Friday, July 30, 2010

Senator Graham likes the idea of striking birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants

Looking past Arizona’s SB1070 ruling this week, some lawmakers are toying with the idea of ending the “birthright citizenship, birth tourism or anchor baby” policies America currently has in place.

After the Arizona ruling came down Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) told Fox News that "birthright citizenship" needs to be changed.

"I'm a practical guy, but when you go forward I don't want 20 million more (illegal immigrants) 20 years from now," he told Fox News. "Let's have a system that doesn't reward people for cheating."

In the past lawmakers have tried to implement similar measures through the states, however Graham said he may try introducing a constitutional amendment.

"We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen," he said. "They come here to drop a child - it's called 'drop and leave.' ... That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons."

If the Senator goes through the amendment process is will be a permanent solution but the process is much more difficult. Changing the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress as well as ratification by three-fourths of the states (38 states is the magic number to amend the Constitution).

Michael Wildes, an immigration lawyer and former federal prosecutor told Fox News, the push is a "pie in the sky" matter and didn’t believe it would survive any court challenges.

"It's spiteful," Wildes said. "These are U.S. citizens. ... They're babies that by the grace of God were born in one country instead of another."

A similar measure was introduced in April of last year by former Congressman Nathan Deal. His proposed legislation would have stripped birthright citizenship from the 14th Amendment because he says the law only applies if one of the child's parents is a U.S. citizen or a legal immigrant.

However the bill perished in the House despite the fact it had 92 co-sponsors.

The author of Arizona SB1070, Republican Russell Pearce has considered putting forth a similar birthright citizenship bill at the Arizona state level.

Pearce maintains the 14th Amendment, which was adopted after the Civil War, was intended to protect African Americans not to give every child born in the U.S. citizenship.

"Illegal wasn't illegal then," Pearce explained. "If you think about it, it's illegal to enter the United States, illegal to remain here, but you get the greatest inducement you could possibly have - the citizenship of your child. ... It was never intended to do that."

According to NumbersUSA, a responsible legal immigration think tank, there are no European nations that grant birthright citizenship and Canada is the only developed nation other than the United States to provide citizenship to those simply born on a country’s soil.

Another birthright law was introduced in California dubbed the “California Taxpayer Protection Act.” The measure would have curtailed the birthright citizenship process; however the initiative failed to collect enough signatures to be on the November ballot in the Golden State.

“It’s been a long process to get us this far,” said Ted Hilton of Taxpayer Revolution, the group who authored the initiative. “I’d say we’ve been working on this for more than 10 years. I’ve consulted with many Constitutional attorneys to get it right.”

His hard work was put to the test and he vows to keep fighting for a change in the state’s citizenship law in the future. “California has been hit hard with illegal alien public spending that is out of control,” Hilton said.

Highlights of the proposed birthright citizenship bill included, applicants for state, local, and state-administered federal aid to verify lawful presence in the United States. Additionally, applications for public benefits submitted by undocumented parents on behalf of their lawful-resident children would be given to federal authorities.

According to the Attorney General for the state of California, who prepares the title and summary, the state would deny birth certificates to children born to undocumented parents unless the mother provides a fingerprint and other information to be given to the federal authorities.

Finally, the initiative would have eliminated benefits for children in child-only CalWORKS cases which are not mandated by federal law.

“This initiative follows the intent of the framers of this country,” U.S. Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif. said. “Article V of the 14th Amendment gives us the right to define subject to the jurisdiction.”

The bottom line is the California initiative would use a common sense approach, according to Bilbray. “This is a concept of fairness that is very moderately written to solve some of California’s problems.” He continued to say that it is absurd to write welfare checks to people without checking their legal status.
The Taxpayer Revolution grassroots group contends that the state could save upwards of $2 billion dollars each year which would help close the state’s $20 billion budget gap.

“This initiative will save taxpayer money and slow down rampant illegal border crossings,” Hilton contends.

Agreeing with the proposed birthright citizenship laws is Cuban national, Tony Dolz, a naturalized citizen, who immigrated legally to this country and strongly believes in reforming the anchor baby system. “My father was an attorney before he died and instilled on his children a respect for the rule of law and above all for the U.S. Constitution.”

“We are a generous nation as shown by taking 1.5 million immigrants annually, a greater number than any other nation in the world,” Dolz explains. “I believe that foreigners who jump in front of the line of millions of law abiding foreigners that are in the process of complying with our immigration laws and who are doing so are showing disrespect for our country and its laws.”

California state officials estimate between 20-25 percent of all births each year are to those in the country illegally. According to Hilton, it is becoming evident that the parents lack the ability to pay for these births and immediately require public services to care for these children.

“Our citizen movement will continue to launch a state and national debate to bring an end to “birth tourism” and automatic citizenship in the United States,” Hilton said.
Other items included in the California anchor-baby initiative:

*Requires illegal mother to provide identification with a photograph, fingerprints and fees in person
*Ends all illegal public funded benefits
*Ends prenatal care for illegal aliens

*Terminates all child welfare checks to illegal aliens (some of which are sent out of the country)

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration ruling draws ire and applause

Arizona federal Judge Susan Bolton says there will be no sanctuary cities in the state, but sided with the Obama administration on key provisions that resulted in a bevy of lawsuits and boycotts.

Both sides do agree that the immigration lawsuit ruling leaves room for a robust interpretation of many issues. For example, buried in a footnote, police have the authority to inquire about immigration status, but the State can not require law enforcement to do so. This provision may have inadvertently created Arizona’s very own ‘don’t ask and don’t tell’ policy.

Another significant portion of the 36-page ruling directly contradicts a federal law and gives illegal immigrants more leeway in Arizona.

Current federal law at Title 8 USC Sec. 1304(e) already requires legal resident aliens to carry their registration card at all times and are subject to conviction for a misdemeanor, imprisonment, and a $100 fine per offense.

(e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or both.

While the initial verdict of SB 1070 brought cheers from the left and the right deflated, further reading found not all was lost.

A key provision that was stuck down dealt with possible misidentification of legal residents.

“There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new [law],” Bolton, a Clinton appointee, wrote in her injunction. “By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.”

The Department of Homeland Security Secretary and former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano’s office was quick to issue a statement regarding the SB 1070 ruling.

"The court's decision to enjoin most of SB1070 correctly affirms the federal government's responsibilities in enforcing our nation's immigration laws,” said Matt Chandler DHS deputy press secretary. "Over the past eighteen months, this Administration has dedicated unprecedented resources to secure the border, and we will continue to work to take decisive action to disrupt criminal organizations and the networks they exploit. DHS will enforce federal immigration laws in Arizona and around the country in smart, effective ways that focus our resources on criminal aliens who pose a public safety threat and employers who knowingly hire illegal labor, as well as continue to secure our border."

A quick response to the Arizona lawsuit ruling from Department of Justice spokeswoman Hannah August also lauded the judge’s decision. "We believe the court ruled correctly when it prevented key provisions of SB 1070 from taking effect. While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive. States can and do play a role in cooperating with the federal government in its enforcement of the immigration laws, but they must do so within our constitutional framework.”

It is worth pointing out that the Obama administration has continued to deport record numbers of illegal immigrants, but they have also failed to secure the country’s borders. Advocates for serious immigration reform agree immigration reform starts with securing the borders first.

"This administration takes its responsibility to secure our borders seriously and has dedicated unprecedented resources to that effort. We will continue to work toward smarter and more effective enforcement of our laws while pressing for a comprehensive approach that provides true security and strengthens accountability and responsibility in our immigration system at the national level."

Overall SB 1070 takes effect Thursday at midnight, but without many provisions that gave the law real teeth.

Senator of Arizona and former Republican presidential candidate, John McCain said he was deeply disappointed by the decision and disagreed with the judge’s view that additional enforcement of law would pose a burden on federal government therefore hindering the government’s ability to carry out their responsibilities... “It’s disappointing for the citizens of my state.”

“The bottom line is that we need to secure the border,” he told Fox News.

In a joint statement Arizona Sheriff’s Paul Babeu of Pinal County and Larry Dever of Cochise County (Sheriff in the county where rancher Robert Krentz was murdered) said; "Incredibly, even though there is not one person who can legitimately claim to be harmed by a law that has not even taken effect, the result of an injunction is de facto amnesty through non-enforcement of laws against illegal immigration."

The Sheriffs added that "The federal government refuses to secure the border and leaves it to states like Arizona to bear the costs of its inaction. Yet, when we try to do the job they won't do, in a manner consistent with federal law, they stop us. You couldn't make up something this ridiculous."

America’s toughest sheriff, Joe Arpaio said the decision in the courtroom would not impact his tolerance of lawbreakers. "Activists and their celebrity sympathizers who wish to target this community and this sheriff by attempting to disrupt our jail and patrol operations will be unsuccessful, as we will be fully prepared to meet those challenges head-on with appropriately staffed personnel and resources."
When the law took aim at the sanctuary city policy, Judge Bolton left nothing to chance – Arizona will not tolerate rogue cities trying to skirt federal immigration laws.

The judge used the Hines case for guidance. It defined that a state statute is preempted where it “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.”

