is B. H. Obama a Puppet for Bankers, Wall Street & Federal Reserve Agendas, Out to Destroy Main Street & the Middle Class for World Globalization:

The Obama Deception; is B. H. Obama a Puppet for World Bankers, Wall Street & Federal Reserve Agendas, Out to Destroy Main Street & the American Middle Class for World Globalization?
By Marc Chamot

Is Obama a liar, deceiver and a manipulator for the world banking oligarchs?

Updated July 11, 2009: As of this writing, the Examiner.com came out with a tremendous editorial confirming some issues that are being brought up by this CD. For example, the Homeland Security’s Obama million youth/man military outside our military and once again they are questioning these internment camps being built:

Examiner Editorial: Congress shouldn’t outlaw political opposition
July 10, 2009
What’s wrong with this picture? The federal government spends billions on homeland security, but apparently can’t stop foreigners from illegally crossing the border or overstaying their visas. The Obama administration wants to bring violent terrorists captured overseas to the mainland and close the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Yet in the latest bizarre twist, legislation quietly making its way through Congress would give the White House power to categorize political opponents as hate groups and even send Americans to detention centers on abandoned military bases.

Rep. Alcee Hastings — the impeached Florida judge House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to install as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee until her own party members rebelled — introduced an amendment to the defense authorization bill that gives Attorney General Eric Holder sole discretion to label groups that oppose government policy on guns, abortion, immigration, states’ rights or a host of other issues.

In a June 25 speech on the House floor, Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., blasted the idea: “This sounds an alarm for many of us because of the recent shocking and offensive report released by the Department of Homeland Security which labeled, arguably, a majority of Americans as ‘extremists.’”

Another Hastings bill (HR 645) authorizes $360 million in 2009 and 2010 to set up “not fewer than six national emergency centers on military installations” capable of housing “a large number of individuals affected by an emergency or major disaster.” But Section 2 (b) 4 allows the secretary of the Homeland Security Department to use the camps “to meet other appropriate needs,” none of which are specified. This is the kind of blank check that Congress should never, ever sign.

It’s not paranoid to be extremely wary of legislation that would give two unelected government officials power to legally declare someone a “domestic terrorist” and send them to a government-run camp. After all, the federal government has done exactly this sort of thing before.

During World War II, more than 120,000 law-abiding Japanese-Americans were rounded up by the government and confined for four years in 10 internment camps surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards. Joy Kogawa chronicled the trauma her family experienced firsthand under President Franklin Roosevelt’s executive order: “Families were made to move in two hours. Abandoned everything, leaving pets and possessions at gun point.”

It was wrong then, and it would be doubly wrong now should members of Congress somehow fail to learn from past mistakes.

I just came across an Alex Jones’ Infowars.com CD being distributed around San Francisco, of all places. I happened to get my copy of the Obama Deception. As you all know, the Marc Chamot Report is very political and I was curious to see what it was all about.

Being in San Francisco, I assumed that it would be open borders, pro-illegal immigration, and pro-gay disgruntled groups voicing their concerns about President Obama’s failing to meet some of his campaign promises.

Nope, not at all, it’s actually more about major bankers, who own and control most of the mainstream media, and who are pumping up President Barack Obama, to Americans and the world for the elites.

It’s about the Wall Street dream of world nomination and us, driving Wall Street OUT of our government’s grasps.

It’s about Al Gore’s Global Warming fraud, a prelude for a centralized offshore banking system to begin receiving tax revenues from American and other world citizens on carbons use. Do Obama’s renewable energy and Trade and Cap ring a bell?

If you thought that Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911 was really something, wait till you see this one?

It also talks about NAFTA and GATT, and as to why Obama did a 180 on it.

It also mentions about Hillary Clinton’s and Obama’s whereabouts when they mysteriously disappeared during their presidential campaigns from their perspective press corps, by locking them up in their campaign planes and moving the plane unto the tarmac. They were both seen at the Westville Marriott meeting with the global elites, the Bilderberg Group.

“The Bilderberg Group, Bilderberg conference, or Bilderberg Club is an unofficial, annual, invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are persons of influence in the fields of politics, business, and banking.

The group meets annually at luxury hotels or resorts throughout the world — normally in Europe, and once every four years in the United States or Canada. The 2009 Bilderberg meeting took place from 14-16 May in Athens, Greece.[1]”

There are good thought provocative questions being brought up here. Like, why did Obama and congress bail out the banks and insurance industries with multi-billion dollars bailouts and regular Americans were left out in the cold?

