensitivity sucks. It's a trap. Think about it - the truth knows no sensitivity. Life can be insensitive. Wallow too much in sensitivity and you'll be unable to deal with life, or the truth, so get over it.

Now, before the dean has me shackled and hauled off, I have a few random thoughts.

* You need to register to vote, unless you are on welfare. If you are living off the efforts of others, please do us the favor of sitting down and shutting up until you are on your own again.

* When you do vote, your votes for the House and the Senate are more important than your vote for President. The House controls the purse strings, so concentrate your awareness there.

* Liars cannot be trusted, even when the liar is the President of the country. If someone can't deal honestly with you, send them packing.

* Don't bow to the temptation to use the government as an instrument of plunder. If it is wrong for you to take money from someone else who earned it -- to take their money by force for your own needs -- then it is certainly just as wrong for you to demand that the government step forward and do this dirty work for you.

* Don't look in other people's pockets. You have no business there. What they earn is theirs. What you earn is yours. Keep it that way.. Nobody owes you anything, except to respect your privacy and your rights, and leave you alone.

* Speaking of earning, the revered 40-hour workweek is for losers. Forty hours should be considered the minimum, not the maximum. You don't see highly successful people clocking out of the office every afternoon at five. The losers are the ones caught up in that afternoon rush hour. The winners drive home in the dark.

* Free speech is meant to protect unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protection.

* Finally (and aren't you glad to hear that word), as Og Mandino wrote,

1. Proclaim your rarity. Each of you is a rare and unique human being.

2. Use wisely your power of choice.

3. Go the extra mile .. drive home in the dark.

Oh, and put off buying a television set as long as you can. Now, if you have any idea at all what's good for you, you will get the hell out of here and never come back.
Class dismissed

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dee Perez-Scott: Loyalty, Racism and Population

2011-08-20T08:40:00.000-07:00

The open society of modern America—combining individual rights, a market economy and a modest safety net—is the closest the world has yet come to the good society. Mass illegal entry combined with excessive legal immigration into the U.S., without the appropriate metering and integration of newcomers, is endangering that unique combination of individual liberty and social unity.

It is doing so by changing the face of many towns and cities too rapidly, eroding the belief that existing citizens come first and weakening a sense of mutual obligation expressed through the tax and benefit system. Citizens who are the ethnic brethren of immigrants or illegal aliens often abandon their obligations to their fellow citizens, choosing instead to give precedence to the newcomers without regard to the cost and the tearing of the social fabric that results.

There is nothing mystical about the nation-state. Anyone can join (if invited) so long as they learn the language and respect the traditions of the country. A commitment to a nation-state requires loyalty and support for national sovereignty. After a long and often bloody pre-history the modern nation-state is still the only institution that can currently deliver what citizens, of both right and left, want: democratic legitimacy for the exercise of power; cross-ethnicity, cross-class and cross-generational unity and cohesiveness and even a sense of collective identification that is bigger, better and more tangible than ethnic identities, families and neighborhoods. There is little sign that any other type of organization would be an improvement over the nation-state.

And for the nation-state to work it must entail borders and boundaries and it must "belong" to existing citizens—on important matters they must have special rights over non-citizens. That means immigration must be managed with the interests of existing citizens in mind. The question is what are those interests? First and foremost must be the maintenance of the standard of living and quality of life of the existing citizens. Second, of course, is a feeling of solidarity regarding the national interest. Third and unbending loyalty to the nation-state rather than to any foreigners or foreign interest or potentates.

Immigration does not in itself endanger the nation-state, but when it happens illegally, very quickly and on a very large scale and when many illegal aliens and immigrants choose to live in cultural enclaves it does do so.

That, alas, is what has been happening in America. The intended or unintended consequences of the failure of government to enforce immigration policies combined with multicultural politics convey the message that you can enter and remain here illegally and that the rule of law means nothing. This state of affairs has alienated voters across the U.S and given rise to populist parties that assert that taxes are too high because of the demands of the immigrants, illegal aliens and their progeny and their fellow-travelers among the liberals, progressives and disloyal citizens.

In several European countries the immigrant and ethnic minority population is rising to 15% or 20%. One leading demographer has said that on current trends Britain will be "majority minority" by 2066. Even in America there are now those who chortle about the rising majority-minority. Some large towns are already have a high percentage of minorities. This sudden and largely unplanned demographic shift has damaged trust between citizens and generated segregation, fear and unwarranted accusations of racism or hate.

The sheer size of some minority communities has made it easier to live apart in "little Kabul" or "little Havana", and so on. The rising influence of racist orgainzations like La Raza, MEChA and MALDEF is a harbinger of America's political future. A conservative Islam, insistent on Sharia Law first for their own communities and then for all of America, is yet another indication of a failed immigration policy that has balkanized a once united America. And unlike the America of a few years ago where hard work acted as an integrating force, today's overly-generous welfare system has created too many immigrant dependents and 14th Amendment baby families, triggering resentment among mainstream taxpayers who have to pick up the tab.

There is, of course, good immigration too. Supporters like to overstate the creativity and dynamism of some young migrants, their willingness to do dirty or under-rewarded jobs (like stoop labor) that few natives want, their relative youth in an ageing America. But these benefits would have to be very large, and demonstrable, to compensate for the cost and cultural and social disruption caused by over-rapid immigration and illegal entry. style="font-weight:bold;"> But they are not! Almost all the economic analyses of mass immigration in recent years have found that the positive effects on employment, wages and per head growth in economic activity is, at best, marginal. Similarly, on the question of fiscal benefit, productive immigrants like Poles probably pay in more than they take out, but less productive ones like Somalis (in Britain, only 25% of them work) do the opposite.

Moreover, costs and benefits are unevenly distributed: employers and richer people benefit, as do many consumers and, of course, immigrants themselves. But low-skilled workers (often recent migrants) face lower wages, and while immigrants create as well as take jobs, the creating takes longer than the taking. Because it is concentrated at the top and bottom, mass immigration reinforces inequality and reduces social mobility (one-third of professional jobs in London are taken by people born outside Britain). It adds to urban congestion, increases pressure on public services and housing, and discourages employers from training, especially hard-to-reach youngsters such as those who have been busy looting in recent days in London.

No sensible person wants a complete halt to immigration, but America needs a dramatic slowdown(like the "pause" from 1920 to 1965) to absorb the large inflows of recent decades and a re-focusing of the quotas on skilled or well-educated immigrants who are likely and There will be some economic costs of a slowdown, but if democratic politics fails to deal with this existential issue on which there is such a settled popular will the resulting backlash will threaten the sharp decline in overt racism of the past 30 years. Young people now have a somewhat liberal view of race and gender but they have become much less generous on welfare, poverty and redistribution of wealth. That is not just because of the mishandling of mass immigration—affluence. Individualism has played a role too. But that makes it even more important to rein in mass immigration before America loses its unique balance between individual rights and mutual obligation.

Dee Perez-Scott: Race Baiting!

2011-08-16T18:22:00.000-07:00

Respect is earned regardless of your skin pigment. Thomas Sowell, Martin Luther King and Clarence Thomas, Cesar Chavez, Marco Rubio, and Dr. Alvarez earned the respect of most all that know them and that respect had nothing to do with the pigment of their skin. It has to do with the content of their character. Williams Ayers, Jessie James and Saul Alinsky are worthless garbage who happen to be lighter than the first three.

A Cardinal and a Blue Jay are both birds but cannot interbreed because they are not the same the same species. A wasp and a hornet cannot interbreed because they are not the same species. Humans are all the same species and the sooner we leave the race card behind, the better the society will be. Obama has amplified race and sent it back 50 years because of his socialism. It has nothing to do with his pigment of skin, it has to do with his lack of content of his character.

I don't care what color anyone is or if their eyes slant or if they have horns on their heads. Get over it Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and Dee Perez-Scott, your race baiting is making a fool of your race. Get over it, get some character and you will succeed regardless of pigment!

Dee Perez-Scott: Supporter of racist, unAmerican La Raza

2011-08-14T15:19:00.000-07:00

We all need to support a key piece of legislation that will be introduced in the House of Representatives next month. This measure will defund the racist, open borders organization La Raza…arguably the most powerful radical Hispanic lobby group in the United States. Believe or not, when America is $14 trillion in debt the Obama gang is shoveling $11 million of our tax dollars to La Raza…funding that has exploded from the still-ridiculous $4.1 million it received in George Bush’s last year in office!

There can be no justification for our tax dollars …yours and mine…being given to a racist organization that is openly hostile to our American culture, language, and ideals and that demands an unlimited flow of illegal aliens into our country! We should all be incensed that our tax dollars are going to this un-American organization and that however they advertise to the contrary, directly or indirectly goes to fund its intense lobbying efforts in Washington for open borders, amnesty for illegal aliens and the reconstruction of America. La Raza not only uses our tax dollars to support Obama’s re-election but they also use the money to silence opponents of illegal entry by referring to them as hate groups or individuals. They don’t even know the meaning of “hate” but that doesn’t stop them from making use of the word in an indiscriminate way.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.” Yet, that is what is happening when Obama takes our money and gives it to La Raza. That is why it is so important to support the fight to defund La Raza and strike a blow for basic American Constitutional principles… and against the radical Obama political machine and socialism.
Please support the Team America PAC which is devoted to securing our borders.

Dee Perez-Scott is at it again.

2011-08-04T19:42:00.000-07:00

She wrote,
“The Debt Ceiling has been raised. Congress has passed the bill, rife with homage to the insane Tea Party Republicans. Our President has bowed down to their demands. He lost command of the dialogue. He AGAIN has conceded to the ‘right of Center.’”
What she doesn’t understand is that the American people have always been “right of center” and any president to be successful has had to move to the right of center. Now that Obama has seen the light Dee is abandoning him when earlier she was singing his praises to the high heavens.
The Tea Party, of course, is the only sane party in Washington. All others seem to be bent on bankrupting America. The Democrat Party in particular has become the real tax, spend and borrow party. The American people don’t want any new taxes right now. Recent events have shown how fragile our and the European economies are. Dee has no understanding of these matters and would make matters worse. She is not satisfied with almost half of the people in this country paying no income taxes. She wants us all on the dole. Then who will pay the bills of government.
Obama turns out to be a realist. You take what you can get. Both sides were unhappy with the debt ceiling deal. It may yet be undoing of our country now that it is on credit watch and now that China has downgraded out debt. The Republicans didn’t get the cut, cap and balance deal our country so desperately needs. The Democrats didn’t get the tax increases they wanted.
In this bill, in Dee’s hyperbole::
“. Tax Cuts for the Rich are continued!
. We will see massive Reductions for the Poor and Middle Class.
. No extensions for the Unemployed.
. Possible impact to Medicare and Unemployment.”

Dee is out of her depth on budget matters. She doesn’t understand how large the entitlement portion of the budget is. If we are to make any headway in reducing the national debt over the next ten years, there will have to be modest changes in Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid or we will all go down with the ship. The realists don’t advocate reductions in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security but they are smart enough to realize that the budget cannot be balanced otherwise and the debt cannot be paid down. Dee’s agenda has been written by George Soros and Move On. She doesn’t understand what she is advocating but continues blithely down the path of the ignorant. She wants more indigent immigrants and amnesty for the illegal aliens to drain our Medicaid and social services coffers. Every one of them has the potential for reducing our and her standard of living and quality of life. Blinded by ideology, she doesn’t get the connection.
She is under the illusion that millions of illegals are being deported when in fact Obama and DHS have subverted all of the relevant immigration laws, ignoring them with impunity. Only the ignorant think as she does. There will be no end to education, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and the minimum wage. That’s just some more of the Obama-brand scare tactics like: our soldiers won’t get paid and the Social Security checks won’t go out. Instead he should have said: I am suspending all foreign aid immediately until our financial crisis abates; I am reducing federal employment to the level of the 1960s, I am terminating all subsidies of all kinds: agri-business, Amtrak, rural airports, rural internet, and other big business subsidies; I am terminating all of the nonessential program we have enacted that have dragged us into budget deficits. This is the only way we can get out of debt and get American moving again.

Dee Perez-Scott: Rand Paul Tells it like it is!

2011-08-02T16:03:00.000-07:00

Dee Perez-Scott: Did you miss this hate crime?

2011-07-29T19:11:00.000-07:00

Homosexual Bigots Commit Hate Crimes State Senator Ruben Diaz .

“A hate crime is usually defined by state law as one that involves threats, harassment, or physical harm and is motivated by prejudice against someone's race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or physical or mental disability.” - USLegal.com

» If you like this article, please support Right Side News

The Knight of the Long Knives continues as the homosexual lobby commits one hate crime after another.

The latest victim of homosexual bigots? New York state senator Ruben Diaz, D-Bronx, the only Democrat who voted against granting same-couples the “right” to marry in New York.

Diaz proudly says he is a “Christian first and then a Democrat,” and added that, “I always vote my conscience.”

Says Diaz, “As a Christian and as the President of the New York Hispanic Clergy Organization, I will continue to defend the teachings of the Bible and oppose homosexual marriage.”

In the debate that crested with Republicans casting the deciding votes to legitimize homosexual “marriage,” Diaz was blunt, direct and clear. “God, not Albany, has settled the definition of marriage a long time ago.”

For taking a principled, religiously-rooted stand for the institution that undergirds all of human civilization, Diaz has become the latest in a long, sad string of victims of the true hatemongers in America, homosexuals activists. Their hate crime against him is motivated by prejudice against his religion, which teaches that God designed marriage exclusively as the union of one man and one woman.

Diaz and his family received death threats during the same-sex marriage debate and controversy, and his daughter was threatened with sexual assault by the same people who say you’re not supposed to force your values on anyone. The threats have been reported to the police and the FBI. (Good luck getting any help from them.) He has also received a barrage of hate calls.

Remember the legal definition of a “threat” for hate crimes purposes:

“It is an expression of an intention to inflict an evil or injury on another person...A threat is also defined as a menace that keeps the mind of a person upon whom a threat operates unsettled.” - USLegal.com

On top of that, homosexual paragons of tolerance sponsored a “F--- Ruben Diaz Festival” in a gay bar in Brooklyn.

Says Diaz, a Pentecostal pastor, "I have never preached hate. They're showing that they're the ones that are doing the hateful things."

Added Diaz in a recent press release, “I continue to be the target of a vulgar campaign by seething extremists who oppose my defense of New York’s marriage laws. As a Christian, of course I love those who hate me and I will continue to pray for their souls.” And gay activists say that he is the hater! Sounds a lot more like Jesus Christ to me.

His Democratic colleagues, the self-proclaimed champions of the downtrodden and victimized, are no help, saying he’s getting what he deserves. “You reap what you sow,” said one.

Gay activist Jonathan Rauch admitted that the hatemongers on the left are at risk of overplaying their hand:

"Incidents of rage against 'haters,' verbal abuse of opponents, boycotts of small-business owners, absolutist enforcement of anti-discrimination laws: Those and other 'zero-tolerance' tactics play into the 'homosexual bullies' narrative. The other side in short, is counting on us to hand them the victimhood weapon. Our task is to deny it to them."

Well, if they were trying to deny Sen. Ruben Diaz the “victimhood weapon,” consider their efforts an epic fail.

Wrote Richard Barnes, executive director of the New York Catholic Conference:

“Where is the cry for tolerance and justice for Rev. Diaz against these hate purveyors?...The entire campaign to enact same-sex marriage is conducted under a banner of acceptance, and equality and respect for others. Yet behind that banner of tolerance is another campaign – of intimidation, threats and ugliness. What at first appears to be simple juvenile behavior by a few is becoming a culture and climate of abusiveness toward those who disagree. Is this the future we look forward to in our state? Intolerance masquerading as tolerance, intimidation in the name of respect? I hope not, but the wind certainly seems to be blowing in that direction.”

Mr. Barnes, the winds are not only blowing in that direction, they are reaching hurricane force.

Chuck Colson is another whose eyes are wide open to the steaming hate billowing from the denizens of the homosexual lobby. "The gay-rights groups have shown their fangs. They want to silence, yes, destroy those who don't agree with their agenda."

Homosexuals are rapidly cementing their position as the number one perpetrators of hate crimes in American today. Sen. Diaz is simply the latest prey of the hatemongering hunters on the left, who live in mortal fear that someone, somewhere, actually believes what God says about marriage and human sexuality. And the list will grow longer before it grows shorter.

Dee Perez-Scott: The House has passed "Cut, Cap & Balance"

2011-07-22T15:47:00.000-07:00

The peoples' House has passed "Cut, Cap & Balance" by a substantial margin but the Senate under the arrogant leadership of Senator Reid has rejected it 51-46. Obama promised to veto it if it passed but I doubt he would do that if the August 2nd deadline was upon us. How can anyone be against the balanced budget amendment? It's like apple pie and motherhood. This goes to show that it is the Democrats in the Senate that are at fault if the nation defaults. Time to jack up you senators and tell them this is the only bill on the table so it's time to man-up and pass it to save us from the default they are crying about. Put up or shut. Fish or cut bait.