The Supreme Court determined in Hines that the purpose of the Federal Alien Registration Act was to “make a harmonious whole” and that the Alien Registration Act “provided a standard for alien registration in a single integrated and all-embracing system. As a result, the Hines case held that the state registration scheme at issue could not be enforced.

Legal gurus believe that if the open borders people are relying on federal preemption from state laws regarding immigration, why does the U.S. Attorney General not take action against sanctuary cities that clearly "... stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and objectives of Congress."

Since DOJ’s top lawyer Eric Holder relies on the immigration scheme of Congress in opposition to Arizona’s actions and these actions of states and cities that proactively offer sanctuary (in violation of federal law - i.e., harboring, aiding, abetting ...) even more egregious than anything the Grand Canyon State has proposed, it seems the judge wants it both ways.

Many say if you review all of the provisions of SB 1070 that the court left intact, there are many things for illegals to be concerned.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer will fight the ruling

As expected Arizona Governor Jan Brewer spoke out about the ruling. She said; "We knew regardless one side or the other would appeal … absolutely the federal government got relief from the courts," adding that the federal government needs to step up and do its job.

The governor office released an official statement after the ruling saying Brewer was disappointed, but "heartened by some findings – including the ban on sanctuary cities."

The spunky governor said the fight was not over and alluded to opponents that this was only the beginning of what will likely end up at the Supreme Court.

“I have consulted with my legal counsel about our next steps. We will take a close look at every single element Judge Bolton removed from the law, and we will soon file an expedited appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit."

Brewer further claimed “We have already made some progress in waking up Washington. But the question still remains: will Washington do its job, and put an end to the daily operations of smugglers in our nation, or will the delays and sidesteps.”

California is another border state that sees the extremes of illegal immigration.

"The federal government has a right and a responsibility to enforce existing laws, but when they fail to meet that responsibility, we should not stand in the way of the states that take action to respond to the very real threat of border violence, drug cartels and human smuggling," said Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA.).

The majority of American citizens know something has to be done with illegal immigration, but they also declare the borders must be secure, something the Obama administration sidesteps everyday.

For more stories;

Saturday, July 24, 2010

Los Zetas drug cartel seizes 2 U.S. ranches in Texas

In what could be deemed an act of war against the sovereign borders of the United States, Mexican drug cartels have seized control of at least two American ranches inside the U.S. territory near Laredo, Texas.

Two sources inside the Laredo Police Department confirmed the incident is unfolding and they would continue to coordinate with U.S. Border Patrol today. “We consider this an act of war,” said one police officer on the ground near the scene. There is a news blackout of this incident at this time and the sources inside Laredo PD spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Word broke late last night that Laredo police have requested help from the federal government regarding the incursion by the Los Zetas. It appears that the ranch owners have escaped without incident but their ranches remain in the hands of the blood thirsty cartels.

Laredo Border Patrol is conducting aerial surveillance over the ranches to determine the best way to regain control of the U.S. ranches, according to the Laredo Police department.

The approximate location of the U.S. ranches are10 miles northwest of I-35 off Mines Road and Minerales Annex Road. Just off 1472 (Mines road) near Santa Isabel Creek south of the city of Laredo, Texas.

The Los Zetas drug cartel is an offshoot of the elite Mexican military trained in special ops. The mercenary organization is said to include members of corrupt Mexican Federales, politicians as well as drug traffickers. The group was once part of the Gulf cartel, but has since splintered and now directly competes with the Gulf cartel for premium drug smuggling routes in the Texas region.

The new leader of Los Zetas is Heriberto “El Lazca” Lazcano and is considered the most violent paramilitary group in Mexico by the DEA.

Recently the drug organization has kidnapped tourists, infiltrated local municipalities and continues to smuggle narcotics into a very hungry U.S. market.

The violence south of the border continues to spin out of control and has left Nuevo Laredo, Mexico on virtual lockdown with businesses refusing to open the doors. Last week a particularly violent attack by the Los Zetas included the use of grenades and resulted in a dozen deaths and 21 injuries.

The hostile takeover of the ranches has met with silence with local and national media; however sources say they could be waiting to report the stories once the ranches are back in U.S. control. This journalist questions if this was a Middle Eastern terrorist attack if the media would sit on their hands.

Stay tuned for updates reports throughout the weekend.

For more stories;

For more stories;

Friday, July 23, 2010

Mel Gibson slurs illegal Latinos in new taped rant

The recent recordings between movie star Mel Gibson and his girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva have yielded yet another revelation; Gibson now admits his housekeeper is an illegal immigrant. In one of his recorded arguments with Oksana earlier this year. Gibson is heard berating Oksana over her use of his housekeeper at her house.

As the recording unfolds Gibson is furious at his ex-girlfriend and threatens to have the employee deported if Oksana continues to employ her at the residence she shares with Gibson’s youngest child.

The audio recording posted on, Gibson says, “I will fire (name redacted) if she’s at your house. I will make it known and fire her. I’ll report her to the f *cking people that take f *cking money from the wetbacks, ok?””

Listen to the audio recording here:

On the tape Gibson refers to an employee of his that he will turn over to immigration authorities (ICE), according to RadarOnline. Gibson lives in a mansion on exclusive Palm Canyon Drive in Malibu and reportedly employs about 10 people at his Malibu estate. Some inside news sources have information that many of his other employees are in the country illegally.

It must be pointed out that knowingly hiring illegal immigrants is a felony punishable by a fine and/or up to 10 years in prison.

According to sources with the L.A. County Sheriff's Department, Gibson's admission that he hires illegal aliens is being investigated by deputies who are also investigation possible domestic violence charges against the Braveheart star. Investigators said last week that they planned to discuss the illegal employees with Gibson's lawyers when they are to meet next week.

It is widely believed that many of Hollywood's rich and famous employ illegal alien workers. Gibson's admission caught on tape further proves that many wealthy elitists think they are above the law. The questions on many American’s minds is ‘why would the uber wealthy hire illegals when they can easily afford to hire legal American workers?’

"It’s about power and control. Some of these rich private employers are nothing more than 21st Century slave-masters", says Jeff Schwilk, founder of the San Diego Minutemen, a group that targets and exposes criminal employers of illegal aliens in Southern California.

"They can work their illegal alien employees excessive hours and in harsher conditions with no fear of being reported to state and federal authorities. The illegal employees do not complain for fear of being deported," Schwilk explains.

The series of contemptible tapes that have come out recently clearly illustrate that Gibson has some serious anger management issues that he needs to work out. Schwilk says Gibson also needs to come clean about his use of undocumented employees and replace the illegal worker(s) with out-of-work Americans if he ever wants to regain the trust and respect of his countless former fans.

At a time when illegal immigration is out of control and a record number of Americans are out of work, its time for Hollywood's elite to make themselves right with the law or pay the consequences like other businesses across the nation who choose to violate the nation’s illegal immigration laws.

For more stories;

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Showdown in the desert- Arizona vs. Barrack Obama

It’s D-day in the Grand Canyon state. The full force of the federal government, with its deep pockets, will attempt to thwart Arizona from controlling their out-of-control illegal immigration problem.

After weeks of speculation, threats and pandering, the citizens of Arizona will finally have their day in court. The Obama Administration claims Arizona Governor Jan Brewer should be restrained from enforcing AB1070, an illegal immigration law that closely mirrors the federal government’s law, for two main reasons.

The government contends Arizona is pre-empting federal immigration law with the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government and therefore, the states, including Arizona are pre-empted from exercising any jurisdiction over immigration matters, according to US Immigration and Naturalization Activity – Title 8 United States Code §1101 et seq.).

The second claim deals with the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Federal law, when pertaining to the U.S. Constitution and treaties with foreign nations is the Supreme Law of the Law and “trumps” any state action, according to Article VI, Clause 2.

These two legal postulates have been used successfully by the federal government in a wide variety of proceedings to retain the federal government’s exclusive jurisdiction over certain subjects in order to ensure there is uniformity and consistency in the interpretation and execution of U.S. law throughout the federal and state jurisdictions.

For example, U.S. courts have determined that the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction to establish and enforce certain standards in drugs, foods, auto safety, etc., and therefore, the states are “preempted” from exercising jurisdiction over these areas of exclusivity, which would cause confusion and conflict in commerce and law.

Also the government’s case says the Commerce Clause of the Constitution has been widely recognized as the first application of the Supremacy Clause and it continues to be asserted today in the control of the airways for telephone, internet, and emergency broadband and AM/FM broadcasting.

However, it must be noted that Arizona has not directed that local law enforcement personnel screen people at the U.S./Arizona border with Mexico, but rather, it has restricted its application of federal immigration law within state jurisdiction and has not asserted any rights pertaining to the international border with Mexico.

The striking difference with the AB1070 case, is that the U.S. is seeking to restrain the Governor from enforcing Arizona law, exclusively within the jurisdiction of the state, and which is based expressly upon the enforcement provisions for U.S. law enforcement personnel, on the grounds of preemption and Supremacy, as though the Congress and Constitution expressly forbade dual enforcement of U.S. Immigration Law.