Do these world banking conglomerates owned by key families worldwide, mainly by Europeans, do they really want to seize control of the United States political structures?

There are some questions that are bringing serious concerns to most Americans; that keeps dropping Obama’s and congress’ approval ratings.

Some house members have publicly stated that the Obama administration had said that there would be martial law had that stimulus bill not passed.

Why did President Obama place most of former Wall Street think tanks into his administration?

Why do Wall Street and this president want more open borders and illegal immigration? Is it because to destroy the American middle class with slave labor for more profits?

Why aren’t Obama and congress seriously addressing the high numbers of unemployment?

Why was congress slow to react to the massive real estate collapse?

Obama pledged to get out of Iraq within six months being president, now, he’s waffled away from that. He even increased troops in Afghanistan.

Obama had sworn to keep lobbyists and special interests groups out of his administration, his picks and he have placed hundreds in office.

Obama swore to repeal the Patriot act, but voted for it.

Gun ownership will not be allowed to any Americans on the No Flight List. Many Americans are indiscriminately being placed on this list daily.

Why did Obama do a total 180% on NAFTA and GATT? He does seem to be pursuing globalization agendas at full steam ahead.

And then why are the mainstream media totally ignoring these issues, and practically censoring blog postings in regards to these issues? I should know, I am syndicated by two networks, you can see them both displayed on my blog.

My postings have access to major media websites, including mainstream mediums, and they have totally ignored all of my Tread on Me, negative Barack Obama postings, anti-open borders, and anti-illegal immigration stuff. And including this one, Polls Showing President Obama is Losing Ground With Independents on Domestic Policies & Now 39% Call Themselves Conservative: Why?

That is why the media in general are going down the dumps, and the Internet is becoming the new informative super highway. And that is why there’s a movement that want congress to regulate and restrict bloggers on the Internet.

Why did Obama place most members of these two organizations within his administration to mastermind economical recovery? And why is Hillary Rodham Clinton a member of the Bilderberg Club and the Council of Foreign Relations? And why did Obama have that secret meeting with former Bill Clinton right after he won the Democratic nomination, and a known member of the trilateral commission?

Why are all of these same people going from one administration to another, like the Larry Summers group, into both Democrat and Republican administrations since former President Richard Nixon?

Where are the 9.7 trillions of missing dollars from our U.S. TREASURY, under the control of the Federal Reserve a private bank?

Why is the Federal Reserve, a “private bank” still in charge of our monetary affairs?

Other New World Order groups; The Trilateral Commission website http://www.trilateral.org/ and the Council of Foreign Relations at http://www.cfr.org/
Get more information at Alex Jones’s Infowars.com; http://www.infowars.com/

Sphere: Related Content

Polls Showing President Obama is Losing Ground With Independents on Domestic Policies & Now 39% Call Themselves Conservative:

Polls Showing President Obama is Losing Ground With Independents on Domestic Policies & Now 39% Call Themselves Conservative:
By Marc Chamot & Source: Michael Barone/Examiner

New polls are showing how Independents felt about former President George Bush, when most sided with Democrats when criticizing former Bush policies. And now these same Independents are beginning to lose favor towards President Barack Obama’s own domestic policies and job performances.

With a financial system gone awry, housing prices collapsing, auto industries on the ropes, and record high unemployment, it’s easy to see why President Obama is beginning to lose favor from Independents.

Rasmussen Reports, is showing Obama at an all time low of 52% approval ratings on his job performances as president. The state of the nation approval ratings according to recent Gallup polls has shrunk to 29% and with an all time high of 68% disapprovals in the way Washington politicians are managing this country's domestical affairs.

Americans aren’t happy, and mainly Independents, those who voted for Obama are beginning to have their doubts if Barack Obama and Washington can fix things.

President Barack Obama and this congress have not done a single thing to address the massive job losses and unemployment. Other than the usual political rhetoric, the problems that created this mess are still around, such as illegal immigration, tax free imports of Chinese products, which are currently flooding our markets by way of our American manufacturing jobs escaping abroad.

The problem with President Obama, he’s selling to the public policies that major Americans don’t support nor want. For example, the Washington Post/ABC polls last month, 54% to 41% favor smaller government with fewer services, rather than the opposite.