Dee Perez-Scott is out of her depth on budget matters

2011-07-09T17:08:00.000-07:00

Dee Perez-Scott wrote,”As Republicans continue to pander to the Rich and demand more cuts (Medicare, Social Security) for the Middle Class, IF they continue to stonewall the President and push our country into a deeper Recession/Depression and refuse to Raise the Debt Ceiling, then the President should invoke the 14th Amendment and pay our Country's bills. True Americans stand behind our President.”

She uses the phrase "true Americans" but her readers will remember vividly how critical she was of those who used the term "real Americans. She doesn't get to decide who is and who is not a true or real American. Dee Perez-Scott, if she had any sense, would know that America will pay the interest on the national debt as its first priority. Everyone but she knows that. Next in line are Social Security and Medicare and Armed Services pay. Moreover, as Obama has already stated, he does not plan to resort to any sort of tricks such as invoking the 14th amendment. He understands that he has no basis for doing so as long as we have the resources to pay the interest on the national debt. Even if he did, only the House has the constitutional authority to appropriate money. If Obama tried to operate solely on the basis of more debt, that would surely seal his fate in 2012 as everyone begins to realize that every dollar of such debt has Obama written all over it.

It really takes two parties to stonewall anything. If the president and the democrats weren’t stonewalling, there would be no crisis. It makes no sense to raise the limit on a credit card when one is already deep in hock. In fact, ethical credit card companies would refuse to do so. China should let it be known that if the U.S. does not undertake austerity measures like those being imposed on Greece, it will cash in its U.S. bonds and refuse to buy any more. The who will finance the national debt?
If Dee understood the budget deficit and national debt, she would realize that even if the super rich were taxed at 100% that would not be enough to cure the problem. We have to cut expenditures and Medicare and Social Security are the only major budget items that have the capability of solving the problem. I am not in favor of drastic cuts in either of them but there will have to be some contribution from that quarter if there is to be any chance for our country to return to solvency. The proposed changes are modest: a small adjustment in the cost of living formula and an increase of the age for a full annuity to 67. I don’t like either one but, unlike Dee, I am being realistic.

In a recent article, ultra-liberal-progressive, Katrina vanden Heuvel said: "Invoking the 14th Amendment defuses the bomb Republicans have strapped to the hostage." By doing so, the President would end the debt ceiling negotiations and create another basis for his impeachment. The 14th Amendment says: “the validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law ... shall not be questioned.” vanden Heuvel and others of her ilk should understand that no one is questioning the “validity of the public debt” and that includes the intra-governmental debt (like all the borrowing from the Social Security trust fund) which the Obama Administration and the Congress often conveniently overlook because it runs the national debt up to $120 trillion.

Katrina continued: In Freytag v. Commissioner (1991), the Supreme Court held that the president has "the power to veto encroaching laws . . . or to disregard them when they are unconstitutional." The Supreme, the final arbiter of constitutionality, will have the final word.. "As a simple matter of constitutional logic, the president can refuse to enforce a statute he believes violates the Constitution," said Professor Barry Friedman of NYU Law School in a telephone interview with me. It is also unlikely that the action would be successfully challenged in court. Only Congress would have standing to sue, but doing so would require a joint resolution, something a Democratic-controlled Senate would almost certainly block." In other words, vanden Heuvel is suggesting that the President rather than the Supreme Court should determine the constitutionality of a statute. That would inflict such heavy damage to the concept of separation of powers that even the Democrats in the senate would hesitate to take that route. Instead the statesmen in both Houses should expedite the resolution and ask the court to give it immediate priority.

I do think the Republicans would be making a PR mistake by continuing to insist on no tax increases of any kind, direct or indirect. However, any tax increases should be limited to individuals rather than the businesses that we depend upon to create jobs. If they do so , we will stand behind the Republicans and toss Obama out of office next year.

Dee Perez-Scott supports Mexifornia

2011-07-07T06:58:00.000-07:00

Recently, in symbolic fashion, spectators of Mexican ancestry in Pasadena's Rose Bowl did not merely cheer on the Mexican national soccer team in a game against the U.S. national team -- such nostalgia is natural and understandable for recent immigrants -- but went much further and also jeered American players and, indeed, references to the United States.

Which was the home team?

Was America to be appreciated for accepting poor aliens, or resented for not granting them amnesty? Is the idea of the United States to be conveniently booed or opportunistically thanked -- depending on whether you are watching a soccer match or, for example, entering an Los Angeles hospital emergency room with a life-threatening injury?

This otherwise insignificant but Orwellian incident reminds us that illegal immigration in the 21st century is becoming an illiberal enterprise. But that doesn't bother liberal Dee Perez-Scott.

Consider the prevailing myth of Mexico as America's "partner." Aside from the violence and drug cartels, an alien from Mars who examined the relationship would instead characterize it as abusive. Close to a million Mexican nationals annually try to cross illegally into the United States, aided and abetted by a cash-strapped Mexico -- in a fashion that the latter would never permit on its southern border with Guatemala. Indeed, if Guatemala had published an illustrated comic book instructing, in picture fashion, its presumed illiterate emigrants how to enter Mexico illegally -- as Mexico actually did -- the Mexican government would have been outraged. So is the surreal logic of Mexico City summed up by something like, "We value our own people so much that we will help them break laws to go elsewhere"? Dee Perez-Scott, in a similar fashion, supports those who have already broken the law by their illegal entry and presence in the U.S.

In the old immigration narrative of the 1960s and 1970s, affluent, profit-minded white American employers often exploited cheap workers from Mexico. But that matrix now is often superseded. So-called whites are no longer a majority in California, where large Asian and African-American populations often object to illegal arrivals from Mexico who cut in front of the legal immigration line or tax social services and raise costs to the detriment of American citizens.

Even the notions of "white" and "Latino" are becoming problematic in today's intermarried and interracial society. Does one-quarter or one-half an ethnic ancestry make one a member of the "minority" or "majority" community -- and, if so, by what logic and under which convenient conditions? For the purposes of hiring or college admission, should we apply one-drop rules from the Old Confederacy to measure our racial purity?

Poverty is no longer so clearly delineated either. In an underground economy where wages are often in cash and tax-free, and entitlements easier than ever to obtain, well over $20 billion a year in remittances are sent southward to Mexico alone, maybe double that sum to Latin America as a whole.

Something here once again has proven illiberal: Does a liberal-sounding but exploitive Mexican government cynically encourage its expatriates to scrimp and save in America only to send huge sums of money back home to help poor relatives, so that Mexico City might not? In turn, do an increasing number of illegal aliens count on help from the American taxpayer for food, housing, legal and education subsidies in order to free up $20 billion to send home?

The paradoxes and confusion never end these days. Do today's immigration activists work to grant amnesty on the basis of legal philosophy and principled support for open borders, or just because of shared ethnic identity? Dee Perez-Scott clearly supports illegal aliens because of shared ethnic identity! If there were now 11 million East Africans in America illegally, would today's Hispanic immigration lobbyists seek amnesty, bilingual services in Swahili, and yet more illegal immigration from Kenya and Uganda? Would they ever seek racially blind legal immigration into the U.S., based on education and skills rather than point of origin? Obviously, they wouldn't and neither would Dee Perez-Scott.

The yearly arrival of hundreds of thousands from Latin America, mostly without English-language skills, a high-school diploma and legality, has also challenged old ideas of everything from the assessment of U.S. poverty rates to affirmative action. Once an impoverished resident of Oaxaca crosses the border, does his lack of education and his modest income immediately help cement the charge that the American Latino population has not achieved economic parity?

Or, in the first nanosecond after illegally crossing the border, does a Mexican national or his family in theory become eligible for affirmative action, on the basis of past historical underrepresentation or present-day discrimination or poor treatment in Mexico -- in a way not extended to the Arab-American or Punjabi-American citizen?

Why does the present administration oppose new anti-illegal immigration laws in Arizona and Georgia that are designed to enhance existing federal law -- but not so-called "sanctuary city" statutes that in some municipalities deliberately contravene federal immigration law?

The old liberal ideal of a racially blind, melting-pot society where the law is applied equally across the board has descended into the new postmodern practice of enforcing many laws only selectively -- and based entirely on politics, matters of race, ethnic chauvinism and national origin.

In sum, yesterday's immigration liberals have become today's illiberals.

---Victor Hansen

Dee Perez-Scott: Ruben is only partly right.

2011-06-23T14:55:00.000-07:00

Ruben Navarrette recently wrote:
“It's nothing new. We live in a country that has -- for more than 220 years -- held the curious distinction of being a nation of immigrants that doesn't like immigrants. Our national motto isn't really "E Pluribus Unum." It's more like: "There goes the neighborhood." Whether they come legally, illegally, or with a letter of reference from the Queen of England, every batch of foreign arrivals to these shores is instantly considered inferior to those who came before.”

Navarrette, referring to our 220 year immigration history, misses the point entirely. 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 was an expression of her empathy for those who had fled the anti-Semitic Pogroms in Eastern Europe. It was a counterpoint to the disparaging remarks made from time to time about immgrants. The sonnet is a poignant reminder of our immigrant past but the operative word in that phrase is the word “past.”

Navarrette ignores the fact that our population has now increased six-fold. As a syndicated columnist he should fully understand that conditions are different today than they were in the mid to late 1800s. 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 some of us 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 a population of more than 300 million people.

Our immigrant past of the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries should not be our guide for the future. Times, society and the availability of natural resources have changed dramatically. Navarrette erred when he wrote that the U.S. does holds "the curious distinction of being a nation of immigrants that doesn't like immigrants." Foreigners have been largely treated the same whether it was the Irish who came to America, the Poles who immigrated to Ireland or the Turks who came to Germany. There is nothing unique about the U.S. in this regard. It is an altogether natural reaction to foreigners especially if they do not speak the language of the country to which they have immigrated and even more so if they have entered that country illegally. This kind of reaction to foreigners is a universal human frailty. It is a rare thing to be able to free oneself from this human condition. It is therefore unreasonable to judge the human race harshly with regard to its treatment of foreigners.

Ben Franklin, one of the Founding Fathers, did disparage Germans at one time saying that they were too stupid to learn English. Navarrette considered this to be evidence of Franklin's "ugly prejudice and nativism." But Franklin was probably not the first nor the last to have said something disparaging about the Germans. The French regularly referred to the Germans, especially the German soldiers in WW I and II, as "Boches" (rascals or cabbage heads). Others thought of the French as spineless based on their inability to defend their own country against aggressors. The French, in turn, look down their Gallic noses at just about everyone who doesn't speak French.

Yet Navarrette says, "Behold, the musings of one of our nation's first bigots: Benjamin Franklin who clearly thought the English superior and the Germans inferior." It is not bigoted to argue that a failure to acquire a common language is a barrier to acquiring a common culture essential to a functioning society. I think he judged Franklin far to harshly and clearly overstated Franklin's offhand remarks as a simple case of "ugly prejudice and nativism." This was and is a natural reaction to foreigners observable in every society on earth. That is simply the human condition the world over. The Germans turned out to be one of the most technologically advanced societies in Europe but that may not have been obvious to Franklin at the time if he was unable to communicate with them.

It's hard to say whether Ruben intended the adjective "ugly" to apply to both the words "prejudice" and "nativism" or just the former. I, like many others, consider nativism a normal expression of patriotism and a desire to preserve and protect one's quality of life and standard of living. Those qualities can easily be threatened by excessive population growth. Nativism often manifests itself as fully-justified, anti-immigrant sentiment when those immigrants are almost solely responsible for excessive population growth and demands on finite natural resources. It is important to understand that as the current and most important basis for such sentiment.

It is not unusual for a more advanced culture to consider itself superior to one that is less advanced. The national income per capita, UN rating and the number of Nobel prizes awarded might be some objective measures of this. This is neither necessarily a permanent condition nor a denial of the potential of other cultures. Rather it is a measure of what is not what could be. One has to wonder whether Navarrette considers himself to be superior say to an individual from a cannibal society.

It is clear that the pro-immigrant forces choose to use the word "Nativist" in a pejorative sense as Navarrette did above. Nativism favors the interests of certain established inhabitants of an area or nation as compared to claims of newcomers, illegal aliens or immigrants. It may also include the re-establishment, perpetuation or preservation of such individuals or their culture, a completely legitimate objective for any society.

Nativism typically means opposition to immigration, population growth,or to efforts to curb specific ethnic or cultural groups that have entered and are present in a country illegally and in such overwhelming numbers as to be considered hostile or alien to the natural culture. Depending on their numbers, it may be assumed that they cannot be or will choose not to be assimilated and will simply re-create the very culture and conditions they fled their homelands to escape: overpopulation, poverty, joblessness, crime, disease, corruption, and oligarchy.

Opposition to immigration is common in many countries because of issues of national, cultural or religious identity. The phenomenon has been studied especially in Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States, as well as Europe in recent years. Thus nativism has become a general term for 'opposition to immigration' based on legitimate fears that the immigrants will distort or undermine existing cultural values and, through their higher fertility rates, reduce the quality of life and standard of living of the "natives." This opposition to immigration has been expressed through criticism of multiculturalism.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel told a gathering of young members of her conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party this year that the "multikulti" concept – where people of different backgrounds would live together happily – does not work in Germany. At "the beginning of the 1960s our country called the foreign workers to come to Germany and now they live in our country," said Ms. Merkel at the event in Potsdam, near Berlin. "We kidded ourselves a while. We said: 'They won't stay, [after some time] they will be gone,' but this isn't reality. And of course, the approach [to build] a multicultural [society] and to live side by side and to enjoy each other ... has failed, utterly failed." More than 30 percent of Germans believe Germany is "overrun by foreigners" who had come to Germany chiefly for its social benefits.

Some immigrants were indeed inferior in many respects to those who came before because of the economic conditions in the old country had made them almost subhuman. Emma Lazarus admitted as much when she referred to them as "...tired, poor,...huddled masses,...the wretched refuse of your teeming shore, the homeless, tempest-tossed." The condition and culture of the Irish that developed while they were subsisting on rotten potatoes is a good example. Frank McCourt in his Pulitzer Prize winning book Angela’s Ashes described other aspects of the Irish culture that most would find abhorrent. The Irish were discriminated against because of those characteristics. They may have seemed inferior to others because their economic situation dictated their appearance and their living conditions in the tenements. Avoiding disparaging remarks about them would have been difficult. On the other hand, it would have also been difficult to make a plausible case against their potential as human beings given the right influences and role models here in America.

Others were treated in the same manner as the Irish. I mentioned above that Ben Franklin was not favorably impressed by the Germans even though they were known to be industrious with well-maintained neighborhoods. They believed in orderliness. (Alles in ordnung!) Who knows what experiences Ben Franklin had with the Germans that caused him to lose his cool and make a public display of his low regard for them. I don't know the timing of his remarks but if they were made after the arrival of Hessian mercenaries who were quartered in private homes, one could begin to understand Franklin's antithesis to them. I recall that an innocent immigrant of German extraction was lynched somewhere in the Midwest at the time of the WW I. Some Americans were also actually arrested for speaking German over the phone. The street where my grandfather lived in Dallas, Texas was renamed from Germania Street to Liberty Street during that same time period even though German immigrants were and had been an important part of Texas and U.S. history. I understand that fully 20% of Americans are of German extraction. My German cousin once said, “I believe every American has a German grandmother!”

We are all familiar with the plight of the Japanese who were rounded up and sent to relocation or internment camps depending on where their citizenship and loyalties seem to lie. Those who were Japanese citizens and who wanted to return to Japan to fight against the Americans were interned as required by the law. As I recall, they used to drill with stick guns within the camps, making clear that they were indeed enemies of the U.S. Others were simply relocated partly to protect them from incidents like the lynching of the German I referred to above and partly to remove any possibility of espionage to aid the Japanese enemy when we were most fearful of that prospect. Unfortunately, the U.S. government not only violated their rights but did nothing to protect them from economic loss. “Snow Falling on Cedars” is one of my favorite movies. It portrays young love and mutual prejudice. Again this appears to be the human condition.

JOE LEGAL vs. JOSE ILLEGAL: Dee Perez-Scott pay attention

2011-06-22T10:12:00.000-07:00

We have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal".
Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California .

Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes
$25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.

Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number,
and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".

Ready? Now pay attention...

Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00
per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has
$31,231.00.

Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or
$31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has
$31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited cove rage for
his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now
has $24,031.00.

Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and
local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has
$31,200.00.

Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or
welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per
year. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.

Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps
and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.[Vivi, Tony [HDS]] (I would add the 6K for food stamps)

Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe
Legal now has $9,631.00.

Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose
Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose
Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal
now has $7,231.00.

Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has
$31,200.00. Jose hits you and you pay for him.

Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline,
etc.

Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities,
gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.

Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after
work.

Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe
Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get
a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after
school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.

Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the s ame police and fire services,
but Joe paid for them by paying his income taxes - and Jose did not pay.

Do you get it, now?

If you vote for - or support - any politician that supports
illegal aliens... You are part of the problem!

Dee Perez-Scott: The Limits of Growth

2011-06-19T14:03:00.000-07:00

Professor Bartlett's dramatic presentation of the exponential growth function and what it means to the lives of everyone.

Dee Perez-Scott: Think!

2011-06-19T10:44:00.001-07:00

THINK OUR IMMIGRANT PAST

Written in the mid-1800s when immigration was nearing its first peak and the U.S. population was only about 50 million, Emma Lazarus’s famous sonnet 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" Though it is mounted on the base of the Statue of Liberty, the sonnet is now outdated and irrelevant except as an historical artifact.