In the past the federal and state law enforcement personnel have worked together on immigration matters. The only difference now is that Arizona is now directing its law enforcement personnel to actively pursue immigration inquiries in certain circumstances, as opposed to the prior “dual” jurisdiction with federal officers, wherein an immigration matter arose, as a collateral or inadvertent aspect of a state legal action.

Notwithstanding a strict compliance of AB1070 with current federal immigration laws and regulations, the Obama administration somehow reaches the conclusion that only federal law enforcement is able to enforce federal immigration law without having a “chilling effect” on Arizona’s population, despite a long history of dual jurisdiction.

And lastly, the “chilling effect” would only extend only to illegal immigrants, who have no First Amendment rights, because a citizen of Arizona would be free from any threat of deportation. Therefore the “chilling effect” applies only to illegal immigrants, who have entered the U.S. illegally, remain in the U.S. illegally and would be subject to deportation on a daily basis.

For illegal immigrants, there is a constant threat of being deported, but certainly enforcement of federal immigration by Arizona law enforcement will not lessen that fear nor abridge any Constitutional protections of Arizona’s legal residents, who are required by law to carry their residency permits.

Some at ICE see Arizona law as a must enforce law

When it comes to the folks who actually are responsible for enforcing the countries’ immigration laws, recently-retired ICE agent John Sakelarides, a 25 year veteran, says the government is falling down on the job when it comes to illegal immigration and protecting the nation’s borders.

"The thrust of the Eric Holder and Barack Obama’s lawsuit against Jan Brewer and the people of the state of Arizona is that Arizona is allegedly usurping federal authority and interfering in the federal government's presumed exclusive authority to determine immigration policy and exclusive authority as to immigration enforcement,” Sakelarides says.

“However, cities such as New York, San Francisco, Denver, and many others, as well as some states have engaged in sanctuary policies which also appear to not only usurp the federal government's presumed exclusive authority to enact immigration policy and enforcement priorities, but they do so in blatant violation of federal criminal law.

“It's an obvious contradiction that cannot be overlooked. The question that has been repeatedly asked is ‘Why are Holder and Obama suing Arizona for trying to enforce the law that the federal government repeatedly refuses to enforce, while they allow cities to actively assist and harbor illegal aliens?’"

"There is a big difference between a state or locality saying they are not going to use their resources to enforce a federal law, as so-called sanctuary cities have done, and a state passing its own immigration policy that actively interferes with federal law,” Tracy Schmaler, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Eric Holder told The Washington Times. "That's what Arizona did in this case."

The real answer is that there is absolutely no interest by the Obama administration to enforce the current immigration laws, no interest in securing the border, no interest in honoring the wishes and demands of the people for whom they work for, according to Sakelarides.

“The rationale behind this is that they are seeking political power and hoping to cash in on ‘future democratic votes.’ However, the law prohibits foreign nationals in participating in American elections. The right to vote is an exclusive right reserved to citizens. In fact, if an alien votes in an election, that act is a ground for being deported. It also requires that the alien make a false claim to U.S. citizenship which is a federal felony under 18 USC 911,” Sakelarides summed up.

Members of Congress weigh in

The Arizona lawsuit hasn’t escaped the attention of 81 members of Congress who filed a friend of the court brief supporting Arizona. These bipartisan lawmakers agree Arizona has the right to protect its residents from an avalanche of illegals crossing into the Grand Canyon State seeking refuse from the over-the-top drug cartel violence and a shot of gaining employment.

“Arizona has every right to defend itself against illegal immigration,” said Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-CA), chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus. “The federal government has failed to live up to its responsibility to enforce federal law concerning immigration, and Arizona's law does not preempt federal statutes. It is time to stop playing politics, roll up our sleeves and get to work on a bipartisan immigration bill that addresses America's border security, goes after employers who exploit illegal immigrants and reduces identity theft.”

Bilbray continued to explain, "I stand by my claim: the bipartisan Immigration Reform Caucus is ready and willing to meet with President Obama to address bipartisan and meaningful immigration reform."

Arizona Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ) stated, "President Obama is going to end up having to sue several states, including Rhode Island and others, if the Administration wants to sue everyone who tries to enforce immigration law. This is in addition to the numerous other states who have either introduced legislation similar to Arizona's (such as Michigan, South Carolina, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania,) and as many as 15 others have expressed a desire to pass a law similar to SB 1070.

Furthermore, the Administration's lawsuit is politically disastrous, since more than 55 percent of Americans disagree with the lawsuit. The American people want an effective, enforced federal immigration policy and secure borders. The last thing this ridiculous lawsuit is doing is making our laws more clear or our border more secure, and President Obama must continue to hear that the Members who signed this brief, along with the American people, strongly oppose the ongoing politicization of this serious national security and federal immigration issue."

Ranking Member of the Committee on the Judiciary as well as vocal illegal immigration advocate Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) said, "The Obama administration is wrong to sue the State of Arizona. The Arizona law is favored by a majority of Arizonans and Americans. Also the Arizona law mirrors federal law and is only necessary because the Obama administration has failed to do its job. Instead of suing Arizona, the Obama administration should stand up for citizens and legal immigrants enforce our immigration laws and secure the border."

In conclusion

While there are legitimate issues on both sides of the illegal immigration issue one thing remains clear, America is a nation of laws.

The polls also remain crystal clear as the majority of Americans support Arizona’s lawmakers and residents rights to enforce immigration laws.

Another symptom associated with illegal immigration is the cost taxpayers’ end up paying for in food stamps, housing subsidies and health care. Illegal immigration costs the United States an astounding $113 billion a year or an average of $1,117 for every legal resident household in the U.S., according to a recent study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

The study also reported that this the “first and most detailed look at the costs of illegal immigration ever done,” says Bob Dane, director of communications for FAIR.

As the dynamite is about to be lit in the state of Arizona, the immigration fuse may be the precursor to a calamity of upsets in the November mid-term elections.

For more stories;

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Obama slams GOP over unemployment benefits which would add billions to the deficit

Now that it’s about 100 days until the midterm elections, the silly season kicked into high gear over the weekend. The usual finger pointing, slamming policies, and claiming the GOP doesn’t like the little guy tactics were employed by Democrats.

The current bull’s-eye target is unemployment benefits. Some unemployed America’s are entering the final 99 weeks they are able to collect insurance money from Uncle Sam, with a continued wobbly economy the President is seeking an extension of those payments.

Kicking it up a notch, Obama took a direct partisan shot at Republicans for failing to pass an extension in unemployment benefits. This politics as usual tactic fell flat as the House and the Senate enjoys large majorities and do not need Republicans to pass along an extension of benefits.

“Over the past few weeks, a majority of Senators have tried – not once, not twice, but three times – to extend emergency relief on a temporary basis. And each time, a partisan minority in the Senate has used parliamentary maneuvers to block a vote, denying millions of people who are out of work much-needed relief. Republican leaders in the Senate are advancing a misguided notion that emergency relief somehow discourages people from looking for a job,” the President implored.

Nevertheless this hasn’t stopped the main-stream media from placing the blame squarely on the GOP.
The President also highlighted in a recent speech that many Republicans have previously supported unemployment extensions under Republican administrations but refuse to offer relief to middle class families today.

Contrary to the President’s spin, Republicans support an extension of unemployment benefits, they just question whether the estimated $34 billion cost will be paid for with an stimulus money – as the GOP have proposed – or whether the $34 billion will be added to the nation’s $13 trillion debt – as the Democrats have offered.

Minority Senate leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has introduced legislation on four different occasions in the last month that would extend unemployment benefits and pay for them with unused stimulus funds. But on every occasion, that effort was blocked by Senate Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

“The biggest reason the cloture vote we just had failed is because Democrats simply refused to pass a bill that does not add to the debt,” McConnell said on the Senate floor.

In November, President Obama made this statement about unemployment benefits; “If it’s fully paid for, and so it is fiscally responsible. Now, it's important to note that the bill I sign will not add to our deficit.”

California Senator Barbara Boxer, a Democrat, is locked in a bitter race from GOP newcomer Carly Fiorina and votes for deficit spending are just the ammunition the GOP candidate is using against Boxer. Even liberal California sees the writing on the wall – the country is broke.

“While Barbara Boxer toes the party line and rubberstamps Harry Reid’s reckless tax-and-spend agenda in Washington, she has failed to make the tough economic decisions that Californians who are struggling to make ends meet deserve. Instead of living within their means like California families and small businesses are forced to do each year, Boxer and her party leaders in Washington believe that taxpayers should pick up the tab for the government’s maxed out credit card,” said Amber Marchand, NRSC Press Secretary.

“This November, there’s no doubt that voters will hold Senator Boxer accountable for her out-of-control spending agenda when they elect Carly Fiorina to the U.S. Senate,” Marchand finished.

Even Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) said unemployment benefits must be offset in a Senate floor speech. “This adds up to a 20-week extension of unemployed benefits for those in the toughest job markets…this should not increase the deficit or national debt.”

However, President Obama believes the country must continue to do everything to spur growth and hiring. “I hope the Senate acts this week on a package of tax cuts and expanded lending for small businesses, where most of America’s jobs are created,” he said from the White House Rose Garden.