The percentage of Independents favoring small government increased to 61 percent from 52 percent last year. The June NBC/Wall Street Journal poll showed that amid a recession, 58 percent are worrying about the escalating budget and deficit vs. 35 percent who are worried about boosting the economy. A similar question in the June CBS/New York Times poll showed a 52 percent to 41 percent split.

58 percent of voters agree in reforming healthcare, BUT, should be done without raising taxes or increasing the deficit. Pollster Scott Rasmussen says that 56 percent of Americans don’t want to pay more in taxes or utility rates to generate cleaner energy and to fight global warming.

Independents are now responding more like Republicans than Democrats, the total opposite when Independents were critical of Bush and Republican policies.

While media tried to downplay this latest Gallup poll, it was reported that a whopping 39 percent of Americans now say their views on political issues are more conservative, while only 18 percent have grown more liberal and Moderates by a 33% to 18% margin.

People are concerned that the Obama economical and healthcare doctrines, are going to drive this country into the bigger poorhouse, and it isn’t worth the risks. The risks far outweigh the benefits.

Sphere: Related Content

Unfit to Publish; San Francisco Bay Guardian’s Bruce B Brugmann’s Still Peddling Sex and More Leftwing Pro-Criminal Illegal Aliens Vitriol:

Unfit to Publish; San Francisco Bay Guardian’s Bruce B Brugmann’s Still Peddling Sex and More Leftwing Pro-Criminal Illegal Aliens Vitriol:
By Marc Chamot

Yeah, yeah, I know old Bruce B Brugmann, the publisher and owner of the San Francisco Bay Guardian, commonly known as the San Francisco “Gay” Guardian and he knows me well too.

Bruce B Brugmann is that zany, loony, and idiotic psychotic left-wing liberal that tries to make some sense about politics goings on, and when he comes out with his publication he makes as much sense as a drugged up poodle.

Bruce B Brugmann launched his Bay Guardian publication around 1966. It is known for reporting, celebrating, and promoting left-wing and progressive issues within San Francisco.

And on his wikipedia page it also mentions; “This usually includes muckraking, legislation to control and limit gentrification, and endorsement of political candidates and other laws and policies that fall within its political views. It also has comprehensive movie and music reviews, an annual nude beaches issue, and an annual sex issue.”

If people are wondering as to why San Francisco is the laughing stock of America? There is no doubt that Bruce Brugmann and his publication was a big part of it. He’s the one that had influenced the San Francisco elections, and helped place the majority of these left-wing loony-tunes as board members since 1999.

San Francisco politicos and his mostly San Francisco gay followers, all consider him a San Francisco publishing extraordinaire. Imagine that folk?
But the truth about Bruce B Brugmann is that he’s definitely not a publishing extraordinaire like what some people want to perceive him as. He’s not even a publisher of any publication, his publication is more like a left-wing agenda driven rag, and it is also being used as an activist organization (Community Organizers), made up of numerous left-wing organizations from bike nuts to lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, and Transgender (LGBT’s), promoting their ideals and for more rights. But there’s nothing really wrong with that, right? No I don’t think so.

But wait! It doesn’t stop there; this psychotic left-wing liberal is trashing mediums, those who bring up anti-immigration issues, and calls them as "nativists." He is now into promoting rights for San Francisco’s illegal aliens’ prostitutes, by criticizing city’s enforcements on their criminal massage parlors operations, and on criminal illegal aliens who are running amuck committing crimes in San Francisco. He says it's okay for them to do that, don't stop them, because it's pretty mean. No, I kid you not.

The massage parlor mistake
OPINION "Taking advantage of the recent turmoil over the huge city budget cuts, Mayor Gavin Newsom and Sup. Carmen Chu, have pushed though malicious legislation imposing criminal charges and restrictions on massage parlors. Many are outraged that this costly legislation was prioritized — we want to know why it was, and how much it will cost to implement. Lawyers are questioning its legality.

Under the guise of concern for women's safety, Chu and Newsom falsely claimed that the law would stop sex trafficking. We've heard these lies before. Politicians who want to increase the criminalization of sex workers confuse prostitution, which is consensual sex for money, with trafficking, which is forced and coerced labor, sexual or otherwise. The reality is that most parlor employees work consensually and often collectively, without force or coercion. In Rhode Island, where indoor prostitution is legal, similar legislative maneuvers are in the works, also using the pretext of trafficking to make criminals of women working indoors.
Chu and Newsom claim they are targeting parlor owners, but by pushing the industry further underground, their legislation makes workers, many of whom are immigrant women, more vulnerable to violence and exploitation.