Since the mid-1800s, our population has increased six-fold. No one can deny that conditions are dramatically different today than they were when Lazarus wrote her poem. Child labor, prohibition, lack of women’s suffrage, Jim Crow laws, and segregation are also all in our past. Few thinking Americans want to go back to that “past” yet some of us 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 a population of more than 300 million people.

One would think from the immigration reform proposals that have surfaced in the Congress from time to time that it is in favor another six-fold increase in our population. I commend to their and your viewing a presentation on public television by noted naturalistCharles Attenborough. Also, if I can persuade you to really give some attention to this subject, read eminent demographer Dr. Joel Cohen’s exhaustive book entitled How many people can the Earth Support? and a beautiful quotation, too long to include here, from the 1848 Principles of Political Economy (pp 756-57) of British philosopher John Stuart Mill in which he commends a change of values (Mill 1848, book IV, chap.VI, pp.756-57).

THINK CRIME

A comedian tells us how much easier it is to solve crime in a small town than in a city:

"The small town sheriff asks a witness, "Can you describe the suspect?"

"The witness says, "Yes, I can . . . Dwayne"."

As small towns become cities, criminals become anonymous, crimes become more difficult to solve, and crime rates increase.

One of the false solutions to rampant population growth is called "Smart Growth," an oxymoron, if ever there was one. Piling more and more people into less and less space does nothing to solve the need for more and more food and more and more water--with more and more damage done to the environment to meet those needs. Meanwhile the quality of life for the inhabitants of these man-made anthills goes down for everyone . . . except for criminals.

The "limit" of finite natural resources per capita as population increases without bounds is zero. (The more there are of us, the less there is for each of us.) Americans produce at least 20 metric tons of pollutants per capita annually. Even if, by some technological miracle, we were to be able to reduce that output by half to that of Mexico, we would have made no progress in reducing the total output as our population doubles to 600 millions.

Would a criminal prefer to practice his profession walking down streets of family residences with windows on all sides--some with "Neighborhood Watch" stickers--available to observe strangers on the streets? Or would he prefer to walk down dimly lit halls of multi-story residence buildings where he passes only windowless walls?

If you are concerned about crime, there is one organization which effectively and efficiently works through our justice system to ensure criminals are punished and law abiding citizens are protected. To learn more about this organization, please click on Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.

THINK CULTURE

"Culture (kul'char) n 1. The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other works of human work and thought."
-The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

An American tourist visiting China stops a native from crowding into the front of a queue with, "That's not polite!" The native says, "We have too many people to be polite." An American tourist in Japan remarks on the courtesy of the Japanese . . . until she is pushed aboard a subway car with the help of a human hired to pack more people into an already packed car.

Does increasing traffic congestion caused by increasing population density lead to increasing "road rage" and, if so, does that ultimately change culture? Does increasing population density decrease the value placed upon each individual? Does it increase the "Watching Out For Number One" factor?

Does population density have an effect upon culture? Is it a positive or a negative effect? Does a nation's culture change as its population density increases? Does a nation as large and diverse as the U.S. have a culture?

What about the alternative cultures: in some overpopulated areas of Latin America joblessness and lack of opportunity that drives them to violate borders and ignore immigration laws; in some parts of the overpopulated Muslim world where they still live in the 13th century with outdated doctrines and harsh treatment of women; what about other overpopulated countries in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa where life has no intrinsic value and people live in abject poverty in disease-infested, crime-ridden neighborhoods? Are the cultures that produced these conditions something the U.S. should aspire to through its immigration and taxation policies?

THINK ECONOMICS

Ever notice when con artists are arrested for pyramid schemes, they often say, "If only they had let us operate for a little longer, everyone would have gotten their money back?" A few economists and many politicians sound analogous when they say, "If only we had 20 million more young workers, everyone would get their Social Security retirement benefits." Meanwhile, we move from 40 workers supporting each recipient of retirement benefits to 20 to one to 10 to one to 6 to one to . . . Will it end when each retiree has his own personal worker supporting his pension?

Like a rose, a pyramid scheme by any other name is still a pyramid scheme. So long as retirement benefits for retired workers rely on current contributions from active workers, Social Security can only be "saved" by one or more of the following: (a) increasing payroll taxes, (b) increasing the "normal" retirement age, (c) increasing earnings of trust fund investments, and/or (d) reducing retirement benefits.

A few economists argue the solution to this pyramid scheme is to import more young workers to pay into the Social Security system, i.e., increase immigration of young workers. Unfortunately, they don't explain where these imported young workers are going to find jobs--unless they take jobs from existing U.S. workers. Nor do they explain how millions of low-paid young dish washers, lawn mowers, baby sitters, and hotel service workers are going to save Social Security, especially when many of them are part of the underground economy, i. e., paying little to nothing in payroll taxes. Increasing population is a problem, not a solution.

THINK EDUCATION

"Education researchers say that ideal enrollments are no more than 300 students for an elementary school, no more than 500 for a middle school, and 600 to 900 for a high school," Valerie Strauss, "A Case For Smaller Schools," Washington Post, 8/8/00. "Yet 71% of all U.S. high school students go to schools larger than 1,000 students." High schools with 3,000 or more students are now common in large cities such as Los Angeles and New York. Some schools have as many as 5,000 students. "Smaller schools have higher attendance and graduation rates, lower drop-out rates, less violence, and higher grades and test scores," according to Michael Klonsky, "Small Schools: The Numbers Tell a Story," Small School Workshop; Keith Sharon, "Behind the Curve," Orange County Register, 5/21/01. As in cities, excessive population density creates problems in schools.

"The number of school-age children is expected to increase steadily for the next nine decades. Total enrollment will reach 55 million by 2020 and 60 million by 2030, according to the U.S. Department of Education. By 2100, the nation's schools will have to find room for 94 million students--almost double the number of school-age children the nation has now.

"Where is the growth in the school-age population coming from? Immigration has been responsible for almost 70% of population growth in the last decade; immigrants arriving since 1994 and their descendants will account for two-thirds of future population growth," according to the National Projections Program, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau.

THINK ENERGY

As population grows, energy demand grows. How ironic that President Bush appointed as his Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham the former Senator from Michigan--turned down for reelection by his constituents--who perhaps more than any other person in the country assured the U.S. would need ever more energy to support the ever increasing population created largely by immigration laws sponsored by Senator Abraham. What was he thinking? Was he thinking at all?

For example, according to the California Energy Commission, per capita consumption of electricity in the state dropped 5% between 1979 and 1999. However, during that same 20 years the state's population grew 43% largely as a result of immigration. While population growth was not as dramatic in most of the U.S., the overall effect was the same--per capita energy conservation was overwhelmed by increasing numbers of "capitas," i. e., people. What does it mean when the availability of energy does not keep pace with population growth? Wouldn't a smaller population be a better solution to the spiraling needs for energy to support our economy?

Viewed globally, international migration for economic purposes, e. g., better jobs, better living conditions, tends to flow from nations with lower per capita energy consumption to nations with higher per capita energy consumption. Thus, even if world population stabilized, which it shows little sign of doing, world energy consumption would tend to increase so long as economic migration occurred. A peasant from the backwaters of Mexico who makes his way to the U.S. will soon be acquiring a refrigerator, a color TV, a cell phone, one or more autos, and a home with central air conditioning and heating.

As long as population continues to increase, whether in the world or in the U.S., you may assume energy use will also increase along with an accompanying increase in deleterious effects on the environment and an accompanying increase in the difficulty of meeting those energy needs.

THINK ENVIRONMENT

It is difficult to take seriously American politicians who harangue about societal and environmental problems without discussing the underlying cause of so many of those problems--America's unsustainable human population growth. Likewise, it is difficult to take seriously American environmental organizations which harangue about depleted fisheries, diminished wildlife, and polluted air and water, but refuse to discuss the primary underlying cause of such problems--rampant human population growth in the country.

Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace USA, Natural Resources Defense Council, Nature Conservancy, Wilderness Society, and World Wildlife Fund have consistently earned failing grades since scoring began in April, 2001. More recently, Izaak Walton League of America, National Audubon Society, National Wildlife Federation, and Sierra Club have shown decreasing interest in protecting America's environment from the ravages of population growth. Consequently, we have decided to discontinue detailed scoring of all twelve organizations until we are notified one of these has changed its population policies. We should all withhold our support for these organizations until they accept the obvious and begin to lobby for effective population control measures to save our planet.

Because of the nature of their missions, Nature Conservancy and World Wildlife Fund tend to score low on the Population-Environment Connection Scorecard. However, dedicated populationists may want to support them nevertheless.

THINK FOOD & FARMS

It may be hard to imagine, but "As late as the 1940s, Los Angeles County led the nation in farming income," according to an article in the May, 2003, Washington Post. Now it leads the nation in human population density. Elsewhere in California, about 50,000 acres of farmland vanish each year. Farmland in other states suffers the same fate. "Georgia, Ohio, and Texas each have had more than 150,000 acres of agricultural land consumed in recent years by development that is being stoked both by population growth and the fervent desire that many homeowners now have for more space: Average property lot sizes have doubled in the past two decades."

The future holds more of the same for farmland. According to a study by the American Farmland Trust released in 2002, "Housing developments are encroaching on the wide open spaces of the rural West and could replace more than 24 million acres of ranchland by 2020." More food to feed more people suggests a need for more farmland and ranchland. Instead, both are disappearing rapidly.

Food from the oceans? Fred Krupp, Director of Environmental Defense, wrote, ". . . around the world fisheries are collapsing. The main reason? Too many boats chasing too few fish." More accurately, he might have written, too many people wanting to eat too few fish. The effect is the same, oceans are not likely to save us.

If you are concerned about disappearing farmland, there is one organization whose stated purpose is "to stop the loss of productive farmland and to promote farming practices that lead to a healthy environment." To learn more about this organization, please click on American Farmland Trust.

THINK HOUSING

In January, 2002, the National Association of Home Builders and the National Association of Realtors asked recent home buyers about the factors which influenced their home buying decisions. Here are the percentages of people responding "important" or "very important:" Houses spread out: 62%; Bigger house: 47%; Bigger lot: 45%; Less developed area: 40%; Away from the city: 39%

Bigger houses spread out on bigger lots in less developed areas away from cities!

Hold on--doesn't anybody want "Smart Growth?" Oh, sure: Smaller houses (10%) on smaller lots (9%) closer to public transit (13%).

What do these results mean? They mean the cost of housing can go only one direction over the long run . . . up. As the supply of suitable land for housing declines, the price of such land goes up. Further, the cost of food goes up as farmland is paved over to become residential lots and parking lots and shopping malls and commercial campuses.

Yet the same politicians who want to create "affordable housing" for everyone, refuse to work toward the one thing which would stop increasing demand for land and increasing housing costs--a stable population.

THINK INFRASTRUCTURE

Have you lived in a big city long enough to remember when radio traffic reports were given only on the half-hour, only during commute hours . . . generally with nothing to report? Now, they come every ten minutes, 24 hours a day . . . and there is ALWAYS something to report.

Have you driven on Interstate Highways long enough to note their deterioration over the years? Wonder why? According to Steve Heminger, deputy director with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, "No one is out there trying to match population growth with highway capacity--we couldn't afford it even if we wanted to."

Can't afford population growth? That's right. Can't afford it for highway and bridge construction and maintenance. Can't afford it for school construction and maintenance. Can't afford it for sewage and waste water treatment plants. Can't afford it for energy production and distribution. Can't afford it for airport facilities. Can't afford it for hospital and clinic construction. Can't afford to maintain state and national parks to meet the needs of an increasing number of vistors. Can't afford it; can't afford it; can't afford it!

Cities, counties, states, and Congress can't afford to build needed new infrastructure or to properly maintain existing infrastructure. Yet Congress can't find the will to do what needs to be done to stabilize U.S. population until we catch up with needed construction and maintenance of infrastructure.

THINK LEGISLATION

There are 435 Congressmen and Congresswomen in the U.S. House of Representatives. Whether the population of the U.S. is 250 million or one billion, we will still have 435 in the House of Representatives.

This means as U.S. population grows, each Representative represents more and more people, perhaps four times more before the end of this century. Can one person communicate with and represent 575,000 men, women, and children well? It isn't easy, but imagine how much more difficult it will be to communicate and represent 2.3 million men, women, and children. Can it be done well? Probably not. So what is the alternative?

There are two alternatives, given our present system: 1. Stabilize U.S. population or 2. Accept the fact that ordinary citizens cannot be well represented and only the wealthy and powerful will be able to communicate with their representatives in Congress.

Why not increase the number of Representatives in the House? If you understand how difficult it is to make sound legislation with 435 Representatives, try to imagine how a Congress of 1,740 members would operate. Therefore, unless you are satisfied to have poorer representation in Congress and/or poorer legislation, you should work toward population stabilization.

THINK TAXATION

Bad choice, "Litigation." Increasing or disruptive litigation is not an obvious result of increasing population. We'll delete it with our next major revision of "ThinkPopulation.org." But in the meantime, what were we thinking when we added it to our list of things negatively affected by rampant population growth? Perhaps something like this:

Should a couple with three, two, one, or no children pay more income tax than another family with identical Adjusted Gross Income, but with four or more children? Since the U.S. has the highest birth & fertility rate of any developed nation in the world and since U.S. population is now the third largest of all the nations in the world, does it seem logical that Congress would want to encourage even faster population growth? Is Congress opposed to family planning and therefore taxes those who practice it more than those who do not? Does Congress favor religions which are opposed to family planning? What is the logical basis for asking those who limit the size of their families to subsidize those who do not? What is the Constitutional basis for such discrimination? Is it time for that basis to be challenged in court? In other words, is it time for litigation?

That explains how "Litigation" became an "Action By Effect" item on "ThinkPopulation.org." Now, the question is, is there an organization concerned with such discrimination and willing to take the issue to court? Would FILE (Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement--see "Think Public Safety") do so? Is there another organization which might be interested in doing so?

THINK POVERTY

There are many different ways to define and to measure poverty. However, if we assume welfare use suggests family income provides an unsatisfactory standard of living, one might conclude the U.S. is importing poverty. For example, among households in the U.S. in which the head of household is U.S. born, approximately 15% use one or more basic welfare programs, i. e., Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and/or Medicaid. However, among households in the U.S. in which the head of household is not U.S. born, approximately 23% use one or more basic welfare programs. (Source: Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) analysis of March, 2002 Current Population Survey data collected by the Census Bureau.)

Why should this be the case? As Dr. Steven A. Camarota of CIS wrote in a March, 2003 report, "The high rate of welfare use associated with immigrants is not explained by unwillingness to work. In 2001, almost 80% of immigrant households using welfare had at least one person working. One of the main reasons for the heavy reliance of immigrants on welfare programs is that a very large share have little education. The American economy offers very limited opportunities to such workers, and as a result many immigrants who work are still eligible for welfare because of their low incomes." Thus, employers who hire immigrant workers at low wages let taxpayers pay for services such workers can't afford.

In this era of "Not one child left behind," there may be need for an organization working to ensure immigration policy is not designed to increase the number of U.S. households, most with children, requiring welfare to live minimally healthy lives.
THINK PRODUCTIVITY

How is productivity affected by rampant population growth? Like a commodity, the price of labor goes down as the supply goes up. When the price of labor is cheap, employers are less inclined to invest in labor-saving materials and equipment, without which, improved productivity is unlikely.

An example: A group of manual laborers, being paid "off the books," are manually lifting and dropping heavy steel pikes to break up a concrete sidewalk. If the employer of those workers had to pay legal wages as well as payroll taxes and workers' compensation, you can bet that employer would have pneumatic tools to break up the concrete efficiently.

Aside from the fact that "off the books" workers and their families often live in poverty and the fact that taxpayers are subsidizing "off the books" employers by paying for their workers' welfare benefits, it is simply unsound economics to allow "slave wages" to discourage mechanization and innovation. Necessity, not slavery, is the mother of invention. Only when an industry finds it is necessary to pay full and fair wages to its employees, will that industry advance into the 21st Century.

THINK SAFETY

"You read about all these terrorists; most of them came here legally, but they hung around on those expired visas, some for as long as 10-15 years. Now, compare that to Blockbuster; you are two days late with a video and those people are all over you. Let's put Blockbuster in charge of immigration."
From The Shopper, Elko, NV

Advocates of open borders are fond of saying, "We are a nation of immigrants." It would be more accurate to say, we are a nation of legal immigrants. More than being a nation of legal immigrants, we endeavor to be a nation of law-abiding citizens and residents. A sizable portion of public expenditures is devoted to enacting and enforcing laws and to detaining and punishing those who break laws.

Illegal aliens enter the U.S. by breaking U.S. laws. They extend their illegal activity by obtaining false identification documents and by participating in the underground economy. Still, is public safety threatened by having a few million dishwashers, hotel maids, fruit pickers, and baby sitters breaking obscure and not-so-obscure laws?

Demand by these "innocent" law breakers for illegal transit and false identification papers creates a criminal supply which also becomes available to illegal aliens whose intentions may not be so "innocent." Literally tens of thousands of "OTMs" (Border Patrol-ese for Other-Than-Mexican) have entered the U.S. from Africa, Asia, the Middle East, South America and elsewhere. The numbers are increasing as people smugglers and document forgers hone their skills. While criminals have their way with our borders, "Homeland Security" remains a political slogan rather than a functioning reality.