“But even as we work to jumpstart job-growth in the private sector, get businesses hiring, and dig ourselves out of this economic hole, we also have another responsibility – to offer emergency relief to Americans who’ve been laid off in this recession; to help them make ends meet – and support their families – while they’re looking for another job,” Obama explained.

For more stories;

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

U.S. moves forward with relaxing PTSD treatment regulations for veterans

President Obama said that the Department of Veterans Affairs will begin the process of making it easier for veterans suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) to get the treatment and benefits they need.

“Just as we have a solemn responsibility to train and equip our troops before we send them into harm’s way, we have a solemn responsibility to provide our veterans and wounded warriors with the care and benefits they’ve earned when they come home,” Obama said in a weekly radio address.

“We also know that for many of today’s troops and their families, the war doesn’t end when they come home,” Obama admitted. “Too many suffer from the signature injuries of today’s wars: post traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury (TBI). And, too few receive the screening and treatment they need.”

For many returning war veterans they “have been stymied in receiving benefits” because they had to produce a plethora of paperwork and prove they suffered a traumatic event that caused PTSD. The President insisted that streamlining the process would “help both the veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, along with generations (veterans from other eras), who have served and sacrificed for the country.”

However the Chairman of the House Veteran Affairs Committee, Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA) says soldiers shouldn’t prove they have PTSD, but they should have to prove they don’t. The Congressman has worked tirelessly on these issues and believes the military is letting down the soldiers by not decompressing these guys once they return from the battlefield.

The new PTSD regulations will relieve veterans from proving a single wartime moment that caused the hopelessness and fear. Now veterans only need to show evaluators they served in a region where there would be cause to fear the reprisal of terrorist attack.

“I don’t think our troops on the battlefield should have to take notes to keep for a claims application. And, I’ve met enough veterans to know that you don’t have to engage in a firefight to endure the trauma of war,” Obama said.

The American Legion’s Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Division Barry Searle concurs; “This requirement seems to be a step backward in an otherwise commendable move by the VA. Private healthcare providers should be given the opportunity to work with veterans and diagnose those who suffer from PTSD.”

Searle points out that if the VA has real concerns about the treatment methods of PTSD assessment standards, “it should create a certification process for private practitioners that would satisfy its requirements.”

If the government opened up returning veterans to the Tri-Care health program, which is similar to a PPO health care plan, the private sector doctors could alleviate the backlog for PTSD/TBI treatment.

“When the VA makes claims they have enough doctors on staff to take care of the PTSD cases they are wrong. I just went to the La Jolla, CA VA and they said there was a hiring freeze for psychiatrists,” Filner said. “It’s baloney; we don’t have enough psychiatrists to treat these guys and girls.”

One congressional analysis reportedly put the cost of the new changes at $5 billion

A senior department official said the price tag is "relatively small." Under the older system bureaucrats claimed veterans eventually received the treatment they needed and hoped the new “stealthy process” would speed up the wait time. White House Senior staffers said the new process should also bring the cost of treating PTSD down.

The Veterans Affairs Department Secretary, Eric Shinseki complimented the new PTSD treatment process and said the new directive was another critical step forward in providing an easier process for combat veterans seeking health care treatment and disability compensation. The new VA regulation was published in the Federal Register last week.

“This nation has a solemn obligation to the men and women who have honorably served this country and suffer from the often devastating emotional wounds of war,” Secretary Shinseki said. “This final regulation goes a long way to ensure that veterans receive the benefits and services they need.”

By publishing a new regulation in the Federal Register it clears the way for the VA to simplify the process for a veteran to claim service connected PTSD immediately. In return the VA reduces the evidence needed if the trauma claimed by a veteran is related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity and is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the veteran’s service.

Shinseki said the science-based regulation relies on evidence that concludes a veteran’s deployment into a war zone is link enough to increase the risk of developing PTSD.

Looking back at PTSD pitfalls

In the past, VA claims adjudicators were required to corroborate that a non-combat veteran actually experienced a stressor related to hostile military activity. The new rule simplifies the development that is required for these cases and will make it easier for those serving to receive the treatment they have been denied in the past.

However, it’s Rep. Filner’s view that the military “has a much deeper problem.” Filner also alludes to the stigma attached to PTSD. “The military doesn’t want to know the full extent of the problem; they just don’t want to know.”

Nevertheless the VA expects this new rule will decrease the time it takes the VA to decide access to care.

Shinseki claims there are more than 400,000 veterans currently receiving compensation benefits that are service connected for PTSD. Congressman Filner challenges this number and believes the number is much greater than anyone is willing to admit and the VA could not handle an influx in veterans coming forward.

In the private sector, PTSD has been a medically recognized anxiety disorder that can develop from seeing or experiencing an event that involves actual threatened death or serious injury to which a person responds with intense fear, helplessness or horror, and is not uncommon among war veterans.

Filner says he has been trying to encourage the military to add an eight week decompression course for all soldiers to attend. “Right now the veterans coming home are asked two questions to self assess a PTSD problem. On top of that many of the Commanding Officers tell them to mark no on the questionnaire so they can get home faster,” Filner explained.

The program Filner describes could take place at their home base with brothers in arms, family members and trained clinicians. “This would be a good dovetail with job training classes as well,” he said.

The costs led to the new VA regulation

The process of change within the giant bureaucracy that is Washington D.C. came about in part by testimony of Barton F. Stichman, Joint Executive Director of the National Veterans Legal Services Program.

“Under current law, VA has to expend more time and resources to decide PTSD claims than almost every other type of claim. A major reason that these claims are so labor intensive is that in most cases, VA believes that the law requires it to conduct an extensive search for evidence that may corroborate the veteran’s testimony that he experienced a stressful event during military service,” Stichman testified to at the House Veterans Committee.

“According to the VA, an extensive search for corroborating evidence is necessary even when the medical evidence shows that the veteran currently suffers from PTSD, and mental health professionals attribute the PTSD to stressful events that occurred during military service.”

“Often there is no corroborative evidence that can be found – not because the in-service stressful event did not occur – but because the military did not and does not keep detailed records of every event that occurred during periods of war in combat zones,” he concluded.

Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs conducted the hearing to discuss the compensation owed for mental health. The hearing addressed the difficulties veterans encounter when they are required to prove stressors in order to receive service-connected compensation for PTSD that occurred as a result of their military service.

A different outcome for British soldiers with PTSD

When looking into PTSD issues in other countries, a report shows the British soldiers are far less likely to demonstrate symptoms of PTSD. Why?

While the numbers of U.S. soldiers suffering PTSD land somewhere in the 20-30 percent range, depending who you talk to, only four percent of British soldiers who served in Iraq or Afghanistan exhibit symptoms of PTSD even though both countries’ warzone veterans have seen comparable levels of violent combat, according to an English study.

“This is truly a landmark study, in its size and rigor, and the findings are surprisingly positive,” said Richard J. McNally, a psychologist at Harvard, told the New York Times. “The big mystery is why we find these cross-national differences.”

Researchers for the British study analyzed answers to mental health questionnaires given to Royal Army, Navy and Air Force members. The results showed that approximately 20 percent suffered some form of mental health issues, including moderate anxiety and depression. Another 13 percent admitted to drinking heavily. However, few were diagnosed with PTSD.

Once researchers began to dissect reasons for the PTSD discrepancies, possible reasons included the use of reservist soldiers and differences in ‘dwell time.’

The mental health study found British reservists were more likely to cope with post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. Another factor that could determine the successful processing of PTSD may be the fact that British troops serve six-month tours and do not spend more than 12 months in combat in every 36 months.

As far as their American soldier counterparts, U.S. military personnel, depending on their service, can serve more than 12 months at a time with only a single year in between combat deployments.

Living with the aftermath of TBI and PTSD

A common thread soldiers share is their fear of losing loved ones; “Will they still want me.”
It’s a legitimate fear as many end up losing their significant others once the hard work of rehab, reality sets in and they learn their lives will never return to pre-deployment fitness.

“I was in a coma for 12 days and now I’m like a six-year-old in a man’s body,” says S. Sgt., Jay Wilkerson, U.S. Army barracks, Iraq. He suffers from a closed-wound head trauma commonly known as TBI one of the signature wounds of the Iraq/Afghanistan wars.

“Sometimes I can’t remember my own kid’s names… I feel stupid, but my brother helps me. My son’s name is Manny and my daughter is Precious,” Wilkerson tearfully repeats.

His grueling treatment schedule includes memory groups, cognitive-skills training, physical therapy as well as psychology appointments; “All these appointments are meant to build me up and get me where I used to be.”

The Army soldier acknowledges that war is war and no medals will bring him a normal life again, but at least he is making the effort and hopes to regain a sense “normalcy.”

That life of “normalcy” often includes using nonprofit groups like Help Wounded Troops or Wounded Warrior Foundations. They step in when the Veteran Affairs and Department of Defense fall short.

It’s not unusual for wounded veterans to seek financial help while waiting for benefits to kick in. Many soldiers don’t know there are advocacy organizations out there that can assist them with the mountain of paperwork the VA requires. During the sometimes lengthy paperwork process military families can lose their homes, cars and jobs.