Workers will suffer most from the increased raids, arrests, and criminalization. Fearing arrest and/or deportation will mean fewer women will report rape or other violence and exploitation when they occur.

What is the real political agenda here? Chu and Newsom have said that the proposals "could make it easier to close the 50 or so city-licensed parlors suspected of selling sex." If and where sex is being sold, parlor closures would force women onto the streets — where it is 10 times more dangerous to work. Those who are arrested are likely to end up in prison — to the devastation of their children — or deported. What good reason is there to endanger women's safety and break up families this way, especially during hard economic times?

San Franciscans question why, when most trafficking cases occur in the agricultural, construction, clothing, and domestic industries, anti-trafficking measures target immigrant sex workers working of their own free will. We suspect racist gentrification policies are behind this legislation. Developers will be allowed to seize land in the Tenderloin and downtown areas if massage parlors are forced to close. This deceitful, profiteering law imposes huge fines, criminal charges, and has a punitive clause making the parlors pay for unspecified enforcement charges against them.

Considering that not long ago, police were exposed for taking thousands of dollars from massage parlor workers, involving them in the licensing process creates fertile ground for increased corruption.

What is wrong with selling or buying sex if both parties consent? After all, 42 percent of San Franciscans voted last November for Proposition K, which would have decriminalized sex work, despite a campaign of fear mongering and misinformation by the mayor and district attorney. New Zealand successfully decriminalized prostitution six years ago to "promote occupational health and safety" and "protect from exploitation." There has been no increase in prostitution, pimps, or traffickers, and women are more able to report violence and insist on their rights. It's time for San Francisco to do the right thing and stop criminalizing sex workers."

Harris, Newsom duck on immigration
Harris and Newsom ought to be defending the Sanctuary Laws, not running away from them

GUARDIAN EDITORIAL“A handful of the people who went into the program were undocumented immigrants. Some completed the program successfully and were allowed to graduate.

This is a problem? Apparently so — because between them the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle and San Francisco Examiner have devoted at least five major stories, one horrible column and at least one editorial to exposing the fact that some people who otherwise would have been jailed and deported for minor nonviolent crimes have been allowed to stay in the country, with new skills that might help them find jobs that don't involve selling drugs on the street.

And Harris, who is running for state attorney general, is scrambling to cover herself, announcing that undocumented immigrants will no longer be allowed to go through the program. In other words, to get rehabilitation instead of jail time in San Francisco, you now have to submit proof of citizenship.

There's a whole lot wrong with this picture. The critics attacking Harris claim that undocumented immigrants don't deserve job training since they can't work in this country legally anyway. That's just silly — tens of thousands of immigrants who lack legal documentation are working in San Francisco right now, and tens of thousands will continue to work in San Francisco. And they're generally a productive part of the economy and community. These immigrants already face barriers to attending college. The only thing that denying first-offenders job training does is increase the chance they will return to crime.

Yes, the L.A. Times was able to find one person enrolled in the program who went out and committed robbery and assault. He was the only one of seven undocumented people in the program who had legal problems while attending. The others were allowed to graduate, had their criminal records erased, and, given the overall results of the program, were far less likely than people who had served jail time to re-offend.

Unfortunately, the daily newspaper stories are just the latest attack on San Francisco's Sanctuary City policy, which is supposed to bar local law enforcement from turning people over to federal immigration authorities. Mayor Gavin Newsom has backed away from the sanctuary policy — and now Harris is backing away, too.

The district attorney says that allowing undocumented immigrants into her program was a mistake, and that it's been "fixed." That's the wrong approach. Prisons and county jails in California are jammed beyond capacity. The cost of incarcerating all those people is staggering and helping to bankrupt the state. And the threat of deportation has created a climate of terror and desperation in immigrant communities, where families are being ripped apart and lives shattered by overzealous federal agents.

And the weak responses by San Francisco city officials are just empowering the radical nativists, who want to blame all of society's problems on immigrants.

Harris did nothing wrong and has no need to apologize or change her program. Job training as an alternative to jail is good public policy — for citizens and noncitizens. She and Mayor Newsom ought to be defending the Sanctuary City laws instead of running away from them. If this is what it takes to seek statewide office, the mayor and district attorney would better serve their constituents by staying at home.”