If you are concerned about threats to public safety created by lack of enforcement of immigration laws, please click on Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement (FILE).

THINK SOLITUDE

Optimists like to believe science will find ways to solve all problems created by rampant human population growth. Food shortages? "Science will find ways to make food out of bacteria." Energy shortages? "Science will find ways to turn air into energy." Water shortages? "Science will find economical ways to make ocean water potable." There is one shortage caused by population growth even optimists admit science will have a hard time replacing: solitude!

Perhaps one day science will produce "Solitude Chambers" which people can enter to take walks in "virtual" woods, climb "virtual" mountains, survey "virtual" desert vistas, and study "virtual" creatures in "virtual" tide pools. Perhaps when the U.S. population reaches one billion, people will have become so accustomed to "virtual" reality and so sickened by oppressive humanity, they will welcome the relief provided by a machine which can mimic the sights, sounds, smells, and feel of the great outdoors. Perhaps.

For now, there are still many who would like their descendants to be able to take walks in real woods, climb real mountains, survey real desert vistas, and study real creatures in real tide pools--and to not have to make reservations a year in advance to do so.
THINK URBAN SPRAWL

"Although there are many definitions of sprawl, a central component of most definitions and of most people's understanding of sprawl is this: Sprawl is the spreading out of a city and its suburbs over more and more rural land at the periphery of an urban area. This involves conversion of open space (rural land) into built-up, developed land.

"For those who are concerned about the effect of sprawl upon natural environment and agricultural resources, the more important overall measure of sprawl is the actual amount of land that has been urbanized. Knowing the actual square miles of urban expansion (sprawl) provides a key indicator of the threat to the natural environment, to the nation's agricultural productivity and to the quality of life of people who live in cities and in the small towns and farms that are near cities."

THINK WASTE

"Recycling has come almost full-circle in the last 60 years. In 1942 everyone in America reduced wasteful consumption, reused all sorts of items, and saved their "scrap" for the war effort. Whether it was metal for planes, rubber for tires, or even left-over cooking fat for lubricants--Americans reduced, reused, and recycled it all! Just 10 years after the war these efforts were forgotten and Americans relearned how to waste. For nearly four decades we threw it all away becoming the "Disposable Society." Then starting in the late 1970's and continuing right up to today, Americans realize we are choking on our own waste and depriving future generations of the resources they will need."
Californians Against Waste at www.cawrecycles.org

And yet . . . even as government, industry, and the public move toward a "Recycling Society," population growth is overwhelming that progress and overwhelming our capacity to handle our waste. For example, in 1991, California dumps accepted approximately 37,500 tons of trash. Yet ten years later, despite the fact that recycling, diverting, and composting had increased significantly, trash delivered to dumps increased. Dramatic early drops in annual landfill tonnage were overtaken by millions of new residents.

While there may always be more we can do to reduce per capita waste, so long as we have a rampant increase in the number of "capitas" (people) in California as well as the rest of the U.S., waste will continue to increase and become an increasing problem.

THINK WATER

Collect oxymora? How about this: Optimistic hydrographer? "Currently, the human population consumes approximately 54% of all the accessible freshwater contained in rivers, lakes, and underground aquifers. By 2025, population growth alone could push this figure to 70%."
"Population, Water & Wildlife: Finding a Balance," Don Hinrichsen, Karin Krchnak, and Katie Mogelgaard, National Wildlife Federation

"Today irrigation accounts for two-thirds of water use worldwide and as much as 90% in many developing countries. Meeting the crop demands projected for 2025, when the planet's population is expected to reach eight billion, could require an additional 192 cubic miles of water - a volume nearly equivalent to the annual flow of the Nile 10 times over."
Sandra Postel, Director, Global Water Policy Project

"As much as 8% of food crops grows on farms that use ground water faster than the aquifers are replenished, and many large rivers are so heavily diverted that they don't reach the sea for much of the year. As the number of urban dwellers climbs to five billion by 2025, farmers will have to compete even more aggressively with cities and industry for shrinking resources."

Sandra Postel, Director, Global Water Policy Project.

Dee Perez-Scott: Sad State of Mexifornia Schools

2011-06-19T10:39:00.000-07:00

California’s public school system, which once led the nation in education, now stands near the bottom of the list. Our schools are failing and approximately one out of every four students drops out before finishing high school, according to the California Department of Education (CDE).

In many parts of the state, schools have drastically deteriorated from trying to meet the needs of a rapidly growing immigration-driven, non-English speaking student population.

While enrollment in California schools is leveling off and even declining in some areas according to the CDE, the percentage of Hispanic students continues to grow and is expected to form the majority by 2009-10. More than 41 percent of kindergartners were English learners in 2007-08, and about 85% of the English learners speak Spanish.

Based on the latest data available, K-12 education accounted for the largest share of California’s budget—39.5 percent of General Fund expenditures in 2006-07.1 As a result of the current budget crisis, Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed reducing funding for California’s school districts by $4.4 billion. Even with these cuts, the governor’s proposed budget provides per–pupil funding (PPF) of $11,626 for 2008-09.2

The number of illegal immigrant students filling California’s classrooms is unknown; however, even if it’s a small fraction of our current population of over 38 million,3 the costs are in the billions of dollars.

Dee Perez-Scott: To Ease California Prison Overcrowding, Secure the Border

2011-06-19T10:28:00.000-07:00

While Californians contemplate this week’s Supreme Court 5-4 decision to eventually release 33,000 inmates from state prisons, the question most frequently asked is how did the overcrowding get so acute? As it does with California’s deteriorated K-12 public school system, jammed hospital emergency rooms and bumper-to-bumper highways, unchecked immigration plays a major role.

Although many immigrants come to California to pursue the proverbial “better life,” others arrive with the explicit intent of dealing drugs, robbing banks and joining gangs. Sooner or later, these ne’er-do-wells land in prison. If and when they’re released, some may be deported back to their country of national origin. But that doesn’t mean California has seen the last of them. Reentry is as easy as one, two, three.

A simple question: wouldn’t California’s prisons be under less population pressure if the federal government secured the border and internally enforced immigration laws?

Elected officials rarely admit the connection between more immigration and California’s prison mess. During years of debate about the looming crisis, band aid solutions like outsourcing 10,000 inmates to Arizona, Oklahoma and Mississippi have been tried but a concerted effort with the Department of Homeland Security to seal the border has been not fully explored.

Identifying who is and is not an immigrant prisoner is tough. Many with ethnic surnames are American citizens. Others may be illegal aliens. During a 2010 California Assembly meeting about prisons, Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod, D-Chino, asked how many “foreign nationals” are incarcerated. The Department of Finance representative answered confusingly that 11 percent, approximately 25,000, inmates are undocumented felons but not necessarily “foreign nationals.”

In March, the General Accounting Office issued a report titled Criminal Alien Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests and Costs. Among its findings were that in fiscal 2010 the aggregate number of foreign nationals in federal prisons stood at 55,000. The GAO also estimated that at least 50 percent had drug related offenses and 40 percent had been convicted of Department of Justice terrorism related charges. The average incarcerated alien had seven arrests and committed an average of 12 offenses. For Californians, these statistics represent grim financial news. In 2009, the latest year available for analysis, California taxpayers spent about $1.1 billion to incarcerate illegal aliens. Broken down, that total includes Los Angeles County, $139 million and Orange County, $88 million.

On a more positive note, the GAO analysis found that ICE removed more criminal aliens for the last three years. The number ordered deported rose from 7,000 in 2007 to 79,000 in 2010.

Returning to my original question: Wouldn’t it be easier if the criminals never got to the United States in the first place?

With President Obama relentlessly lobbying for open borders, tighter security isn’t on the immediate horizon. Nevertheless, some domestic safety measures are within reach.

First, end the Justice Department’s subsidy of sanctuary cities. Each year, the DOJ awards millions of dollars in grants through the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program to cities that have publicly announced that they give safe harbor to illegal aliens. Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego, for example, received nearly $18 million from DOJ despite having municipal policies that encourage criminals to hide out in their cities.

Second, make enrollment in the Secure Communities program that links DOJ and DHS databases mandatory. By allowing an immigration check to be run at booking, Secure Communities flags foreign national criminals and notifies ICE. Amazingly, however, many cities have not signed on, apparently indicating that they prefer keeping alien criminals in their midst.

The long term solution to California prison overcrowding is not releasing or outsourcing felons or building more prisons but tighter borders, more internal enforcement and less political correctness.

Dee Perez-Scott: Her kind of politicos!

2011-06-17T14:21:00.000-07:00

"Creepy, Congressmen, Simian Socialists And Luv Guvs – Having Created A Pig Culture, Liberals Wonder Why There Are So Many Pigs." From Weiner to "Schnitzel" to Spitzer and Edwards, etc.ad nauseum, the political landscape has taken taken a turn for the worse in America and there is no movement more to blame than the progressive/liberal movement that has created this sordid national political soap opera. "The liberals say this is a cloud over the land. But they made the weather and then they stand in the rain and say 'Shit, it's raining!'"

“What accounts for [our society’s] wholesale defection from the standards of personal freedom of speech, conduct—civility, industry, self-restraint—that were once considered indispensable to democracy?” The answer: “the gradual decay of religion promoted by the left should stand somewhere near the head of the list.”

Male politicians have a huge zipper problem. Maybe they should switch to velcro to make things easier -- Wham! Bam! Thank you, Ma'm!

-----------Questions for Dee Perez-Scott

2011-06-11T15:25:00.000-07:00

..............................Dee Perez in Mexico in "leaner" times.

..............................Dee Perez-Scott living off the fat of the land.

Questions for Dee Perez-Scott
1. Do you believe an America with 600 million people will be better than an America with 300 million?
2. What are you doing to contribute to either outcome?
3. What don't you understand about finite natural resources?
4. Would a population density of Bangladesh satisfy your craving for more immigrants?
5. Do you think concerns about population growth, pollution, energy demands, and finite natural resources are a legitimate basis for immigration reform?
6. Would you grant automatic membership in your family just because a complete stranger gave birth in your home?
7. How do you define loyalty to America? Does your definition include giving precedence to illegal aliens over the wishes of your fellow citizens and the rule of law?
8. Do you think miscreant employers should be punished for hiring illegal aliens but the illegals should be let off "perez-scott" free?
9. Why do you favor illegal aliens over your fellow citizens?
10.Do you think welfare is a good thing? See quote below and then guess who is the author.

The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me show conclusively that continued dependence upon welfare induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out welfare in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit . . . It is in violation of the traditions of America.

Immigration Q&A for Dee Perez-Scott

2011-06-10T18:56:00.000-07:00

Dee Perez-Scott: Disloyal Amnesty Enthusiast

2011-06-10T14:30:00.000-07:00

Stop Obama's Left Wing Amnesty Scheme
Stand with BAN Amnesty Now

Dee Perez-Scott, when it comes to issues like AMNESTY and BORDER SECURITY, there are no gray areas – there are only right and wrong. And President Obama and his pro-Amnesty establishment in Washington are working very hard to take America in the wrong direction. Tragically, more than 9,000 Americans are killed every year by illegal aliens. That’s three times as many as were killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks and yet we have spent trillions of dollars on fruitless wars to avenge 9/11 but relatively much smaller amounts on protecting our sovereignty and securing our borders. While improvements in border staffing, infrastructure, and the rules of engagement are important, the sine qua non of in depth border security is the mandatory implementation of E-verify across the board coupled with continuous, vigorous internal enforcement. These obvious solutions appear to be anathema to Obama which shows how little interest he really has in securing the borders.

The tragedy of killing of Americans by illegal aliens keeps happening, year after year and Obama has responded by sending too few National Guardsmen to the US Border – and then handcuffing them by ordering them specifically NOT to interfere with illegal aliens crossing into the U.S.A.! Their only duty is to report what they see to Border Patrol. It doesn’t make any difference if the illegals are narco-terrorists, gun-runners or human traffickers. Obama doesn’t care. All the Guardsmen are allowed to do is REPORT what they see to Border Patrol. The most effective way to use the Guardsmen is to train them and deputize them to perform all of the functions of the Border Patrol. We can’t afford to just have them there as observers with no authority. This is just another way in which government wastes taxpayer funds—by deploying the National Guard and then tying one hand behind their back—creating a façade but not the reality of border security.

Yet, “Napo”, Obama’s grossly ineffective and incompetent Secretary of Homeland (IN)Security calls America’s border “more secure than at any time in memory.” She has a convenient memory. Napo can fool some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. She must have overlooked the fact that the number of illegal aliens in the U.S. has swollen from 1 million at the time of the last major amnesty in 1986 to 12 million today, a compound rate of increase of about 9% per year. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to extrapolate that rate to mid century to what might then aptly be called “Mexico Norte.” We will have surrendered without firing a shot. That’s hardly a testimony to secure borders in the past, present or future.

To learn the facts, we need a confidential survey of all Border Patrol agents by a private agency with the results to be released directly to the media and the public without going through the Obama Administration's filter or allowing Napo to spin the results.
Napo’s statement could be considered a colossal joke on the American people – but the stakes are just too high. This isn’t a joke at all. It’s a national tragedy. And the cost being paid is American lives.

The way we can bring change to this terrible situation is to inform more Americans about the true situation on our borders – and how it affects them in every state in our great nation. There is not a single state, city or a community, that hasn’t been impacted by the drugs, guns, violence and DUI mayhem perpetrated by illegal aliens.

Despite more than 12-to-23 million illegals remaining in the United States, Barack Obama has slowed down deportations and implemented a “catch and release” policy. Even when illegal aliens are caught breaking additional laws, unless they’re caught committing a violent crime such as rape or murder, the illegal alien is likely to be set loose, back out on the streets. That amounts to a treasonous and de facto unilateral amnesty. Obama must go at the end of this term if not before.

His actions or inactions make it more important than ever to “BAN AMNESTY NOW”.
The Obama “political mafia” is gearing up to once again try to pass the so-called DREAM Act in Congress…The media are continuing their attacks on “BAN AMNESTY NOW” and its allies… And the disloyal pro-Amnesty Left Wing extremists and their fellow travelers never stop their scheming, looking for ways to enact amnesty for illegal aliens criminally residing in the United States. There is a good reason why Sheriff Joe Arpaio, America’s toughest Sheriff, calls “BAN AMNESTY NOW” “America’s toughest anti-illegal immigration organization, and our best hope for stopping the Obama Amnesty scheme in its tracks!”

We need to stand up to subversive and racist organizations like LA RAZA and to the Obama political mafia. We need to warn Americans about the threat of illegals voting in the 2012 national elections and mobilize hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans to become poll watchers to stop illegals from voting.

Help make America stronger by opposing Amnesty from coast to coast, state to state, city to city, community to community across our great nation! Contribute to “Ban Amnesty Now” by sending your check (payable to “B.A.N.”) to:

Ban Amnesty Now
60 E Rio Salado Parkway, Suite 900
Tempe, AZ 85281
Interact with “Ban Amnesty Now” on the Face book and Twitter.

Dee Perez-Scott: times have changed!

2011-06-08T09:31:00.000-07:00

It's time to recognize that things have changed since the 1850s and they will continue to change for the next 10 yeas -- and maybe even the next 20 years, probably forever. Therefore if one places any value on the standard of living and quality of life in the U.S., it is time to get on board with a defensive strategy before it is too late.

While no one supports allowing people to starve anywhere in the world, its worth understanding that a global view of equality of outcomes means significantly degrading Americans' standard of living and quality of life. And it doesn't make any difference whether the approach is to allow more immigration or to redistribute wealth to the poor countries.

Doing either would be entirely inconsistent with the progressive agenda of adding more unfunded entitlements for Americans. Doing either will shrink the resources available for each citizen.

Similarly, progressives' support of immigration reforms that grant amnesty to illegal aliens and increases or maintains the already excessive level of legal immigration. Both of these are certain to adversely affect the equality of condition that is the wet dream of progressives. There will be less of everything for everyone except the very rich.

Dee Perez-Scott loves Rep. Weiner

2011-06-08T09:16:00.000-07:00

Dee Perez-Scot is cut from the same cloth as Rep. Weiner. She is a dyed in the wool so-called progressive synonymous with extreme left wing liberals. Wiener, like Perez-Scott, had no interest in the nation's financial mess. The reason we are in the mess in the first place is progressivism and all of the free-spending, worry-about-the-debt-later, utopia-is-within- our-reach that come along with it.

Dee Perez-Scott: Another reason to vote Republican in 2012

2011-06-05T12:12:00.000-07:00

Dee Perez-Scott's frequently publishes stories about those ill-bred gringos who prey on unsuspecting Hispanics. Here's a different story that you will never see on her blog. For eleven years, Officer Sean Plymale risked his life to protect and defend the people of Fresno, California. And for that, President Obama's Justice Department has indicted Officer Plymale and seeks to send him to prison for 10 years. Why? Because Plymale helped to arrest a dangerous illegal alien who threatened to kill his girlfriend and her young son.