These nonprofit organizations provide soldiers with money to pay for rent, electricity, food or even car payments. Without the support from a generous American population these wounded warriors may otherwise fall through the cracks and disappear into homelessness.

The bottom line for the VA to consider is the need to speed up an effective TBI/PTSD treatment program. The process must ensure that there are no military service members left behind or undertreated.

Just as there have been technological breakthroughs in medical treatments, there have been significant advancements in treating TBI and PTSD. The all-volunteer troops serving in a long Middle East war deserve to be treated with the best PTSD/TBI protocol available and then the treatment plan needs to be individually tailored to meet each soldiers needs, according to Dr. Mark Wiederhold who has developed a new virtual-reality based PTSD program.

This often proves the private-sector lays claim to the most up-to-date treatment methods.
However, the VA bureaucracy doesn’t act quickly enough or at all when providing the best care for returning war veterans. One program with a stellar record is Mt. Sinai hospital in New York City. Their TBI treatment employs a rigorous-daily cognitive therapy without the use of drugs.

Another highly-successful, private sector PTSD treatment facility is located in San Diego, California. The Virtual Reality Medical Center uses virtual reality computer generated programs with physiological readings to monitor soldier’s reactions to incidents that cause them severe anxiety. The success for the $4-6 thousand program is 85 percent. However, the doctors running the virtual reality retraining sessions are working overtime to find ways to improve their success rate to more than 90 percent.

Side affect of war - suicide among soldiers on the rise

Army suicide statistics just released leave military officials trying to reverse a grim trend in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

A recent report showed that 32 soldiers killed themselves in June; it is the highest number of suicides in a single month since the Vietnam era. At least 21 took their lives while on active duty and the other 11 were inactive National Guard or Army Reserve.

The Army admits seven of the soldiers killed themselves while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. “There were no trends to any one unit, camp, post or station,” Col. Chris Philbrick said, of the Army's suicide prevention task force. "I have no silver bullet to answer the question why."

With no solutions on the horizon Philbrick said his department will: “look for opportunities we have been facing in terms of the challenges in the Army and continue to prevent these events from taking place.”

In conclusion

There is no doubt that streamlining the TBI/PTSD screening process is a step in the right direction, but what returning war zone soldiers really need is their quality of life.

Oftentimes when soldiers are separated from military service they lose extra-combat pay, housing allotments and their Tri-Care health insurance. The loss of income can split families apart, especially if there is a serious injury to contend with.

A country at war must live up to all the promises they offer military personnel. These brave soldiers should not have to lose their quality of life along with any means to earn an honorable income for their families.

America has done better, but as the “War on Terror” enters its ninth year, it must do better- the all volunteer forces are not expendable on any level.

For more stories;

Monday, July 19, 2010

Tea Party gets a new caucus in the House of Representatives

The Tea Party movement received a boost from Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn) when she sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) petitioning her support with the formation of a House Tea Party Caucus. It took only one day to get approval from the Speaker and now the Tea Party movement has found a voice inside the beltway.

The letter read in part; “On Thursday, July 15, 2010, I submitted the appropriate materials to the Committee on House Administration to register the House Tea Party Caucus as a Congressional Member Organization for the 111th Congress.”

Bachmann said she was petitioning to form a new Tea Party Caucus in order to represent the many folks affiliated with the Tea Party movement. “As Members of Congress, we have an obligation to represent the views of our constituents, and this Caucus would do nothing more than promote the timeless principles of our founding, principles that all Members of Congress have sworn to uphold.”

The Tea Party Caucus will be issue-based, according to Bachmann and will promote policies of fiscal responsibility, limited government and adherence to the Constitution.

“By rejecting such an organization, we would be silencing the voices, values and principles held dear by millions of Americans,” Bachmann explained. “The Tea Party movement has become synonymous with these principles, and a caucus taking these values to heart would work to advance them.”

The Congresswoman pointed to the fact there are many caucuses within the House that deal with a diverse issues including; Congressional Animal Protection Caucus, Congressional Apparel Manufacturing and Fashion Business Caucus and the Congressional Shellfish Caucus.

The Congresswoman will chair the new Tea Party caucus.

Nevertheless it did not take the liberal news outlets long to comment on the new Caucus. They couldn’t resist stomping on the Tea Party values and commenting on the idea of a Tea Party Caucus. On MSNBC the Dylan Ratigan show the host Ratigan reported on Congresswoman Bachmann’s new caucus: “...the Tea Partiers were nowhere when it came to ending the mass extraction in Wall Street, so I think they’re actually full of crap.”

Michael Waldman, former Bill Clinton speechwriter took the conversation even lower when he said: "The Republicans would like to benefit from the...neurotic energy of the Tea Party. But they don't really want them in the front parlor. They don't want everybody to identify their extremism with the Republican Party, just the way the Democrats didn't want the Weathermen (Bill Ayers who was connected to Obama) determining the face...At the front of the house."

However, the hyper-partisan MSNBC talk show didn’t dampen the Tea Party groups across the country and they pointed out the Caucus will give them lasting power and a real voice in the rough and tumble world of D.C. politics.

For more stories;

Friday, July 16, 2010

Mexico claims racism in U.S. in on the rise

In a new El Universal, a Mexico City newspaper article, Editors’ claim America is now racial profiling Latinos by encouraging law enforcement officers to enforce illegal immigration laws within U.S. borders.

The July, 14 article begins by detailing a letter that has been circulating the blogs and law enforcement agencies.

“This Monday, an unidentified group calling itself ‘Citizens concerned for the United States’ sent a document with data about 1,300 alleged undocumented persons to the security agencies of the state of Utah. The list of persons – the majority of Latin origin – includes names, telephones, addresses and dates of birth. The object: to deport them all. This unprecedented act shows how much hatred against Mexicans has grown in that country. It is worrisome because no answers to halt the xenophobia are forthcoming from the government and from organizations,” the story reads.

The Mexico City newspaper goes further and states Americans are amping up “a flood of hatred.” They refer to the unfortunate killing of an alleged-human smuggler, age 15, Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, by a U.S. Border Patrol agent on a bike, as an assassination.

“Now, according to the polls, the majority of U.S. citizens are in favor of laws such as the one in Arizona. In Utah, where the list of migrants appeared, a Republican legislator is already promoting a similar law,” the editorial stated. “It is difficult to believe that the proximate time frame of these events is a coincidence. It is clear that there exists a tendency for the increase of racism and xenophobia against those who are or appear to be Mexicans.”

Mexico upped the anti by charging racism and hatred throughout so-called, anti-immigrant right-wing organizations like Minuteman (sic) and the Tea Party groups.

“The use legal arguments to justify their rejection of the presence of Mexicans in the United States; nevertheless, the Utah letter makes evident that the rejection originates in hatred and racism. First, because the way in which the ‘concerned citizens’ identified the alleged illegal residents was by simple observation. To be dark skinned and be surnamed Rodriguez or Palacios means to be undocumented. (The same criterion as the Arizona Law, according to the author.) Second, because the racists’ letter manifests preoccupation about a pregnant woman who, ‘if she’s not deported “immediately”’ will have her child on American soil,” El Universal said.

The article wraps up by stating Americans do not want to include any person (s) that is brown skinned to be part of the American experiment.

“The United States will no longer be of white race and of protestant religion. Up to now, they’ve said it in undertones in meetings, demonstrations and messages to communications media, but now also with beatings and persecutions. Does the Mexican government have a strategy, along with the American one, to avoid more fury?"

Nowhere in the long editorial piece, does it explain the folks who are being deported are in fact illegal immigrants. They broke the law by entering the country illegally. The paper also fails to indicate that if a mass migration of U.S. citizens headed south, they would be ‘racially profiled’ and sent back to their home country. Currently Mexico deports most Central American immigrants trying to find a ‘better life’ in their country.

The story also fails to illustrate the economic burden these illegal immigrants often bring to the America. It is no secret that Americans are in the middle of a devastating recession and struggling to keep their homes and feed their families.

Weather illegal immigrants are driving down wages by unscrupulous employers or having multiple children in order to qualify for free education, food and other social services, they are adding to the economic burden.

Also conveniently left out are the costs when these folks are arrested and placed in the correctional system after repeated attempts to gain entry into America and/or commit federal crimes inside the country. Many would argue that illegal immigrants are only looking for a ‘better life’ which America offers, but the U.S. is a country of laws and accepts more immigrants yearly than any other country in the world.

America is a country of laws for a reason and as such, law enforcement agents are well within their rights to apprehend those breaking the law – no matter the color of their skin.

For more stories;

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

GOP Senators DeMint and Vitter move to block federal lawsuit against Arizona

In a bold move by a stagnated GOP party, two Senators hope to block President Obama’s federal lawsuit against Arizona with a procedural movement.

Senators Jim DeMint (R- S.C.) and David Vitter (R-LA) said they will attempt to attach the Arizona lawsuit, legal language to small-business legislation set to be debated on the Senate floor next week.

The two Republicans have been critical of the Obama administration’s lawsuit against Arizona and claim the federal government lacks the constitutionality to prevent the Grand Canyon State from enforcing immigration laws already on the books.