So what’s next in Bruce’s agenda? Giving more rights to rapists and child molesters? That is the path he’s heading to. Bruce Brugmann is the most definitive poster child as to why moderates and conservatives despise left-wingers, without a doubt.

Now through his thick liberal skull, this man couldn’t fathom as to why so many national and major advertisers have cut and run from his newspaper. The S.F. Weekly, his main competitor had told him through editorials that it was his politics, advertisers usually want to shy away from controversial agenda driven political rags like his.

But oh no! Bruce Brugmann wouldn’t have any of it! So he concocted a lawsuit against his competitor for predatory pricing. When I say concocted, I mean it was a la 1994 Fang vs. Hearst Examiner type of a lawsuit gem, which Bruce Brugmann was a part of, where lawyers immediately prejudices the judge and jury against the opposing party, simply by painting them as “the typical dreaded, wealthy, and a white owned corporation that want to put us out of business.” It’s those evil racists and their big money that want to hurt us little people, a newspaper like ours that helps gays and other minority groups.

And this type of lawsuit worked for Bruce.

From Wikipedia: “In March, 2008 the Guardian won a predatory pricing lawsuit against its local rival, the SF Weekly, based on allegations the Weekly undercut the Guardian by selling display advertisements below cost while supporting itself on cash infusions from its parent, Village Voice Media, in an effort to force the Guardian into bankruptcy. In May, 2008 the judge in the case awarded punitive damages, raising the jury's $6.3 million award to $15.9 million, and issuing an injunction prohibiting the Weekly from selling advertisements below cost.[2]”

As of late, the S.F. Weekly have appealed the lawsuit to have it dismissed on technicalities and on poor judiciating from the judge.

Sphere: Related Content

State Run Amuck; Democrats, State Employees With their Hefty Salaries/Benefits & their Unions are Bankrupting California:

State Run Amuck; Democrats, State Employees With their Hefty Salaries/Benefits & their Unions are Bankrupting California:
By Marc Chamot

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently went to Washington DC to meet with members of the Obama administration and other Washington politicos for help.

He needed some serious help with the current California budget fiasco, a crisis that his own legislature can’t seem to be able to fix or repair. He went on a mission for federal taxpayer bailouts for his state, unfortunately for him; he was turned away and came back empty handed.

I’ve got to hand it to President Obama; his administration felt that California did not need, or wasn’t deserving of a bailout. Obama felt that California can fix what’s ailing them at the moment. And he is absolutely right.

A bailout for California would open up a Pandora’s Box where all other states of this union, would come on knocking, when they have grossly mismanaged their state affairs, just like California has done.

California’s current financial and budget crisis weren’t created by an act of God, earthquakes, and or by any other natural means. It was created by human GREED and public corruption.

It was all created and generated by California politicians’ quest for votes, along with state employees’ greed, and by big California unions’ quest for power.

California, throughout these decades, Democrats have turned taxpayers’ state moneys into cash cows for their state unions and employees. It has become such an uncontrollable disease that no one, and not even this Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger can put a lid on it.

For example, some Californian unionized prison guards can sock away $300,000 a year with overtime pay. With almost 35,000 prison guards within the California prison systems, most are commanding average wages of $100,000 a year and overtime, and it is costing California taxpayers a whopping $3.5 billion a year to maintain these people.

3.5 billion dollars a year is going to California’s prison guards, just in their salaries alone, not mentioning health and retirement benefits, which costs a whole lot more, it is costing state taxpayers about a million dollars for every ten guards.

The most populous state in the union, has the most state employees, they are the most paid, and most expensive to maintain.

Here are some approximate numbers that may overwhelm you with awe and rage, as to the complexity of this financial disaster. A simple math 101 will suffice enough to get some answers.

There are about 105 California state employees for every 10,000 population. As of July 2008 the total California population was at 36,756,666. So in essence there are approximately 385,944.993 employed by the state.

Then the estimated total cost to taxpayers for all of these state employees, on the average of $70,627 per employee, it is an outstanding $27.25 billion dollars a year being spent on state employees!

With these economic hard times, the real players are starting to come out the woodwork, and are showing us that it's their state employees, and their unions who truly RULE California.

The facts are these, Democrat politicians in California cannot get far, or run for higher office, without any union endorsements and votes from its members. It’s the political norm in California for politicians, to payoff for a union’s endorsements, which usually means you grease the hands of the unions and of its members, and in return you get their VOTES.

Here is an example on how unions have become so powerful that it overshadows the real power and the votes of the people in general.