The incident occurred more than five years ago, on October 15,2006. Plymale responded to a desperate 911 phone call from a distraught young woman. For more than three months her ex-boyfriend -- and illegal alien by the name of Rolando Celdon -- had been stalking her. Now he was at her apartment, high on drugs, and trying to break down the door. As she and her little boy hid in the closet, Celoden screamed that he was going to kill them both.

Following a high priority call for help from the dispatcher, Plymale was the first to arrive on the scene. Celedon saw him and fled on his bicycle. Plymale released his K-9 police dog, Tymo, and ordered him to "bite and hold" Celedon.

Amazingly Celedon managed to climb a six-foot-high fence with Tymo holding on to his leg. Teh illegal alien dropped to the other side of the fence onto a large industrial parking lot. Plymale quickly scaled the fence as well and saw that Tymo was hurt. He hit Celedon in the face in an effort to subdue him. Unfortunately, the blow hurt the officer's hand more than it did Rolando. So the officer grabbed Tymo and retreated.

Fortunately, another officer, Christopher Coleman, arrived on the scene and ordered Celedon to surrender. Instead, Celedon kept moving his hand toward his waist band. Not sure if Celedon was armed, Officer Coleman applied a taser, which had no effect. By this time another officer, Paul Van Dalen, arrived with a non-lethal "bean bag" shotgun. A bean bag gun inflicts temporary pain, much like pepper spray. Coleman repeatedly ordered Celedon to show his hands in both English and Spanish. Still, Rolndo refused -- so Coleman fired the bean bag gun at him. Celedon was struck and the officer were able to drive him to the ground and handcuff him. Sergeant Michael Manfredi was the last officer on the scene and ordered an ambulance for Plymale and Celedon. Celedon was eventually convicted on violent felony charges. That should have been the end of the story.

Five years later the Justice Department, in an unprecedented travesty, indicted all of the officers on nine federal counts of violating Celedon's civil rights. Since when do the rights of illegal aliens trump the rights of citizens to be free from the threat of violence from them? This is justice turned upside down.

Dee Perez-Scott is wants reform but criticizes reformers

2011-06-03T07:21:00.000-07:00

Dee Perez-Scott can only speculate: "Some Republicans are looking to woo Latino Voters. However, most logical American Latinos will NOT buy their behind the scenes attempts!" That leaves her in a real dilemma. Since she has repeatedly demonstrated that she is not logical, this must mean that she opposes the other Latinos who welcome Republican efforts to reach out to them. That puts her in another box in which she favors reform but opposes it if it is the result of Republican initiatives. She has failed to take note of the fact that we have always said that the immigration quota should be reduced and focused on those with the skills and higher education that can help maintain America's competitiveness in the global economy. She, of course,wants open borders so that all of the impoverished countries can dump their problems in our backyard. She has no conception of what loyalty is and what is in the national interest as opposed to her selfish, ethnocentric interests.

What does Dee Perez-Scott Believe?

2011-06-01T10:53:00.000-07:00

Does she believe in: the wisdom and governing philosophy of the Founding Fathers; the inalienable rights of the individual; devotion to the Constitution; personal responsibility;live frugally, spend rationally and save fervently; thrift, independence and self-reliance; paying off the national debt; balancing the budget; repatriation of illegals; a stable population; preservation of our quality of life and standard of living; freedom; the rule of law?

Or does she believe in progressivism run amok; the expansion of AFDC to apply not just to widows but to any woman living alone with children to incentivize out of wedlock births and single motherhood; harmful behaviors; Lord Keynes as the Santa Claus fable raised to the dignity of economic doctrine;what would make a man poor would make a nation wealthy; spend baby, spend!; the more you spend the more you have; more taxes; more government to organize the life of the masses;hyper-elitist progressive social engineering; open borders; amnesty; no internal enforcement; no E-verify; a Latinized America; unlimited population growth; European-style, cradle to the grave welfare state; Aztlan; La Raza. MeChA, etc.

Dee Perez-Scott: Good News from the U.S. Supreme Court

2011-05-26T13:42:00.000-07:00

U.S. Supreme Court upholds Arizona law punishing businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

The 5-3 ruling is a victory for supporters of a crackdown on illegal immigration. Opponents of the law, including the Obama administration, say it steps on traditional federal oversight over immigration matters.

Dee Perez-Scott: The Immigration Backlog

2011-05-23T15:41:00.000-07:00

The number of cases awaiting resolution before the Immigration Courts reached a new all-time high of 267,752 by the end of December 2010, according to very timely government enforcement data obtained by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC). The case backlog has continued to grow — up 2.6 percent — since TRAC's last report three months ago, and more than a third higher (44%) than levels at the end of FY 2008.

Wait times increased since our last report. The average time these pending cases have been waiting in the Immigration Courts of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is now 467 days, compared with 456 days at the end of September last year.

Full details — by state, nationality, Immigration Court and hearing locations — can be viewed in TRAC's backlog application, now updated with data through December 30th, 2010.

See also TRAC's last backlog report and listing of earlier TRAC report reports in this series beginning in 2008 examining the volume of cases, wait times, as well as the number of immigration judges available.

Wait Times by State
Wait times continue to be longest in California with 639 days, up from 630 days three months ago. Massachusetts average wait times remained at 615 days over the same time period. Nebraska stayed in third place, with an average time of 511 days pending cases have been waiting in the Omaha Immigration Court — down from 519 days three months ago.

Wait Times by Nationality
Among nationalities, and limiting comparisons to the 50 countries with the most individuals in queue, Armenians with cases pending before the Immigration Courts currently had the longest wait times of 886 days — almost twice the national average of 467 days. Other nationalities within the top five in terms of the length their cases had been pending were Indonesia (823), Albania (672), Iran (611) and Pakistan (609).

Highest Growth Rates in Pending Cases
Among individual Immigration Courts, and considering only those with at least 1,000 pending cases, the court with the fastest buildup during FY 2011 was the Immigration Court in Oakdale, Louisiana, where pending cases jumped by 25 percent. The Harlingen, Texas court ranked second, with a growth spurt of 14 percent during this year. San Antonio, Texas (up 11 percent), El Paso, Texas (up 9 percent), and New Orleans (up 9 percent as well) made up the remaining top five locations experiencing the highest growth rates in case backlogs. Portland, OR just missed out being included in these ranks with a growth rate of 8 percent.

Courts With Declining Case Backlogs
Some courts, however, saw a decline in their number of pending cases during the first three months of FY 2011. Again considering only courts with at least 1,000 pending cases, the court with the sharpest decline was in Lumpkin, Georgia. That court saw its backlog reduced by 57 percent. This was followed by the Guaynabo, Puerto Rico court where the pending caseload dropped by 11 percent during this fiscal year. Dallas, Texas dropped by 7 percent, Kansas City by 6 percent, and Miami, Florida by 5 percent.

Dee Perez-Scott: Thirty Reasons for Immigration Reform Now

2011-05-22T13:26:00.000-07:00

Thirty Reasons for Immigration Reform Now!
1. Our population has increased six-fold since the 1850s. Does anyone really want this kind of an increase to recur leading to a population of 1.8 billion?
2. A vast largely unsettled continent lay before the Founding Fathers and their successors. Natural resources like water, timber, fish, arable land, game and minerals seemed limitless. Now we know better.
3. The “limit” of finite natural resources per capita as population increases without bounds is zero. (The more there are of us, the less there is for each of us!)
4. The top-priority campaigns of the nation's big environmental groups include endangered animals, pollution and global warming. The chief source of these and other challenges is immigration-driven U.S. population growth.
5. The United States is the world's third-most populous country, after China (1.3 billion people) and India (1.1 billion). Does anyone really want to emulate China and India in this regard?
6. The scientific data pretty much across the board shows that we in the U.S. are reaching many of the nation's ecological limits, one by one. Many of those limits are linked to population trends.
7. America's relatively high population growth and high rates of resource consumption and pollution make for a volatile mixture resulting in the largest environmental impact per capita ... in the world.
8. As we have seen in other parts of the world, growing population means encroachment on wildlife habitat, national parks and national monuments. In many cases, it also means abject poverty and misery. Let’s not go there.
9. Immigration laws are unduly complicated and give unfair advantage and preference to relatives of citizens or permanent residents who are then generally not counted against the established immigration quota. This aspect of the laws needs to be changed.
10. Under existing law, under certain conditions, parents of United States citizens may be sponsored for immigration by their adult citizen children (those at least 21 years of age). Instead, all adults should have to apply separately and be accepted or rejected based on their own skills, education, and other qualifications important to the U.S. economy. All should be counted against the overall immigration quota.
11. In the 1950s, the number of persons admitted for legal residence averaged around 200,000 per year. That is a reasonable goal for the future, especially if the quota is focused on those individuals who possess the skills or advanced education in physical science, math, engineering or medicine needed to keep the U.S competitive in the global economy.
12. We can reaffirm our rich tradition of welcoming immigrants who would benefit our country while rejecting those who would strain our budget and further stretch our finite natural resources. To do otherwise will certainly result in a decline in both our quality of life and standard of living.
13. Sentiment is not a sound basis for public policy. The purpose of the U.S. - including its immigration laws - is to benefit American citizens, as it says in the Constitution's preamble: " ... to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
14. Americans occupy about 20 percent more developed land per capita for housing, schools, shopping, roads and other uses than they did 20 years ago.
15. About 40 percent of the nation's rivers and 46 percent of its lakes are too polluted for fishing and swimming. Wetlands, the biological filters for water pollution, are shrinking by 100,000 acres a year, mainly because of development to serve excessive population growth.
16. Americans produce 20 metric tons of pollutants per capita annually. Even if by some technological miracle we were to be able to reduce our output by half to that of Mexico, we would have made no progress in reducing the present unacceptable level as our population doubles by the end of this century.
17. The fertility rate of American women is about at the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman. Therefore, population growth must be almost solely the result of legal immigration, illegal aliens, their progeny and their higher fertility rates.
18. It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry [birthright citizenship]. Jus soli, observed by less than 20% of the world's countries, must be replaced with jus sanguinis.
19. Written in the mid 1800s when immigration’s first peak was less than 50 years away 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 is not a basis for current policy. The operative word in the phrase immigrant past is the word “past.”
20. 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 some of us 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.
21. The achievement of a stable population must be a part of the public dialogue on immigration on immigration reform.
22. Our traditions clearly need to be rebalanced to fit the vast changes in the U.S. since the 1800s. Immigration reform needs to be framed in terms of those dramatic changes rather than the conditions that prevailed over a hundred years ago.
23. In looking for what has been called that “illusive middle ground” the beginning point always seems to be amnesty for those illegal aliens who are already here. That is not the middle ground --not even close!
24. We can determine who, among the millions of illegals, are essential to our economy and those who aren’t. That is the middle ground and that is where we should begin.
25. We can and should tie overall immigration quotas to the total U.S. unemployment rate by sector.. The real connection between the two cannot be denied. Immigration quotas should not be demand-driven.
26. Most of those who have studied immigration have failed to address the issue of uncontrolled population growth and its impact on our standard of living and quality of life. They provide very few facts about the ultimate sustainability of population-driven economic growth.
27. Illegal immigration is a serious criminal offense not a civil right. When compounded with fraudulent documents, it is a felony.
28. It’s time to end mass immigration. The flood of legal immigrants and illegal aliens drives wages and living conditions for those on the lowest economic rung toward those of the Third World. The influx imposes both sprawl and gridlock on our metropolitan areas.
29. Immigrant families needing services overwhelm our schools, taxpayer-funded health care facilities and other public agencies. Those requiring services don't assimilate and, instead, expect to be served in their native languages. American civic culture frays as each ethnic group establishes its own grievance lobby and pushes for preferences.
30. Lack of reform is yet another illustration of an all too common American mindset: short on vision, mired in denial and unable to comprehend nature’s limits.

Dee Perez-Scott: Are you tuned in?

2011-05-22T12:43:00.000-07:00

“I sincerely believe…that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”
--Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816
When we no longer possess the public courage which is nourished by the love of independence and a sense of national honor and sovereignty we will become so apathetic that we no longer care enough about our way of life to defend it, we will no longer have an unsustainable foundation for any society.
--Paraphrased from Gibbons , The Decline and Fall of Rome”
A society that seeks to equalize the minds of men doesn’t cherish real learning. Education becomes the right of the elite and the masses must then accept their interpretation of needs and events. A society that seeks to equalize incentives for work doesn’t cherish individualism.
Heavy taxes eat away at the incentive to work hard, robbing every one of their motivation, drive, and individual initiative. This leads to less risk-taking entrepreneurship, lower economic growth, fewer jobs, and, generally speaking, a society that is forced to fund itself via debt rather than productivity.

Dee Perez-Scott Doesn't Think!

2011-05-20T13:21:00.000-07:00

She will not know the worth of water 'til the well is dry.

She will not know the worth of American culture and character until it is transformed into another failed Latino culture.

She will not know the worth of a stable population 'til our population equals that of India or China.

She will not know the worth of finite minerals until they are all gone.

Dee Perez-Scott: Here is a real conversation with an Hispanic woman

2011-05-18T13:54:00.000-07:00

She: "Just to shine some light on what we are discussing, I am a legal resident, and also my family. I guess I misunderstood your previous posts in which you were discussing the DREAM act."

Me: If are a legal resident why aren't you are not entitled to resident tuition under the current rules. I thought you were saying that you were still an illegal alien. My comments in that regard were based on the misunderstanding of your status.

"I am an American, very proud of it, and I expect to contribute to this country as much as others that have lived difficult lives here as well. I still consider myself very young, and don't expect to make a family anytime soon because I still have goals set for myself (and honestly i don't want to be that stereotypical Hispanic girl who gets pregnant at age 15-20)."

Of course, if you really want to do some good, your homeland obviously could use some help so that its citizens no longer have to emigrate. Your attitude toward making a family is very admirable. Former Senator John Edwards gave this advice to young women: "learn a skill and get a job before you think about having babies that you may not be able to support and educate."

She: "There is no need for me to go to a country that I've known for 4 months. Yes I do speak Spanish, but unfortunately not as well as I would like. I think the thing that bothers me is that everyone in the U.S has had a history of migrating. All are immigrants (of course with the exception of Native Americans) some might be 2nd, 3rd, to like 10 generations after their ancestors have come to the land of opportunity. Others have come more recently. What bothers me is when the people, some people, when they become citizens or legal residents, they forget why they came to the U.S and made that decision in the first place."

Actually all of us including the so-called Native Americans are immigrants. The Native Americans first arrived 25,000 years ago but they were immigrants just as much as those who arrived yesterday. It is quite natural for immigrants to realize that their quality of life and standard of living will also be threatened by the arrival by more immigrants and illegal aliens and the excessive population growth they represent. They begin to see the light just as the earlier arrivals see it. That shouldn’t bother you. It is a very natural reaction, once one realizes that natural resources are finite,that the more there are of us the less there will be for each of us. Moreover, the more immigrants we admit and the more illegals we allow to stay, the more this country will resemble the countries the immigrants left behind. It is perfectly natural to want to protect one’s way of life, quality of life, standard of living, national character, culture, ideals, type of government, language and freedoms. Otherwise, what will happen in the long run is all of those cherished ideals will be destroyed; then where will we immigrate to. Ignoring this is just shortsightedness. the primary source of population growth is legal immigration, illegal aliens, their higher birth rates, and their progeny. Unless we do something about that now, the U.S. will be in downward spiral from which we will be unable to escape.

Emma Lazarus’s famous sonnet 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.” In the 1850s when Emma Lazarus was mounted on the base of the Statue of Liberty, the U.S. population was about 50 million. After a sixfold increase, it now stands at 300 million. What are Hispanics and other potential immigrants doing to to make sure we don't see another sixfold increase to 1.8 billion by the end of this or the next century? Does anyone think that would be a good thing. If they do, they need to visit the hinterlands of China, India,Bangladesh and Sub-Saharan Africa to see what that would be like. I suspect they would change their minds immediately.

We are not obligated to continue any past practice if it is not in the national interest. Does anyone want to go back to the days before woman suffrage, to the days of child labor, and Jim Crow laws? Do you think our country will be better with 600 million or 1.8 billion people than it is with 300 million? I don’t think so and neither do many intellectuals.

For example, Physics Professor Emeritus Albert Bartlett of the University of Colorado had this to say: “Can you think of any problem in any area of human endeavor on any scale, from the microscopic to the global, whose long-term solution is in any demonstrable way aided, assisted, or advanced by further increases in population, locally, nationally, or globally?”

Eminent demographer Joel Cohen came to a similar conclusion: “I personally am very concerned by the vast inequitable and largely avoidable burdens of hunger, disease, violence, ignorance and poverty borne by too many billions of people. But I will not try to persuade you that the world will end in the next ten years unless everybody changes to a diet of soybeans and contraceptive pills, or that a universal diet of soybeans and contraceptive pills would eliminate hunger, disease, violence, ignorance and poverty…. But I will try to persuade you that the world cannot easily and comfortably accommodate an unlimited number of people at any desirable level of material, mental and civic well-being.”

If those quotes are not enough, consider this beautiful quotation from the 1848 Principles of Political Economy of British philosopher John Stuart Mill who commends a change of values.