SB1070 is a law that closely mirrors the federal government’s law on enforcing illegal immigration. Arizona has been inundated with illegal immigrants which has propelled the state to the country’s leader in kidnapping and only second to Mexico City, Mexico.

“States like Arizona shouldn’t be prosecuted for protecting their citizens when the federal government fails to do so,” DeMint said in a statement. “The federal government is rewarding illegal behavior and encouraging many more to enter our nation illegally when they refuse to enforce our laws.”

DeMint also said that President Obama “should get serious and stop holding border security hostage to pass amnesty and score points with his liberal base.”

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in Arizona are complaining the federal lawsuit will do nothing more than cost taxpayers more money the country does not have and in the end will be no closer to solving the immigration problem the federal government refuses to fix.

“The Obama administration should not use taxpayers’ money to pay for these lawsuits that the American people overwhelmingly oppose,” Senator Vitter explained.

DeMint further states that “States along the border are facing kidnappings, drug trafficking, human trafficking and gang violence and they have a duty to keep their residents safe. Instead of suing states for doing his job, the President should get serious and stop holding border security hostage.”

Arizona’s new law gives state law enforcement officials the legal authority to enforce federal immigration laws. Most law enforcement officers will be allowed to inquire about immigration status of individuals who are lawfully stopped for other crimes.

An amendment to SB1070 specifically forbids racial profiling.

As many as 18 states are considering similar laws, according to the Associated Press, including: Florida, South Carolina, Idaho, Oklahoma, Utah, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Michigan. However, John Morton, the director of ICE warned these states to not pursue Arizona’s lead on the immigration issue because it is the federal government’s job to enforce illegal immigration.

For more stories;

New Jersey Supreme Court orders police to give illegals, DUI tests in multiple languages

In an effort to thwart law enforcement in the state from arresting those who don’t speak English during DUI stops, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled officers must bring non-English speakers into the station and translate the breathalyzer process for them in a language they understand.

The result of the added dog-and-pony show for non-English speakers could lead to law enforcement to think twice before they attempt to arrest those on suspicion of drunk driving. At the very least it will cause officers to leave the field and drive alleged DUI offenders to the station leaving fewer enforcement officers on their beats.

According to the ruling, New Jersey police must explain the state's implied consent law to motorists in a language that they understand before making any arrests.

Monday’s State Supreme Court’s 4-3 decision overturned a conviction for a man who refused to take an alcohol breathalyzer test because he only spoke Spanish, and claims he did not understand the officers.
The case dates back to 2007 where the court said a Plainfield police officer did not inform German Marquez in Spanish that he would lose his license if he refused the DUI test.

The dispute arose after police responded to a car accident. The police officer initially asked in English for Marquez to show his license and after noncompliance the officer repeated the request in Spanish.

Marquez said he didn't understand the police and that he had taken the driver’s license test in Spanish.
One of Marquez’s excuses for the accident and officer misunderstanding was an unsubstantiated claim that he had taken two Percocet pills for pain that made him sleepy and dizzy.

"He was read his rights in a meaningless way," said Marquez's attorney, Michael B. Blacker. "Other states have not gotten this far. This is the first case where the court has said translation is the remedy."

Nevertheless, "there are over 150 different languages spoken in New Jersey, according to statistics gathered by the courts," Peter Aseltine a spokesman for the Attorney General’s office said. "This ruling effectively provides an immunity claim in a prosecution for violating the refusal statute for any drunk driver who speaks a language that the officer is unable to identify or translate."

As a result the ruling has lead the Attorney General's Office to post standard statements via audio and written formats in nine foreign languages on a website for law enforcement officials to access.

However, prosecutors argued that all drivers give an implied consent to take breath tests when they get a driver’s license and say when Marquez took his test in Spanish he was informed of the consent laws.

The Justices dissenting opinions said that police need only make reasonable efforts to inform motorists of the consequences and it was not a requirement that a motorist understand the consent law, especially if the driver may be intoxicated.

Despite the new law, Marquez’s conviction for the driving while intoxicated charge was upheld by the court as the defendant could not prove he had a prescription for Percocet.

Law enforcement advocate groups quickly jumped to the side of the police officers.

"What is scary is how the government is deciding to ignore federal immigration law and that's solely to curry favor with Mexico City, Corporate America (for contributions), and the illegal aliens themselves (some do illegally vote/future voter under path to citizenship). The officers who enforce our laws at all levels of government know about the ‘War on Law Enforcement’ that's now gone on for three administrations going back to Clinton and Janet Reno's Department of Justice,” said Andy Ramirez, president of the California based non-profit Law Enforcement Officers Advocates Council.

“They (law enforcement officers) realize after the cases I've documented showing DOJ prosecuting agents along the border for doing their job that the next one could be any of them, especially after Gilmer Hernandez the Texas Deputy Sheriff prosecuted by Johnny Sutton who went to prison. However, if we ignore a law that affects national security, and affects public safety in our local communities, by failing to enforce immigration law, what law will we fail to enforce next?”

The picking and choosing of which laws law enforcement is supposed to follow may very well lead to a deadly outcome. “Or worse yet, when we (U.S.) will will see the next 9-11 attack as a direct consequence of these new laws. It's not if, it's when," Ramirez finished, (

For more stories;

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

California companies snag $22 million stimulus cash for energy research projects

In an effort to promote clean energy, the White House announced 11 new projects that will accelerate innovation in clean energy technologies for California-based companies using taxpayer's stimulus money.

The companies were selected by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to receive $22 million for research projects that aim to improve how the U.S. uses and produces clean energy.

The announcement came from Department of Energy, Secretary, Steven Chu, and the Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) which is awarding a total of $92 million from the Stimulus Act. Nearly half of the chosen companies, 22 of the 43 cutting-edge businesses are located in the Golden State.

The grants from the U.S. government ensured that businesses focus on accelerating innovation in green technology while increasing America's competitiveness in grid scale energy storage, power electronics and energy efficient cooling systems.

“These innovative ideas will play a critical role in our energy security and economic growth,” said Secretary Chu. “It is now more important than ever to invest in a new, clean energy economy.”

California Senator Barbara Boxer said, “The country that leads the way in clean energy is the country that is going to lead the world. California is already emerging as a hub of the clean energy industry and the grants announced today will move us further in that direction.”

These projects couldn’t come at a better time for Boxer as she is in a tough reelection race with former Hewlett Packard CEO, Carly Fiorina.

For the first time the Boxer is trailing the Republican challenger Fiorina by 2 points; 47 percent to 45 percent. The new Survey USA poll of likely voters was released late Monday. Fiorina has been closing in on Boxer in recent weeks and cut the Democrat's lead from six to five, to four, to three points in recent polls, but this is the poll showing Fiorina leading Boxer in the navy blue state.

The grants awarded by the DOE went to 18 states with 36 percent of the clean energy projects being led by universities, 33 percent to small business innovators, 24 percent to large companies, 5 percent to national labs and 2 percent to non-profit organizations.

The grants complete ARPA-E’s funding under its Recovery Act: in each of the three rounds of awards since Department of Energy has selected 117 projects totaling $349 million in funding, all to support research that can deliver technological breakthrough changes in how the U.S. generates, stores, and utilizes energy.

The companies who received the stimulus money include;

HRL Laboratories, LLC (Malibu, CA) Switches – Automobiles: Gallium-Nitride Switch Technology for Bi-directional Battery-to-Grid Charger Applications: The purpose of this project is to develop efficient, compact, and low-cost battery chargers for electric cars. This compact battery charger will support two-way power flow enabling the electrical grid to access the vehicle’s battery. DOE award: $5,058,803.

Teledyne Scientific & Imaging (Thousand Oaks, CA) Magnetics/Switches - Lighting: Integrated Power Chip Converter for Solid State Lighting: This project will develop a single integrated circuit that will convert the 120V AC from an electrical outlet to direct current required for LED lighting. DOE award: $3,439,494.

Transphorm Inc (Goleta, CA) Switches - Motors: High Performance GaN HEMT Modules for Agile Power Electronics: This project seeks to foster the adoption of energy-efficient, variable speed motors that are employed in industrial uses from industrial automation to air-conditioning. DOE award: $2,950,000.

Counseling & Consulting Associates (San Diego, CA) Gas Cycles: Centrifugal Air Cycle Air Conditioning System: The centrifugal air conditioning system uses air as a refrigerant and a novel compact system that boosts performance. DOE award: $400,000.

Material Methods LLC (Irvine, CA) Gas Cycles: Phononic Heat Pump: This project will demonstrate a refrigerator that pumps heat using sound waves. Low cost and high reliability result from high thermal efficiency and mechanical simplicity with no linkages, no exotic materials, and simple construction. The working fluid is environmentally safe and friendly. DOE award: $399,800.

The Regents of the University of California, Los Angeles (Los Angeles, CA) Solid State Cooling: Compact MEMS Electrocaloric Cooling Module: This project will develop a novel solid-state cooling technology to translate a recent scientific discovery of the enhanced electrocaloric effort into commercially viable compact cooling systems that have reduced energy consumption and avoid the use of refrigerants to cool building spaces. DOE award: $520,547.