“There is room in the world, no doubt, and even in old countries, for a great increase in population, supposing the arts of life to go on improving, and capital to increase. But even if innocuous, I confess I see very little reason for desiring it. The density of population necessary to enable mankind to obtain, in the greatest degree, all the advantages both of cooperation and of social intercourse, has, in all the populous countries been attained. A population may be too crowded, though all be amply supplied with food and raiment. It is not good for man to be kept perforce at all times in the presence of his species. A world, from which solitude is extirpated, is a poor ideal. Solitude, in the sense of being often alone, is essential to any depth of meditation or of character; and solitude in the presence of natural beauty and grandeur, is the cradle of thoughts and aspirations which are not only good for the individual, but which society could ill do without. Nor is there much satisfaction in contemplating the world with nothing left to the spontaneous activity of nature; with every rood of land brought into cultivation, which is capable of growing food for human beings; every flowery waste or natural pasture ploughed up, all quadrapeds or birds which are not domesticated for mans’ use exterminated as his rivals for food, every hedgerow or superfluous tree rooted out, and scarcely a place left where a wild shrub or flower could grow without being eradicated as a weed in the name of improved agriculture. If the earth must lose that great portion of its pleasantness which it owes to things that the unlimited increase of wealth and population would extirpate from it, for the mere purpose of enabling it to support a larger but not a better or happier population, I sincerely hope, for the sake of posterity, that they will content to be stationary, long before necessity compels them to it.

It is scarcely necessary to remark that a stationary condition of capital and population implies no stationary state of human improvement. There would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, moral and social progress; as much room for the Art of Living, and much more likelihood of its being improved, when minds ceased to be engrossed by the art of getting on. Even the industrial arts might be as earnestly and as successfully cultivated, with this sole difference, that instead of serving no purpose but the increase of wealth, industrial improvements would produce their legitimate effect, that of abridging labour….Only when, in addition to just institutions, the increase of mankind shall be under the deliberate guidance of judicious foresight, can the conquests made from the powers of nature by the intellect and energy of scientific discoverers, become the common property of the species, and the means of improving and elevating the universal lot.”

More recently there was a program on PBS narrated by the eminent naturalist Charles Attenborough which should convince you that you are on the wrong side of any argument that tends to increase the U.S. or world population.

She: "There are sooooo many stories and situations that caused so many of these undocumented people to come to the U.S.. And still people rather focus on the fact that they are illegal, they broke the law, and have no compassion towards what they went through."

These people are quite proprly focusing on the much more important issues of finite natural resources, pollution produced by people, growing energy demands, and all the other detrimental aspects of population growth. They are having compassion on all of their fellow citizens while others choose to limit their compassion to foreigners.

"You yourself explained how it took 10 years for your grandparents daughters to come to the U.S legally. That's was just plain luck. Do you know how long it takes in times like these for someone to migrate to the U.S legally? And if so, do you think some of the families that are illegal here had the time to wait for that green light to happen? I can name you 10 people that were so close to death because their own country would not provide them proper food, and shelter. Families were threatened because one member of the family would speak out of the injustice that was going on, etc."

Where is Pancho Villa and Emilio Zapata when we need them? I don’t doubt what you have written but it doesn’t change the fact that we have no obligation to accept all those who wish to come here. To do so would ultimately be the end of America as we know it. We should make provision for the skilled few who are in real danger in their homelands and we do, if the applicants for asylum can prove their cases. But we cannot and should not take them all. To do so would simply mean the re-creation here of the very conditions that led the illegal aliens to leave their homelands in the first place -- corruption, oligarchs, crime, poverty, joblessness, starvation, pestilence and disease. If you believe as I do, that we need to take steps to stabilize our population before it is too late, then you have to set the bar for admission very high. That means most applicants will never be able to come here and we should let them know that. We should accept only a limited number of the most skilled applicants for immigration.The others must begin to expend more effort to fix the governments and institutions of their homelands, even if it takes revolution as it did in Egypt and Tunisia. We should lower the legal immigration quota to no more than 200,000 per year focused on those who can do the most good for America not just anyone who wants to come here. I know this sounds like I am lacking in compassion for the unfortunate souls you describe. I do feel compassion for them but my allegiance to America comes first and that means enforcing the immigration laws and pursuing policies that will stabilize our population.

She: "But you’re right when you wrote, 'You cannot expect anyone to readily and without protest give up what they have long enjoyed and what they consider the heritage of their children.'
I and others that support my cause can affect one mind at a time. It is a repetitive and tiresome process, but if I can persuade at least one mind, I am much closer to making people understand how much we can gain with the immigration reform and the Dream Act. "

Me: As I have indicated, I believe we have much to lose and little to gain from any immigration reform that increases the number of immigrants and fails to secure the borders. You need to present a balanced argument to those who might be persuaded to support your cause. Otherwise, they will know they are hearing only half of the story. We simply do not need any more people. We need to let all the countries of the world know that and that our immigration policies will be structured to serve our national interest not the demand for immigration. Every person you convince to support immigration reforms that do otherwise is just another nail in America’s coffin. I hope you will give some more thought to that and try to take the long view of what America will be like 50, 100, or even 200 years from now if you are successful in your advocacy and our population balloons to the level of China or India. The people there in the hinterlands live in abject poverty and misery simply because of their numbers and their adherence to old cultures and beliefs.

She: "Thank you so much for supporting one of the causes I am fighting for. Even though we don't agree on some things, it really means a lot to me if we get support on one side then the other. There are many people that spread hate towards immigration but many others, like you, prefer to make logical and important counter-arguments that we all should carefully consider. If only everyone could be like that. You’re one of the few that we can actually have a civil conversation with. (Some people yell at us, curse, spit etc. and would deny even one illegal alien to get a higher education in the U.S.)

Dee Perez-Scott Doesn't know about The High Cost of Cheap Labor

2011-05-18T12:29:00.000-07:00

Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget

This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.

Among the findings:

Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.

Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).

With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.

On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.

Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them.

If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.

Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status -- what most illegal aliens would become -- can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.

Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.

The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain -- many legal immigrants are highly skilled.

The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work.

The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants' education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact.

A Complex Fiscal Picture
Welfare use. Our findings show that many of the preconceived notions about the fiscal impact of illegal households turn out to be inaccurate. In terms of welfare use, receipt of cash assistance programs tends to be very low, while Medicaid use, though significant, is still less than for other households. Only use of food assistance programs is significantly higher than that of the rest of the population. Also, contrary to the perceptions that illegal aliens don't pay payroll taxes, we estimate that more than half of illegals work "on the books." On average, illegal households pay more than $4,200 a year in all forms of federal taxes. Unfortunately, they impose costs of $6,950 per household.

Social Security and Medicare. Although we find that the net effect of illegal households is negative at the federal level, the same is not true for Social Security and Medicare. We estimate that illegal households create a combined net benefit for these two programs in excess of $7 billion a year, accounting for about 4 percent of the total annual surplus in these two programs. However, they create a net deficit of $17.4 billion in the rest of the budget, for a total net loss of $10.4 billion. Nonetheless, their impact on Social Security and Medicare is unambiguously positive. Of course, if the Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico signed in June goes into effect, allowing illegals to collect Social Security, these calculations would change.

The Impact of Amnesty. Finally, our estimates show that amnesty would significantly increase tax revenue. Because both their income and tax compliance would rise, we estimate that under the most likely scenario the average illegal alien household would pay 77 percent ($3,200) more a year in federal taxes once legalized. While not enough to offset the 118 percent ($8,200) per household increase in costs that would come with legalization, amnesty would significantly increase both the average income and tax payments of illegal aliens.

What's Different About Today's Immigration. Many native-born Americans observe that their ancestors came to America and did not place great demands on government services. Perhaps this is true, but the size and scope of government were dramatically smaller during the last great wave of immigration. Not just means-tested programs, but expenditures on everything from public schools to roads were only a fraction of what they are today. Thus, the arrival of unskilled immigrants in the past did not have the negative fiscal implications that it does today. Moreover, the American economy has changed profoundly since the last great wave of immigration, with education now the key determinant of economic success. The costs that unskilled immigrants impose simply reflect the nature of the modern American economy and welfare state. It is doubtful that the fiscal costs can be avoided if our immigration policies remain unchanged.

Policy Implications
The negative impact on the federal budget need not be the only or even the primary consideration when deciding what to do about illegal immigration. But assuming that the fiscal status quo is unacceptable, there are three main changes in policy that might reduce or eliminate the fiscal costs of illegal immigration. One set of options is to allow illegal aliens to remain in the country, but attempt to reduce the costs they impose. A second set of options would be to grant them legal status as a way of increasing the taxes they pay. A third option would be to enforce the law and reduce the size of the illegal population and with it the costs of illegal immigration.

Reducing the Cost Side of the Equation. Reducing the costs illegals impose would probably be the most difficult of the three options because illegal households already impose only about 46 percent as much in costs on the federal government as other households. Thus, the amount of money that can be saved by curtailing their use of public services even further is probably quite limited. Moreover, the fact that benefits are often received on behalf of their U.S.-citizen children means that it is very difficult to prevent illegal households from accessing the programs they do. And many of the programs illegals use most extensively are likely to be politically very difficult to cut, such as the Women Infants and Children (WIC) nutrition program. Other costs, such as incarcerating illegals who have been convicted of crimes are unavoidable. It seems almost certain that if illegals are allowed to remain in the country, the fiscal deficit will persist.

Increasing Tax Revenue by Granting Amnesty. As discussed above, our research shows that granting illegal aliens amnesty would dramatically increase tax revenue. Unfortunately, we find that costs would increase even more. Costs would rise dramatically because illegals would be able to access many programs that are currently off limits to them. Moreover, even if legalized illegal aliens continued to be barred from using some means-tested programs, they would still be much more likely to sign their U.S.-citizen children up for them because they would lose whatever fear they had of the government. We know this because immigrants with legal status, who have the same education levels and resulting low incomes as illegal aliens, sign their U.S.-citizen children up for programs like Medicaid at higher rates than illegal aliens with U.S.-citizen children. In addition, direct costs for programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit would also grow dramatically with legalization. Right now, illegals need a Social Security number and have to file a tax return to get the credit. As a result, relatively few actually get it. We estimate that once legalized, payments to illegals under this program would grow more than ten-fold.

From a purely fiscal point of view, the main problem with legalization is that illegals would, for the most part, become unskilled legal immigrants. And unskilled legal immigrants create much larger fiscal costs than unskilled illegal aliens. Legalization will not change the low education levels of illegal aliens or the fact that the American labor market offers very limited opportunities to such workers, whatever their legal status. Nor will it change the basic fact that the United States, like all industrialized democracies, has a well-developed welfare state that provides assistance to low-income workers. Large fiscal costs are simply an unavoidable outcome of unskilled immigration given the economic and fiscal realities of America today.

Enforcing Immigration Laws. If we are serious about avoiding the fiscal costs of illegal immigration, the only real option is to enforce the law and reduce the number of illegal aliens in the country. First, this would entail much greater efforts to police the nation's land and sea borders. At present, less than 2,000 agents are on duty at any one time on the Mexican and Canadian borders. Second, much greater effort must be made to ensure that those allowed into the country on a temporary basis, such as tourists and guest workers, are not likely to stay in the country permanently. Third, the centerpiece of any enforcement effort would be to enforce the ban on hiring illegal aliens. At present, the law is completely unenforced. Enforcement would require using existing databases to ensure that all new hires are authorized to work in the United States and levying heavy fines on businesses that knowingly employ illegal aliens. Finally, a clear message from policymakers, especially senior members of the administration, that enforcement of the law is valued and vitally important to the nation, would dramatically increase the extremely low morale of those who enforce immigration laws.

Policing the border, enforcing the ban on hiring illegal aliens, denying temporary visas to those likely to remain permanently, and all the other things necessary to reduce illegal immigration will take time and cost money. However, since the cost of illegal immigration to the federal government alone is estimated at over $10 billion a year, significant resources could be devoted to enforcement efforts and still leave taxpayers with significant net savings. Enforcement not only has the advantage of reducing the costs of illegal immigration, it also is very popular with the general public. Nonetheless, policymakers can expect strong opposition from special interest groups, especially ethnic advocacy groups and those elements of the business community that do not want to invest in labor-saving devices and techniques or pay better salaries, but instead want access to large numbers of cheap, unskilled workers. If we choose to continue to not enforce the law or to grant illegals amnesty, both the public and policymakers have to understand that there will be significant long-term costs for taxpayers.

Summary Methodology
Overall Approach. To estimate the impact of households headed by illegal aliens, we rely heavily on the National Research Council's (NRC) 1997 study, "The New Americans." Like that study, we use the March Current Population Survey (CPS) and the decennial Census, both collected by the Census Bureau. We use the March 2003 CPS, which asks questions about income, household structure, and use of public services in the calendar year prior to the survey. We control total federal expenditures and tax receipts by category to reflect actual expenditures and tax payments. Like the NRC, we assume that immigrants have no impact on defense-related expenditures and therefore assign those costs only to native-headed households. Like the NRC, we define a household as persons living together who are related. Individuals living alone or with persons to whom they are unrelated are treated as their own households. As the NRC study points out, a "household is the primary unit through which public services are consumed and taxes paid." Following the NRC's example of using households, many of which include U.S.-citizen children, as the unit of analysis makes sense because the presence of these children and the costs they create are a direct result of their parents having been allowed to enter and remain in country. Thus, counting services used by these children allows for a full accounting of the costs of illegal immigration.

Identifying Illegal Aliens in Census Bureau Data. While the CPS does not ask respondents if they are illegal aliens, the Urban Institute, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the Census Bureau have used socio-demographic characteristics in the data to estimate the size and characteristics of the illegal population. To identify illegal aliens in the survey, we used citizenship status, year of arrival in the United States, age, country of birth, educational attainment, sex, receipt of welfare programs, receipt of Social Security, veteran status, and marital status. This method is based on some very well-established facts about the characteristics of the illegal population. In some cases, we assume that individuals have zero chance of being an illegal alien, such as naturalized citizens, veterans, and individuals who report that they personally receive Social Security benefits or cash assistance from a welfare program or those who are enrolled in Medicaid. However, other members of a household, mainly the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens, can and do receive these programs. We estimate that there were 8.7 million illegal aliens included in the March 2003 CPS. By design, our estimates for the size and characteristics of the illegal population are very similar to those prepared by the Census Bureau, the INS, and the Urban Institute.

Estimating the Impact of Amnesty. We assume that any amnesty that passes Congress will have Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR) as a component. Even though the President's amnesty proposal in January seems to envision "temporary" worker status, every major legalization bill in Congress, including those sponsored by Republican legislators, provides illegal aliens with LPR status at some point in the process. Moreover, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has indicated his strong desire to give LPR status to illegal aliens.

To estimate the likely impact of legalization, we run two different simulations. In our first simulation, we assume that legalized illegal aliens would use services and pay taxes like all households headed by legal immigrants with the same characteristics. In this simulation, we control for the education level of the household head and whether the head is from Mexico. The first simulation shows that the net fiscal deficit grows from about $2,700 to more than $6,000 per household. In the second simulation, we again control for education and whether the household head is Mexican and also assume that illegals would become like post-1986 legal immigrants, excluding refugees. Because illegals are much more like recently arrived non-refugees than legal immigrants in general, the second simulation is the more plausible. The second simulation shows that the net fiscal deficit per household would climb to $7,700.

Results Similar to Other Studies. Our overall conclusion that education level is the primary determinant of tax payments made and services used is very similar to the conclusion of the 1997 National Research Council report, "The New Americans." The results of our study also closely match the findings of a 1998 Urban Institute study, which examined tax payments by illegal aliens in New York State. In order to test our results we ran separate estimates for federal taxes and found that, when adjusted for inflation, our estimated federal taxes are almost identical to those of the Urban Institute. The results of this study are also buttressed by an analysis of illegal alien tax returns done by the Inspector General's Office of the Department of Treasury in 2004, which found that about half of illegals had no federal income tax liability, very similar to our finding of 45 percent.

Dee Perez-Scott's Prescription for America

2011-05-17T15:33:00.000-07:00

Dee Perez-Scott's Prescription for America

1. Amnesty for 12 million illegal aliens.
2. Mexico Norte.
3. Open Borders.
4. No internal enforcement using E-verification.
5. Poverty, joblessness, crime, gangs, corruption and oligarchs like Latin America.
6. Shortages of finite natural resources -- water, minerals, timber, arable land.
7. Overpopulation leading to 1.3 billion people in the U.S.
8. More demand for energy.
9. 6 billion more tons of pollutants as the population doubles.
10. No mas gringos.
11. The Nightmare Act.
12. Official Spanish.
13. No deportations.
14. A reduced standard of living and quality of life for all.
15. Neglect of America's poor.
16. A cradle to the grave welfare state.
17. Higher taxes.

Ethnocentrist Dee Perez-Scott has amply demonstrated that she doesn't care about the rule of law,the national character,language, ideals, sovereignty, or the national interest.

Dee Perez-Scott Help Strengthen & Improve the DREAM Act

2011-05-17T10:27:00.000-07:00

Late last year, the U.S. Senate tried but failed to muster the votes necessary to pass the so-called DREAM Act, often referred to by its opponents as the Nightmare Act. Through the courage of a few of its members, the Senate narrowly averted the terrible mistake of authorizing a deeply-flawed bill that would have afforded a backdoor approach to amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens. But despite the near mistake of the past year, Sen. Michael Bennett (D,CO) has now joined Sen. Dick Durbin (D,NY) in re-introducing this unfortunate bill. This bill is best characterized as an effort to grant illegal aliens, far too cheaply it turns out, the opportunity to become citizens. It is basically a back door amnesty bill.

One of the Senators' selling points for the bill is the possibility of a new source of recruits for the armed forces. Actually no new legislation is necessary to give these young people a chance to give back to this country through military service. According to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, about 35,000 non-citizens already serve and 8,000 permanent resident aliens enlist in our Armed Forces every year. What’s keeping those who would come under this bill from doing likewise? That is the best way for them to prove their patriotism and loyalty to the U.S. while at the same time opening a pathway to citizenship for them. Two years of college is not nearly an adequate substitute for four years of military service.

So what needs to be done to strengthen this bill and narrow its scope to those who are especially worthy?

First of all, the military enlistment requirement needs to be increased to four years. To be eligible for consideration, each applicant must serve a four year enlistment in the armed forces. College or some other form of service is not an acceptable substitute for military service and therefore must be eliminated in the revised bill. Since almost anyone can successfully complete two years at a community college, this old DREAM Act provision provided an unwarranted opportunity to gain access to the citizenship benefits without any real commitment to this country. Countless men and women have had to put their lives and their college educations on hold while they served their country. Many citizens enlisted for four years when our country called. I was one of them and I met many more who interrupted their college educations to meet the call. An Act strengthened to require applicants to enlist for four years in the military would assist with military recruiting and readiness.

Second, the bill as written is very weak on enforcement and audit. Applicants must be required to present at least four forms of notarized documents sworn under oath and subject to perjury charges that prove they meet all of the bill’s criteria. One of these documents must be an honorable discharge from military service.

Third, this one time window of opportunity to apply must be narrowed to the six month period following the president’s signature of the bill. During that six month period there must be a continuous audit of valid statistical samples of the applications to determine the extent of attempted fraud. To discourage fraud, fraudulent applications should result in immediate deportation without recourse.

Fourth, successful applicants must be specifically prohibited from ever sponsoring other relatives for permanent residency.

An Act, strengthened as outlined above, will, by no means, be a silver bullet. The Congress must take action to tighten the immigration system to: (1) reduce the total legal immigration quota to the level of the 1950s, about 250,000 per year exclusive of foreign students, tourists and temporary farm workers; (2) level the playing field for relatives and non-relatives of citizens or permanent residents and count all of them against the overall quota; (3) limit the special consideration to the spouses and minor children of citizens; (4) secure the border through intensive and continuous internal enforcement to crack down on illegal aliens and their employers through the mandatory use of E-verification across the board for all employers , public and private, and all employees, both current and potential new hires; (5) sentence immediately every illegal alien who is apprehended to a six month term working on border infrastructure before he is deported with the admonition that if he returns he will do hard time as a repeat offender; (6) require the illegal aliens to also pay a fine and pay any back taxes that are due.

The inaction of the Congress has come at the expense of ordinary citizens who see their quality of life and standard of living being eroded by unwanted and unneeded population growth.

President Obama has spoken about “…the elusive middle ground” on immigration reform. If we think of this problem in terms of one goal line representing what amounts to mass legalization and the other as mass deportation then the illusive middle ground must be found somewhere near the 50 yard line. Yet, those who have been most vociferous in pushing their version of comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) have not moved an inch away from their amnesty goal line. These zealots are still sitting in their end zone plotting new strategies to delude the American people into thinking they have actually compromised on this issue. A pre-condition of mass amnesty or mass legalization, with or without conditions, is not the middle ground -- not even close!

But in the absence of comprehensive reform, we should work to boost our economy, strengthen our Armed Forces and help hard-working kids fulfill their full potential by writing a new DREAM Act that narrows the eligibility to those who have enlisted in the armed forces for at least 4 years and who can meet all of the other criteria. Reluctant members of Congress and the American people will support a stronger bill that eliminates the loopholes and provides for audit and enforcement, and so will a majority of the U.S. Senate. But for many kids, the clock is ticking. The Administration can and should act now to grant deferred action to illegal aliens as soon as they enlist in the armed forces. These individuals will be more mature as a result of their military service and consequently they will be better students when they are able to resume their education.

If the Congress wishes to pass an amnesty bill for a limited category of illegal aliens, then the way forward is clear. If some of the best and brightest among the illegals wish to absolve themselves of any guilt regarding their illegal entry and presence, their way forward is also clear -- the nearest armed forces recruiting office. There is no reason why the potential of some of our best and brightest students should be cut short. They and the Congress have the solution right in front of them. All it takes is action on the part of both parties. While punishment for the actions of others is not a desirable thing, neither is the rewarding of illegal behavior in a way that would promote even more illegal behavior. Again, we are looking for that illusive middle ground of a strengthened bill and a penance of sorts for the actions of those who created this problem in the first place. Honorable service in the armed forces for four years is a small price to pay. Anything else is unacceptable.

If we are going to get our fiscal house in order and preserve our quality of life and standard of living we need to pay a lot more attention to world and U.S. population growth.

Dee Perez-Scott: Are you a loyal American?

2011-05-09T15:49:00.000-07:00

You Worry Me! (In this piece I use the term Mexican-Americans because they represent the preponderance of the problem but that term serves as a proxy for all the other illegal aliens from other countries who have chosen to violate our borders and the rule of law.)

I've been trying to say this for a long time, but you worry me. I wish you didn't. I wish when I walked down the streets of this country that I love, that your color and culture still blended with the beautiful human landscape we enjoy in this country. But you don't blend in anymore. I notice you, and it worries me.

I notice you because I can't help it anymore. People from your ethnic background or homeland, professing to be seeking a better life for their families but they have been usurping the jobs of my fellow citizens ever since 1954. I don't fully understand why they feel they can ignore national borders and immigration laws, but I know that nothing can justify their ignorance of the rule of law as the foundation of all civilized societies. And that is not just some laws but all laws enacted by the duly elected representatives of the citizens of this great nation.

How often have we read the frequently suppressed stories about illegal aliens,who were driving under the influence, killing innocent mothers and children in crosswalks, carrying out the murder and mayhem dictated by gangs, brutally raping multiple women, and stabbed to death others. Their misguided fellow travelers, like Dee Perez-Scott, aid and abet these law breakers by supporting the causes of illegal aliens and then complaining about their mistreatment when they are apprehended.

So, I notice you now. I don't want to be worried. I don't want to be consumed by the same rage, hate and prejudice that have destroyed the souls of these fellow travelers and illegal aliens. But I need your help. As a rational American, trying to protect my country and family in an irrational and unsafe world, I must know how to tell the difference between you, and the illegal alien.

How do I differentiate between the Mexican American citizens and the illegal aliens in our communities who are attending our schools, enjoying our parks, and living in OUR communities under the protection of OUR constitution, while they harbor, support, defend, embrace and seek special status for themselves and other illegal aliens?

The events since the last amnesty in 1986 changed the answer. The one million illegals granted amnesty in 1986 has now grown to 12-20 million. Taking the lower of those two figures I can calculate a 25 year compound rate of increase of 10.45% per year. Extrapolation of that rate to the year 2050 leads to a number that can only mean Mexico Norte rather than the USA.

It is not my responsibility to determine which of you embraces our great country, with ALL of its religions, with ALL of its different citizens, with all of its faults. It is time for every Mexican American in this country to determine it for me.

I want to know, I demand to know and I have a right to know, whether or not you love America. Do you pledge allegiance to its flag? Do you proudly display it in front of your house, or on your car to the exclusion of all other flags? Do you pray in your churches that God will bless this nation; that He will protect it and let it prosper? Or do you pray that a compliant government will destroy the America we know and love by allowing it to be overrun with illegal aliens and foreigners who are here only for economic gain and have no interest in learning English and renouncing any dual citizenship or allegiance to foreign governments?

Are you thankful for the freedom that this nation affords all of its citizens? A freedom that was paid for by the blood of hundreds of thousands of patriots who gave their lives for this country? Are you willing to preserve this freedom by also paying the ultimate sacrifice? Do you love America? If this is your commitment, then I need YOU to start letting ME know about it. I need to hear from you that you oppose illegal immigration, that you want secure borders, and that you support vigorous and continuous enforcement to help achieve those objectives.

Your leaders in this nation should be flooding the media at this time with hard facts about illegal aliens, and what hard actions you are taking as a community and as a religion to protect the United States of America from these law breakers. Please, no more benign overtures about the minority among the illegals who actually commit heinous crimes, because I worry that you do not appreciate the full magnitude of that problem. No more benign overtures of condemnation for their unprovoked attacks on people and property, because I worry about what is unprovoked to you. Please, no more ignorance about population-driven pollution, energy demands and natural resource shortages. I am not interested in any more platitudes; I am interested only in action. What will you do for America - our great country - at this time of illegal alien crisis, at this time of the border wars?

I want to see Mexican-Americans waving the AMERICAN flag in the streets. I want to hear you singing 'God Bless America'. I want to see young potential DREAM candidates enlisting in the military for a minimum of four years. I want to see a commitment of money, time and emotion to this nation as a whole.

By various estimates, there are 12-20 million illegal aliens in this country. Many of these people live and socialize right now in the Hispanic communities. You know them.
You know where they are. Hand them over to us, now! But I have seen little action and little demonstration of this form of loyalty. Instead I have seen an already closed and secretive community close even tighter. You object to every effective measure taken by the states to apprehend and expel illegals and secure the jobs and safety of their citizens. You support the wishes of foreigners over those of your fellow citizens. You have demonstrated with the illegals for rights no visitor should expect. You have screamed for protection from enforcement and deportation. You object to descriptive terms like “anchor babies” in favor of politically correct euphemisms.

The Hispanic leaders that HAVE appeared in the media were equivocating and failed to strongly support the rule of law. They seemed more concerned with making sure that the United States grants amnesty to all of the illegal aliens who are already here. They want to protect their illegal ethnic brethren from any legal action directed towards them in the United States. They are not supporting our country and denouncing the illegal aliens and the leaders of countries that promote their border violations.

If these misguided souls really believe that unfettered immigration, legal and illegal, is good for this country, I want the chapter and verse of their rationale. I want them to counter the statement that the “limit” of finite natural resources per capita as population increases without bounds is zero. I want them to explain how pollution can be reduced at the same time as the population is doubling. I want them to explain how our fossil fuel demand will be diminished by more people. I want them to contemplate the message in the recent PBS program entitled "How many people can the earth support" with David Attenborough. I want them to decide and defend how many people we should have in the U.S.

I want statement from popular Mexican-American leaders to back it up those responses. What good is it if one’s motives are good, pure, and true, toward foreigners but the opposite toward America’s future and one’s fellow citizens?

What good is it if one incorrectly adheres to a degenerative form of the rule of law that allows one to ignore those laws with which he or she disagrees? This form has been demonstrated to us over and over again, a form whose structure is built upon a foundation of lawlessness and ignorance. A form whose members (some as young as five years old) are seen day after day, week in and week out, year after year, marching in the streets, carrying foreign flags and burning the American flag. A form whose members are disloyal converts who militate against the great United States of America, the country of their birth. They support the actions of foreign governments and their policies that promote the flow of illegals across international boundaries. A form whose rules are so twisted, that they feel free to harshly criticize and attempt to silence all those with whom they disagree. The objects of their derision from any reasonable point of view are the real “loyal Americans.” And the Mexican Americans do this in the name of illegal aliens.

They adamantly oppose any sweeps, workplace raids and other effective methods for curbing border violations. They refuse to admit that internal enforcement based on E-verification of work status is the most effective way to discourage illegal entry and presence.

We will NEVER allow illegal aliens or their fellow travelers, to take away that which is so precious to us - our rights under the greatest constitution in the world. I want to know where every Mexican-American in this country stands and I think it is my right and the right of every true citizen of this country to demand it. A right paid for by the blood of thousands of my brothers and sisters who died protecting the very constitution that is protecting you and your family.

I am pleading with you to let me know. I want you here as my brother, my neighbor, my friend, as a fellow American. But there can be no gray areas or ambivalence regarding your allegiance, and it is up to YOU, to show ME, where YOU stand. Until then, “YOU WORRY ME!”

Dee Perez-Scott is small minded and parsimonious in praise of the Bin Laden success

2011-05-05T18:48:00.000-07:00

Dee Perez-Scott thinks she understands Iraq, Bin Laden’s safe house in Pakistan, and so much more. The news media have reported that the Bin Laden mission was years in the making and that its ultimate success was the result of the relentless efforts made under the direction of several presidents following various terrorist incidents around the world. She is amazed by the pictures where Bin Laden was found. She apparently believes that such an obvious location should have been discovered by Clinton, Bush, and Obama before now. She doesn’t understand how difficult it was to piece together bits and pieces of intelligence to finally pin down bin Laden’s location, especially if Pakistan was supporting him all the while. Also, Pakistan has never authorized operations on its soil and is now taking umbrage that this event occurred without its prior consent. Bin Laden probably felt quite safe there because the U.S. efforts to find him were rebuffed by Pakistan even when a strong suggestion was made by Secretary Clinton that they could locate him in a heartbeat if they wanted to. In the final analysis, the assessment was that there was only a 60% chance that Bin Laden was actually there.
Dee Perez-Scott asks why did we ever go to Iraq, suggesting that if we hadn’t we would have found Bin Laden much sooner. She asks further why did Bush have a war there for so many years? Why were so many lives lost?

Little publicity was given by the liberal media to that portion of the Wiki leaks releases last year that indicated there were
WMDs

in Iraq

WMDs2

All Dee Perez-Scott was able to say is, “Thank God for President Obama! Thank God for our Special Forces. They swooped in so quickly and served Justice so quickly." She could have been a little more generous, as Obama himself was, in recognizing the efforts of his predecessors and the intelligence analysts and CIA agents who pieced together the picture that enabled him to make the right decision. Instead she found it necessary to dump on the Iraq War and President Bush.

Dee Perez-Scott said, “It's over now! The only good thing -- we are unifying as a nation, ALL supporting our President! Let the Peace and the Allegiance last, at least for a few days! Let's join together as a nation and support our troops and our President!” Had she been a little less carping and more generous in her praise of others she might have, in her small way, actually contributed to the unification of our nation. She could have contributed even more by remembering and admitting her own warped sense of allegiance.

Dee Perez-Scott: Read this letter to President Obama

2011-04-29T16:54:00.000-07:00

Dear Mr. President,

Nearly three years after your inauguration, many illegal alien and other immigrant families are still attempting to blame their family separation plight on “our broken immigration system.” Whether our immigration system is broken or not is a matter of opinion. Those who have entered and remain in this country illegally want to be able to quickly achieve legal residency status. They think the immigration system is broken because it does not enable them to do so. Apparently they haven’t considered the fact that an immigration system has many purposes one of which is to grant legal residency status only to those who have entered this country legally.

It is grossly unfair to grant special immigration status to any adult relatives of legal residents or citizens. As adults, relatives should have to compete on a level playing field with all other applicants. We neither need to nor should we grant precedence to adults who happen to have someone who managed to get his or her foot in the immigration door. That precedence should be reserved for the spouses and minor children of legal residents or citizens. Eliminating all of those adult relatives seeking a special immigration status from the waiting list should alleviate much of the immigration backlog. That would enable the system to focus on those applicants who have the skills and advanced education necessary to keep America competitive in the global economy.

Illegal aliens, who have children born in this country, use the “family separation argument” in their appeals against deportation. They never mention the alternative which is to take their minor children, regardless of citizenship, with them. It is incredible that they would even think in terms of abandoning their minor children in the U.S. Families are never torn apart except by the overt actions of their members. Those who claim that they have been thwarted by the immigration system in their quest for legal residency status and their ability to maintain family unity are being disingenuous. This situation is prime facie evidence that that the immigration system is, in fact, working well. A system that allows illegals to stay and work with impunity without the threat of deportation and that grants them and their families a pathway to citizenship would be a broken system.

As a candidate you promised illegal aliens and their fellow-travelers that you would promote comprehensive immigration reform. More recently, as President, you made a speech in which you talked about “that illusive middle ground” on immigration reform. However, at the same time you seem to have set a pre-condition of amnesty for all illegals of good character. This seems like an oxymoron since the character of these illegal aliens has already been established by their utter disregard for the rule of law. Moreover, any setting precondition is hardly a basis for finding middle ground.

Although the validity of some these numbers is questionable, last year, it was reported that under your direction, ICE deported 392,862 illegal aliens - a record high. In 2009, your administration deported 387,790 people. These numbers do not mean much if the deportees can easily return in a matter of hours or days or have served no time for their illegal entry and presence in the U.S. We understand that 95% of those who try to enter our country illegally are ultimately successful. That does not speak well for current policies which amount to a variation of the discredited “catch-and-release” policy. Deportation without a significant penalty can be a form of de facto amnesty as the voluntary deportees return time and again and are allowed to leave voluntarily to avoid being considered felons.