Boeing (Huntington Beach, CA) Flywheel: Low-Cost, High-Energy Density Flywheel Storage Grid Demonstration: In this project, Boeing will develop a high-risk materials technology for low-cost, high energy-density flywheel energy storage. DOE award: $2,264,136.

General Atomics (San Diego, CA) Flow Battery: GRIDS Soluble Lead Flow Battery Technology: General Atomics and the University of California San Diego will develop a novel flow battery technology, which pumps chemicals through the battery cell when electricity is needed. DOE award: $1,986,308.

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley, CA) Flow Battery: Hydrogen-Bromine Flow Batteries for Grid-Scale Energy Storage: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and its team of industrial partners (DuPont, Bosch, 3M, and Proton Energy) will develop a novel flow-battery system for grid applications. Flow batteries pump reactive chemicals through the battery cell when electricity is needed; this project’s battery will use hydrogen and bromine as its active materials. DOE award: $1,592,730.

Primus Power (Alameda, CA) Flow Battery: Low-Cost, High Performance 50 Year Electrodes: Primus Power will develop new durable, inexpensive metal electrodes for flow batteries for energy storage on the electric grid. Electrodes are a key component of flow batteries, which pump reactive chemicals through the battery cell when electricity is needed. DOE award: $2,000,000.

University of Southern California (Los Angeles, CA) Battery: A Robust and Inexpensive Iron-Air Rechargeable Battery for Grid-Scale Energy Storage: Researchers at the University of Southern California and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory will team together to develop a high-performance rechargeable battery for large-scale energy storage on the electricity grid. Iron air batteries have the potential to store large amounts of energy inexpensively since they rely on extremely low-cost materials: iron, which costs less than $.20/pound, and oxygen, which is free in ambient air. DOE award: $1,459,324.

For more stories;

Friday, July 9, 2010

More than $7.1 billion in overpayments to jobless recipients

Amid a massive federal government buildup, waste and fraud inside the U.S. Department of Labor leads to $7.1 billion in overpayments to Americans across the country.

However this is little comfort to those who are losing their government-funded paychecks and leaves Americans scratching their heads as to why the Department of Labor is not properly managing their money.

The latest vote from Capitol Hill has left Democrats frustrated that the GOP as well as fellow party members blocked additional money to be borrowed from the federal-reserve bank (printing money) therefore adding to the deficit and will let thousands of Americans who are unemployed feel the pain of the dithering economy.

The $7.1 billion in waste can be attributed to applicants who received benefits they are not entitled to, according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

Congress said they will not extend the current jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed; these jobless workers will have to make do with their 99 weeks of government paychecks.

The U.S. Department of Labor said in fiscal year 2009, states shelled out $7.1 billion in overpayments through unemployment insurance, nearly doubling the fraud from $4.2 billion the previous year.

American’s received approximately $76.8 billion in unemployment insurance in 2009 and $41.6 in 2008.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s final report is set to be released next month.

For more stories;

Thursday, July 8, 2010

The country weighs in on Arizona illegal immigration lawsuit

The ink is barely dry on the Federal lawsuit against Arizona’s new illegal immigration law and politicians from both sides of the isle are ready to lay claim to the right or wrongness of the divisive issue.

First up is Chairman of the Immigration Reform Caucus, Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA); “The lawsuit highlights the failure of the federal government to enforce immigration laws. Calling for an injunction to stop Arizona from enforcing the law only compounds this failure.”

The highly-contentious immigration law closely mirrors the federal government’s policy on illegal immigration enforcement and experts across the board see the legal injunction as a political ploy.

“Pointing fingers at the communities who are trying to make a difference only makes matters worse. The time for political posturing is over. It’s time roll up our sleeves and get to work on real reform,” Bilbray explained. “When President Obama wants to sit down with the Immigration Reform Caucus to develop a strategy on moving forward, we will be ready to work with him.”

House minority leader, John Boehner (R-OH) repeated a growing chorus of lawmakers concerns, “The federal government shouldn’t be suing Arizona – it should be helping Arizona.”

The Obama Administration contends the lawsuit will challenge the Arizona illegal immigration law on the basis of its Constitutionality. The case will be heard by an Arizona federal judge on July 22, who was appointed by former President Clinton. Amnesty advocates hope to at least stall the law from being enforced on July 29th.

In a statement from the Department of Justice, officials claim the law “interferes with the federal government’s authority to set and enforce immigration policy.”

However, Arizona’s Congressman Harry Mitchel, a Democrat, accused the Obama Administration of “political posturing.”

Looking to the latest Fox News Opinion poll, 52 percent of the country favors Arizona’s law while only 27 percent oppose the law, once again leaving the President out of step with most Americans. The poll also identified poll numbers by political party and found 73 percent of Republicans, 57 percent of Independents and 30 percent of Democrats favored Arizona’s new law. Even more interesting is a Denver Post poll that found 62 percent of Hispanics favor the new Arizona law.

It doesn’t matter if lawmakers in Arizona are Republican or Democrat most side with their state. Case in point is Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick who went ‘On the Record’ saying she was very disappointed that the Obama Administration has chosen to take a security issue and make it political. “I think we should get together… rather than have a lawsuit, let’s get to the table and work out a plan that secures the border and fixes immigration.”

Emboldened Governor Jan Brewer (R-AZ) said, “The filing (lawsuit) is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds. These funds could be better used against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona.”

The governor goes on to say, “The irony is that President Obama’s Administration has chosen to sue Arizona for helping to enforce federal immigration law and not sue local governments that have adopted patchwork of sanctuary policies that directly violate federal law.”

At the White House press briefing, Robert Gibbs was asked that very question and quickly replied, “I’ll have to get back to you.”

Critics as well as proponents agree that this case will ultimately be heard in the nation’s highest court when they resume the fall session. As such, the make-up of the Supreme Court would certainly come back with at least a 5-4 decision in favor of Arizona right to enforce illegal immigration within their state’s borders.

Equally mad at the Obama Administration are Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) who also issued a joint statement regarding the Administration’s lawsuit against;

“It is far too premature for the Obama Administration to challenge the legality of this new law since it has not yet been enforced. Most legal experts believe such a ‘facial challenge’ to the statute would be very difficult to win. Moreover, the American people must wonder whether the Obama Administration is really committed to securing the border when it sues a state that is simply trying to protect its people by enforcing immigration law.”

The statement continues to imply that Attorney General Eric Holder speaks of the “‘federal government’s responsibility’ to enforce immigration laws; but what are the people of Arizona left to do when the federal government fails in its responsibility? The Obama Administration has not done everything it can do to protect the people of Arizona from the violence and crime illegal immigration brings to our state. Until it does, the federal government should not be suing Arizona on the grounds that immigration enforcement is solely a federal responsibility.”

Another symptom associated with illegal immigration is the costs taxpayers end up paying for in food stamps, housing subsidies and health care. Illegal immigration costs the United States an astounding $113 billion a year or an average of $1,117 for every legal resident household in the U.S., according to a new study by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR).

The study also reported that this the “first and most detailed look at the costs of illegal immigration ever done,” says Bob Dane, director of communications for FAIR.

In the past FAIR has testified before Congress on numerous immigration issues.

Many open border/amnesty groups were quick to slam FAIR's latest report and said their study conflicts with the Perryman Report, a 2008 study that found illegal immigration did not hurt the U.S. economy.
Regardless of opinions, the DOJ’s case itself goes after Arizona’s right to enforce a ‘pre-emption’ part of federal law and stayed clear of the racial-profiling claim the government originally chided state lawmakers with.

Nevertheless legal gurus argue the pre-emption has been waived by the federal government's failure to act. After all, all the Arizona law did was empower state law enforcement with the same criteria as Border Patrol, but within the Grand Canyon State not without.

It’s worth pointing out the 10th amendment reserves to the states those powers not specifically “granted” or enumerated to the federal government, including a waiver to act.

For more stories;
Click here to find out more!

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Federal government to serve Arizona with a lawsuit today

U.S. Department of Justice sources have confirmed that Attorney General, Eric Holder plans to file a lawsuit against Arizona’s tough illegal immigration law SB1070.

The controversial illegal-immigration law gives local law enforcement officers the tools they need to enforce the federal immigration law that is set to be enforced later this month. Arizona’s Governor, Jan Brewer plans to take this fight all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

The government’s lawsuit argues that Arizona’s new law requires state and local law enforcement agencies to question illegal immigrants about their legal status in conjunction with another crime, like traffic stops. The federal government contends the new law usurps federal authority.

However, legal gurus argue the pre-emption has been waived by the federal government's failure to act. After all, all the Arizona law did was empower state law enforcement with the same criteria as Border Patrol, but within the Grand Canyon State not without.

The 10th amendment reserves to the states those powers not specifically "granted" or enumerated to the federal government, including a waiver to act.

The lawsuit sets out to block Arizona’s new law that is favored by more than 60 percent of the state’s residents, and draws President Obama into another divisive issue.

For more stories;

Obama plays partisan politics with illegal immigration at American University

On a seasonably warm day in the nation’s capitol, the Dean of American University’s School of Public Affairs, William LeoGrande’s welcomed Obama’s speech on immigration reform. “We are very lucky the White House staff chose our university,” he said. The Dean and the country expected to hear how the president was going to lead the country forward on the embattled immigration issue. However Obama chose to use old rhetoric and gave no specifics on how to make immigration reform a reality while delivering a lackluster immigration speech.