Thanks to the Republican control of the Peoples’ House, mass amnesty for illegals is off the table. This provides an opportunity to double or triple the number of involuntary deportations. We call on you to not listen to the siren voices of those mentioned in the next paragraph and Change.org, who want you to use your executive authority to bypass our elected representatives and unilaterally undermine the immigration laws. We understand from recent news that you have in fact agreed to avoid any such egregious action.

On April 13, 2011 twenty-two senators sent you a letter asking you to use your "prosecutorial discretion" to put an end to the deportation of illegal alien students. Congressman Luis Gutierrez (D, IL-4), chair of the immigration task force of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, goes further, calling on you in a nationwide tour to “stop the deportations of the families of U.S. citizens, [and] young people who should have been legalized via the DREAM Act…”

We are unalterably opposed to any such actions. They are simply asking you to reward the illegal entry and presence of illegal aliens and create a whole new incentive for more border violations. The Hispanic Caucus seems to be arguing that no one should be deported if a baby can be delivered on U.S. soil. A woman finding herself pregnant could simply plan ahead to make sure that baby will be delivered in the U.S. rather the country of the origin. That doesn’t sound like the kind of policy anyone should endorse. The DREAM Act should remain defunct until its many flaws are remedied. Otherwise, it represents just a back door amnesty proposal that could affect millions of illegal aliens. We must require all of those so-called students serve a 4 year enlistment in the armed forces before they can be considered for DREAM-like special consideration. That is the only way they can be adequately show their love for this country.

While, as the chief executive of the United States, you may have some limited authority to direct ICE to stop the detention and deportation of anyone you choose, this is not the way a democracy is supposed to work. There is no justification for interfering with ICE activities. You saw the adverse reaction of many when decided one morning that there was genocide in Libya and decided on your own to help the civilians being killed and persecuted by Dictator Khadafy. You didn't ask the Congress. You didn't hold a meeting. You use whatever discretion you thought you had. Many disagreed and your stock went down in the approval ratings.

Fortunately there is bipartisan opposition to the type of immigration reform represented by the past failed bills. The instant-citizen children of illegal aliens are quite properly referred to as “anchor babies” because they can eventually sponsor other members of the family. They anchor their families to the U.S. The term anchor babies in no way dehumanizes the children to which it refers. That is just left wing hyperbole. If we don’t stop that nonsense, we will soon become a nation of PC euphemisms. Instead, let’s make our freedom of speech a reality in every way. “The emperor has no clothes” should be the order of the day.

Despite the claims to the contrary, illegal aliens know by word of mouth that if they can deliver a baby on American soil that child will be an instant-citizen and be entitled to all of the welfare and other benefits available to citizens. All one has to do is visit a vital records office where birth certificates are issued to be convinced of that. Those offices are crowded with people barely out of the delivery room so they can get their hands on that precious piece of paper for their babies. There is nothing repugnant about the mention of these obvious facts. These children are "anchors" in every sense of the word and all of the illegals know it and are counting on it.

President Obama, we ask you to make sure parents under a removal order or otherwise understand their responsibility for the care of their minor children, regardless of their citizenship. If they want to maintain their family integrity, they can do so by taking their minor children with them. Modern communications will enable them to keep in touch with adult relatives on either side of the border. This action in no way threatens the citizenship status of those children. Please give us hope that all of the laws of our nation, which we believe to be fundamentally just and fair, are and will be fully enforced by the executive branch. It is not ICE that is tearing families apart. If it happens, it is solely the responsibility or irresponsibility of the parents.

Respectfully,

Ultima

Dee Perez-Scott sees Brewer as heroine!

2011-04-28T08:22:00.000-07:00

"Jan Brewer to Birthers: Shut Up! You Guys are Losers!" Suddenly Dee Perez-Scott has shifted her position from Jan Brewer as "La Bruja" to Jan Brewer the heroine. Which is it? In Dee's schizoid world the validity of everything depends not on the evidence but rather on whether it accords with Dee's biased views.

Brewer has simply confirmed that she is an idiot and should never have been re-elected. She doesn't have the intellect of a fence post, just the kind of person that fits with Dee's scheme of things.

All of this blather tends to overlook that we are talking about the highest and most powerful office in the land. If anything, we should be going to extremes to assure the bona fides of candidates for that office. Moreover, now that we have someone of questionable qualifications in the office, no questions or doubts should be off limits.

While the so-called long form certificate of live birth finally disclosed by Obama seems to put the matter to rest, one has to wonder about two things: why did it take so long for him to make this document public and why hasn't the investigation focused on Kenya to the same degree it did on the Hawaiian end of the controversy. I saw nothing in the investigation to suggest the documents floating around the internet showing Obama was born in Kenya as being of any less validity than the document produced by Hawaii. What does one do in a case like that where two countries produce equal evidence the birth of Obama? Prove that the attached documents are bogus by investigating them at the source and I will shut up on this issue. A half-assed investigation focused only on Hawaii won't do. Every one should agree with that because of the importance of the office of the presidency.

Here's the other half of the story that needs to be investigated.
General Hospital, Mombasa, Kenya where Obama was born a few hours later at 7:21 pm on August 4, 1961(what a sad day for the USA!). Four days later his mother flew to Hawaii and registered his birth in Honolulu as a certificate of live birth

Dee Perez-Scott makes an unwarranted plea to Obama

2011-04-22T14:46:00.000-07:00

As far as left wing CIR is concerned, President Obama is at a crossroads right now. Dee Perez-Scott thinks he has within his powers the ability to order waivers to legalize students who were brought here as children, provide them waivers to complete their education and allow them to get in line and apply for citizenship. She says, "This is not too much to ask!" However, Obama has already exceeded his charter as head of the Executive Department of government by ignoring the Constitution, usurping the authority of Congress, and ignoring subpoenas in true keeping with the Chicago Code.

Mr. President! Listen to "We the People" not the siren voices of the illegal aliens, their supporters, the immigration lawyers and their ilk. We can find a compromise to allow the talented children of illegal aliens to participate fully in American society after they have earned that privilege by serving a minimum of a four year enlistment in the armed forces and by meeting certain other criteria that are missing in the so-called DREAM Act. The nightmare act has been extinguished. It's time to move on to fix all the loopholes in that bill and strengthen its requirements and enforcement mechanisms.

Like many before them who have had to postpone their lives and their educations to serve our country, these illegal aliens need to understand that there is a price that they must pay for their parents' illegal acts. They should not just get a "get out of jail free" pass as though nothing had happened. Many Americans have paid the price of a four year enlistment to support their country. This is not too much to ask of those who are here illegally. Four years will enable them to become more mature and learn more about our great nation and the sacrifices that are sometimes necessary. They will be better students and better citizen-material after their service. Do not use any extra-legal powers you think you have to thwart the will of the people and their legal representatives.

Dee Perez-Scott believes those fake deportation stats

2011-04-22T14:38:00.000-07:00

Some Latino leaders point to the fact that under the Obama administration, immigration authorities have carried out record numbers of deportations, with nearly 400,000 immigrants removed in each of the last two years, which is higher than under the Bush Administration. The deportations are drawing increasingly irate protests from Latino communities. But the fact of the matter is that statistics that show larger numbers of illegal aliens being removed are largely damn lies concocted by the Obama Administration to show their new policies are working when in fact they have undermined border security and agent morale.

Republicans in Congress, more correctly, say that the administration has not done enough to remove illegal aliens and that the Administration policies have weakened law enforcement. and They oppose ANY action by President Obama that would offer a “stealth amnesty.” President Obama “should not selectively enforce the law,” said Elton Gallegly, Republican of California, who is chairman of the House Judiciary immigration subcommittee. “Amnesty — whether universal or selective — only encourages illegal immigration.” The president claims to be looking for that "elusive middle ground" on immigration reform but refuses to abandon his pre-condition of a blanket mass amnesty.

Dee Perez-Scott wants amnesty for illegals

2011-04-22T14:35:00.000-07:00

Some Hispanic lawmakers, in the most ambitious requests, have said the President should halt deportations of illegal immigrants whose children are American citizens. An estimated four million young citizens have at least one parent who is an illegal immigrant.

Dee Perez-Scott wants waiver for illegal aliens

2011-04-22T14:33:00.000-07:00

Some religious and left wing civil rights groups have also asked Mr. Obama to expand waivers that would make it easier for undocumented immigrants who are immediate relatives of American citizens to fix their legal status without having to leave the United States. Adult relatives of American citizens should have no more rights that those who have not such relatives. The playing field needs to be leveled by providing equal opportunities to all applicants but with a focus on those applicants who have the skills and advanced education needed by America to remain competitive in the global market rather than those who will become a burden on a budget already under duress or who will require extensive social services.

Netroots Nation Speakers for 2009

2011-04-22T14:06:00.001-07:00

Dee Perez-Scott, (disloyal Mexican-American)

http://immigrationmexicanamerican.blogspot.com/

"From Migrant Worker in Michigan to Business Woman in Texas, Dee has supported Immigrant and Minority rights volunteering in the community, reading to children and advocating Education in order to achieve the American Dream. Dee's Blog is: Immigration Talk with a Mexican American. She also writes for: The Sanctuary, Citizen Orange and The Peace Tree."

More appropriately her vitae should have disclosed that ethnocentrist Dee Perez-Scott uses a photo of a movie star on her blog rather than her own photo shown here, gives precedence to the wishes of illegal aliens instead of those of her fellow Americans, at heart she is still a Mexican, excludes from her blog all comments which do not accord with her own beliefs, like other left wingers, has little regard for the freedom of speech of those of a different philosophical persuasion, free with her hatred and criticism of others, and instead of promoting the American dream she advocates policies that will destroy that dream.

"ALL SESSIONS: Four Perspectives from the Social Change Blogosphere: Case Studies from Civil Rights/Pro-Migrant Bloggers"

Dee Perez-Scott: An opportunity to compromise

2011-04-22T14:00:00.000-07:00

Latinos want the President to use what they see as his authority under current immigration law, to defer deportations of students who are eligible for legal status under the Dream Act. Since the so-called DREAM Act does not exist, their position is largely indefensible.

Immigration reform is doable but it is just rather difficult when the Democrats and the President have been unwilling to compromise on the mass legalization of illegal aliens. While one can sympathize with desire of the children of illegal aliens to remain in the U.S., they must be required to earn that privilege. A few revisions to the nightmare, foot-in-the-door, act might make it acceptable to a sufficient number of Congressmen and loyal American citizens to enable its passage. The minimum changes necessary are:
1. Applicants must present proof that they have served a minimum of a four year enlistment in the armed forces.
2. Applicants who present any fraudulent documents with their applications will be deported immediately without recourse.
3. Applicants must freely admit that they entered and are present in the U.S. illegally.
4. They must agree to abide by all laws of the U.S. in the future.
5. Applicants should be permanently barred from sponsoring any other family members for legal residency.
6. Applications will be audited monthly to determine the extent of any fraud. If fraud is widespread, the program will be terminated immediately.
7. The window for applications will be narrowed to a six month period starting on the date of the passage of the act.
8. Applicants must present four different forms of non-fraudulent documentation to prove their eligibility for the program.

Dee Perez-Scott likes Obama's CIR

2011-04-22T13:33:00.000-07:00

Latinos and Democrats praised President Obama for his attempts to try and jump-start passing a CIR bill. The bill would:
1. Secure the Border
2. Punish Exploitive Employers
3. Provide a Pathway of Citizenship for the 11M here that are Crime Free and contributing to Society.
The Liberal CIR (LCIR) proposals are nothing more than amnesty warmed-over.
Republicans and other loyal Americans are entirely correct in opposing those proposals. Although most of us want secure borders, this Administration’s has been singularly ineffective in accomplishing that goal. It has wasted its resources on misguided policies. In particular, its ill-advised redeployment of ICE and border patrol agents has seriously undermined their morale has been an abject failure in securing the borders. The President's proposals face an uphill battle with the Republicans and their loyal Americans supporters. These proposals, if they ever see the light of day, will be dead on arrival.
A different set of proposals might have a chance if there was some assurance that the president would be held fully accountable for their implementation. Any failure to do so should be defined as an impeachable offense. This alternative set of conservative comprehensive immigration reform (CCIR) proposals includes:
1. E-verification across the board for all employers and all employees.
2. A rigid set of criteria for immigration decisions for use by locally appointed Justices of the Peace sworn in as agents of the federal government.
3. The apprehension, detention and expeditious repatriation annually of a number of illegal aliens sufficient to send the message that if you enter this country or remain here illegally, you will be caught and deported at your own expense.
4. Require that all immigration decisions be made with 24 hours of the detainee’s arrival at a detention facility with only one week for appeal.
5. Sentence all those under a removal order to a minimum of six months’ work on border infrastructure before they are deported with the admonition that if they return without the proper authorization, they will do hard time. (No catch-and-release internally or at the border.)

The Dee Perez-Scott Guide to Mexico Norte

2011-04-21T15:49:00.000-07:00

Dee Perez-Scott

2011-04-19T14:48:00.000-07:00

Here she is! The chubby Dee Perez-Scott! The Face of Ethnocentric HATE! The Face of Vile Racism against el gapacho (pejorative Spanish slang for an American,especially a white American, similar to el gringo). This mendacious Grandmother who indulges in racial hatred! As proof..... above are some of her rants and images: She hides behind her grandmotherly smile. This vile woman refuses to apologize for the racist tirades on her blog. VIEW THE FACE OF THE GRANDMOTHER.. THE FACE OF RACIST Ethnocentric HATE!!!

Dee Perez-Scott: Monkey Business for our Time

2011-04-19T14:45:00.000-07:00

If you start with a cage containing five monkeys and inside the cage, hang a banana on a string from the top and then you place a set of stairs under the banana, before long a monkey will go to the stairs and climb toward the banana.
As soon as he touches the stairs, you spray all the other monkeys with cold water. After a while another monkey makes an attempt with same result... all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.
Now, put the cold water away.
Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and attempts to climb the stairs.
To his shock, all of the other monkeys beat the crap out of him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be assaulted.
Next, remove another of the original five monkeys, replacing it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment... with enthusiasm.
Then, replace a third original monkey with a new one, followed by a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him up have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs. Neither do they know why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey.
Finally, having replaced all of the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys will have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, none of the monkeys will try to climb the stairway for the banana.
Why, you ask? Because in their minds... that is the way it has always been!
This, my friends, is how Congress operates... and is why, from time to time,
all of the monkeys need to be REPLACED AT THE SAME TIME and the sooner the quicker.

Dee Perez-Scott blows another gasket

2011-04-18T12:46:00.000-07:00

A recent cartoon or caricature depicted Obama with chimpanzee parents in an apparent attempt to explain why he has refused to make his long form birth certificate available for extensive public and professional review, i.e. he doesn't have one. Dee Perez-Scott, the savior of all non-Republican beleaguered politicians, launched another tirade against this evidence of "racism." She apparently has forgotten about the above caricature which depicted our beloved Lincoln as a monkey holding the Emancipation Proclamation. So much for balance and fairness.

Dee Perez Scott: What the hell is wrong???

2011-04-16T14:40:00.000-07:00

Things are very wrong and with no leadership there is a dismal future!!!!!

What the HELL's wrong???

WAKE UP AMERICA !!!!

1- Calif's 20 Billion Dollar Budget Deficit

2- The Calif Supreme Court ruling that ILLEGALS can attend college and get benefits.

Why don't they just deport them when they arrive to register?

3- Last year they ran an article on the yearly costs to Calif Tax payers from Illegals
using Hospital Emergency Rooms for their general health care -

At just one hospital the cost to tax payers totaled over 25 million a year

Someone please tell me what the HELL's wrong with all the people that run this country!!!!!!

We're "broke" & can't help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless etc.,???????????

In the last months we have provided aid to Haiti, Chile, and Turkey . And now Pakistan .....home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!

Our retired seniors living on a 'fixed income' receive no aid nor do they get any breaks while our government and religious organizations pour Hundreds of Billions of $$$$$$'s and Tons of Food to Foreign Countries!

They call Social Security and Medicare a entitlement even though most of us have been paying for it all our working lives and now when its time for us to collect, the government is running out of money. Why did the government borrow from it in the first place?
We have hundreds of adoptable children who are shoved aside to make room for the adoption of foreign orphans.

AMERICA: a country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed hungry, elderly going without 'needed' meds, and mentally ill without treatment -etc,etc.

YET......................
They have a 'Benefit' for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations, ships and planes lining up with food, water, tents clothes, bedding, doctors and medical supplies.

Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave 'US' the same support they give to other countries..

Sad isn't it?

Dee Perez-Scott distorts the truth about the cost of Obamacare

2011-04-15T11:07:00.000-07:00

In a report released today, the CBO finally admitted the obvious: Obamacare costs over a trillion dollars.

This revised estimate comes too little, too late. Obamacare passed months ago partly because of the CBO’s erroneous original estimate of $788 billion.

Oops.

From the beginning, Obamacrats have been lying about the true cost of Obamacare.

When Obamacrats were spinning the lie that Obamacare cost under a trillion dollars – “Look, at the CBO score!” The big lie was exposed many times. Even a past CBO director pointed out that Obamacare’s false CBO score arose from Obama-Pelousi-Reid accounting tricks, including taxing now for services rendered later and moving costly sections of the bill to other pieces of legislation.