“Despite the forces of the status quo, despite the polarization and the frequent pettiness of our politics, we are confronting the great challenges of our times. And while this work isn’t easy, and the changes we seek won’t always happen overnight, what we’ve made clear is that this administration will not just kick the can down the road,” said Obama during the 45-minute speech.

The administration alluded to the fact that the topic received fresh status thanks to the new law passed in Arizona. “The passage of a controversial law in Arizona and the heated reactions we’ve seen across America” has given the administration some much needed ammunition. “Some have rallied behind this new policy. Others have protested and launched boycotts of the state. And everywhere, people have expressed frustration with a system that seems fundamentally broken.”

President Obama has made no bones about it, he subscribes to the globalist vision for America and open borders are a prerequisite. The only problem with open borders is the majority of American’s would rather continue with the country’s 234 years of tradition.

There is no doubt the U.S. was built with the sweat equity of legal immigrants. The key word is legal. In the past most immigrants passed through Ellis Island on their way to the promise land. For the most part they followed the law, kept their heads down and worked hard in order to give their children a better life.

When looking at the illegal-immigration prism the small Central American country of Honduras has at least 500 Hondurans leaving daily for the U.S. looking for the “American dream.” The commissioner of the regional Human Rights Commission organization said that “monthly, about 15,000 leave the country in search of jobs in the U.S.”

The president rightly said immigrants have “allowed us to adapt and thrive in the face of technological and societal change. To this day, America reaps incredible economic rewards because we remain a magnet for the best and brightest from across the globe.”

He further described a naturalization ceremony that took place in April at the White House for members of the armed forces. “Even though they were not yet citizens, they had enlisted. One of them was a woman named Perla Ramos — born and raised in Mexico, came to the United States shortly after 9/11, and she eventually joined the Navy. And she said, ‘I take pride in our flag and the history that forged this great nation and the history we write day by day.’”

The beauty of America is anyone can write the next great chapter in the country’s storied history.
Obama contends there is too much politics involved with who is and isn’t allowed into the country and says the issue has always been contentious. “It’s made worse by a failure of those of us in Washington to fix a broken immigration system.”
Everyone can agree that the borders remain porous. While the Northern border has plenty of openings, it is the Southern border that presents the greatest problem. In fact, the U.S. doesn’t do a very good job of tracking who enters and exits the country as visitors or students- many simply overstay their visas to get a shot at the better life.
Those who have entered the country legally say the process to become Americans is fraught with lengthy backlogs and bureaucracy. The current process often means years of waiting.

The president complained about the legal immigration process and said families often had to spend time apart during the naturalization process. However, residents of Southern states are not fooled by this rhetoric. Keeping families together really means bringing the entire family to the U.S. and that means 20 million illegals currently in the country could double or triple if they are granted amnesty.

Obama also contends that high fees and the need for lawyers can exclude worthy applicants. “While we provide students from around the world visas to get engineering and computer science degrees at our top universities, our laws discourage them from using those skills to start a business or power a new industry right here in the United States. Instead of training entrepreneurs to create jobs on our shores, we train our competition.”

The President points to the many worthy immigrants who may not have the ability to become American citizens, however in a time of extreme economic crisis, perhaps the country should focus on training American children to be the future leaders of industry, policy making and even legislators.

The system is broken and most Americans know it.

“Unfortunately, reform has been held hostage to political posturing and special-interest wrangling- and to the pervasive sentiment in Washington that tackling such a thorny and emotional issue is inherently bad politics. And now, under the pressures of partisanship and election-year politics, many of the 11 Republican senators who voted for reform in the past have now backed away from their previous support,” Obama explained.

Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-CA) couldn’t disagree more with the president. Bilbray’s district lies just north of the U.S./Mexican border and he really understands the immigration issue. As a leader of the Immigration Reform Caucus, Bilbray says if the President took amnesty out of the legislation the Congress could pass immigration reform today. “But the president is insisting on amnesty.”

“Currently there is a bill sitting in Congress with more than 230 votes that would start the process of securing the borders and streamlining the immigration process,” Bilbray said. “The name of the bill is Shuler bill. In late 2008, Congressman Heath Shuler (D-N.C.) introduced a bill that would increase border security measures, add new Border Patrol agents and mandate that employers verify if their workers are here legally.”

However the bill doesn’t include a mass amnesty and that is a deal breaker for the president and most liberal-progressive Democrats.

The persistent issue of amnesty has been the kryptonite to immigration reform and has sent states like Arizona through the state-legislative process in order to solve the out-of-control crime and financial liabilities illegal immigrants bring to the table.

According to a recent story by Fox News, Arizona’s budget deficit of $2.7 billion and it is directly related to illegal immigration. “Given the levels of frustration across the country, this is understandable (trying to take illegal immigration issues into their own hands),” Obama said. “But it is also ill conceived.”

As such the Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton let the cat out of the bag last month regarding the federal government’s intention to file a lawsuit to block Arizona’s SB1070 law that mirrors the current U.S. immigration enforcement policy.

“Our task then is to make our national laws actually work - to shape a system that reflects our values as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.”

“Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship,” he continues. “And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.”

Yet a majority of the country doesn’t want amnesty. To be fair Americans also realize deporting more than 10 million illegal immigrants is nearly impossible. “If the majority of Americans are skeptical of a blanket amnesty,” Obama said. “They are also skeptical that it is possible to round up and deport 11 million people.”

Moreover the President claims a mass deportation” would tear at the very fabric of this nation - because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric. Many have children who are American citizens.”

Obama also admits the government has the responsibility to secure the country’s borders. “That’s why I directed my Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, former Arizona governor, to improve our enforcement policy without having to wait for a new law.”

But this statement rings hollow for those living along the Southern border. The White House said weeks ago they would send 1,200 National Guard troops to the border, however, those same troops would be carrying unloaded guns and come nowhere near the number of National Guard troops needed to protect the borders from the ever-increasing violence plaguing the border region.

When former President George W. Bush sent 6,000 National Guard members to the border, states saw a reduction in violence and a slowing of human smuggling. However, in the end President Bush continued the failure of meaningful immigration reform.

President Obama subscribes to the open-borders/amnesty theory as a way to increase a huge voting block. “There are those who argue that we should not move forward with any other elements of reform until we have fully sealed our borders. But our borders are just too vast for us to be able to solve the problem only with fences and border patrols. It won’t work. Our borders will not be secure as long as our limited resources are devoted to not only stopping gangs and potential terrorists, but also the hundreds of thousands who attempt to cross each year simply to find work.”

Additional focus needs to be placed on businesses who hire illegal workers, they need be held accountable, especially if business owners break the immigration law deliberately.

During the 45-minute speech, Obama made blanket statements that law enforcement agencies are not wanting to take on a job the federal government refuses to implement.

However law enforcement agencies throughout the state of Arizona say the federal government isn’t doing enough regarding interior immigration enforcement. As such, there has been a growing population of sanctuary cities that have made enforcing illegal immigration more difficult.

States like California are the poster child for renegade sanctuary cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego. The three largest cities continue to quash interior apprehensions. In the Golden State’s case, the $20 billion revenue shortfall can be directly tied to illegal immigrants.

Nevertheless Obama contends that those in the country illegally are to be given a free pass if they; “Admit that they broke the law.” After the admission, “they should be required to register, pay their taxes, pay a fine, and learn English.”

“Our laws should respect families following the rules- instead of splitting them apart. We need to provide farms a legal way to hire the workers they rely on, and a path for those workers to earn legal status,” Obama said. “We should stop punishing innocent young people for the actions of their parents by denying them the chance to stay here and earn an education and contribute their talents to build the country where they’ve grown up. The DREAM Act (this act gives illegal immigrants the right to apply and receive scholarships for college… and that’s why I supported this bill as a state legislator and as a U.S. senator - and why I continue to support it as president.”

“I’ve spoken with representatives from a growing coalition of labor unions and business groups, immigrant advocates and community organizations, law enforcement, local government - all recognize the importance of immigration reform.”

Further attesting how out of touch the president is with middleclass America is New York Mayor Bloomberg. After the president’s immigration reform speech Mayor Bloomberg made a statement to the media. The twist was Bloomberg spoke in Spanish. Then he went on to say for those of you who do not understand this is the way of the future.

Bloomberg never translated the speech.

Moving forward the president says; “The majority of Democrats are ready to move forward; and I believe the majority of Americans are ready to move forward. But the fact is, without bipartisan support, as we had just a few years ago, we cannot solve this problem. Reform that brings accountability to our immigration system cannot pass without Republican votes.”

However, for the better part of 18 months the White House held large majorities in the House as well as a Senate and they failed to pass any immigration legislation. Now Obama says the political theater makes passing legislation a “mathematical impossibility.”

The Democrats certainly have a full plate with two wars, the largest environmental disaster in the Gulf and millions of illegal immigrants pushing for amnesty. The midterm elections will certainly set a referendum one way or another.

For more stories;