The California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) is the California prison guards' union. In recent years the CCPOA has become a major player in California politics. Its political influence has grown to the point that it is widely considered to be one of the most powerful political forces in Sacramento. Its lobbying efforts and campaign contributions have greatly facilitated the passage of legislation favorable to union members.

This is what the unions have done for prison guards, what used to be a salaried job at $14,400 a year around 1980. It has now escalated to what is currently. They have even turned less costly ways of handling prisoners, and turned them into taxpayer financed lucrative cash cows for themselves.

Correctional Police Officers Association (CCPOA) closed four nonunion prisons and then gave the state's 32,000 prison guards a 30 percent raise.

So what we have left today is that the average salary of a prison guard is $70,000, which on the average can easily climb to above $100,000 with overtimes.

The CCPOA may be the state's most powerful state employee union, but there are other state and cities’ unions who aren’t far behind. The SEIU union is the next most powerful Californian union, and their tentacles are deeply entrenched into state and local politics.

Per Sacramento Bee’s analysis and news report last month that did an expose on California state employees and their wages, here is what they came up with. Some figures.

State of California Employees Base Pay by positions, as of 2008
Typist, Custodian $34,678
Staff Services Analyst, Employment Program Representative...$50,143
Associate Governmental Program Analyst $66,006
Transportation Engineer, Correctional Officer $83,938Top 20% Highway Patrol Officer, Registered Nurses $110,858

While the average annual state worker base pay in 2008 was $63,815, include overtime and the number rises to $70,627.

And this is not counting the cost to other taxpayers within the state’s municipalities, for their city employees’ and their hefty salaries coming with their union buddies’ help.

Starting with San Francisco, police officers make approx $64,000 (close to $65K) plus overtime. The Oakland CA police officers make $65K, along with San Jose, Redwood City, and etc. their police officers also make $65K+.overtimes.

Firemen make around $68,000 to $70,000 base salaries plus hefty overtimes per year.

And San Francisco Bay Area Transit systems (BART), its employees earn an average of $125,000 a year including benefits, and there are even $70,000 a year bus drivers folks!

San Francisco’s MUNI, and their bus drivers make an average of $70,000 base salary, plus overtime per year, just for driving 'frikin' buses!

This is why California is in shambles, folks.

When everyone in California is losing their jobs, their homes, and people’s wages keep going down. These GREEDY bastards still want their money, actually our money, while everything is going down, like rents, home values, and so forth. But these people don't care, they still want their money, and a whole lot of it, with the help of politicians and their unions!

More on California financial crisis: Modoc County CA; Your Hypocrisy is Unbecoming of a True Conservative & the Truths about California’s Budget Woes Revealed:
“And then we’ve got Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who finally came out with the "truths" for once.And state workers don't like this one bit!The real reason that California cannot get their budget settled, and retire their $26.3 billion dollars deficits, it’s because of California Democrats, and their love affairs with their state employees and their unions.

It’s absolutely true folks! California employees and their unions are tied in so deep with their Democrat politicians; it would be suicide for any Democrat to go against their powerfully connected and well financed base.

Democrats have resisted every effort to cut and trim state employees’ hefty salaries, their costly medical costs and retirement benefits. But they are after everyone else's moneys, including raising taxes.

Schwarzenegger: “protecting the special interests who benefit from our dysfunctional system was more important to them than solving our deficit, it steps on the TURF of the people they want to protect.” i.e. money and votes?With the state being plagued by dwindling real estate values, large business closures, faced with 34% drop in personal tax revenues, and laced with higher unemployment, it’s just asinine to be keeping these high paid state employees, and with their beyond to affordable benefits for any much longer.”

Sources: Special Budget Crisis Edition of California Journal of Politics and Policy

The State Worker: California state employees have a pampered image
State workers,
• State workers make more than the "boss." California state employees' average base pay in 2008 was $63,815, according to a Bee analysis of state wage data that excluded the university systems. The median, the point at which half earn more and half earn less, was $66,006.

Meanwhile, federal statistics show that the average wage among all Californians last year was $48,090 and the median was $36,441.

• State workers are in an economic cocoon. Businesses are shedding workers, cutting pay and shutting down. California's unemployment rate from January through March of this year went from 10.1 percent to 11.2 percent.

State government grew by 1,362 full-time jobs during that same period, according to state payroll data. And this while Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger issued 20,000 layoff warnings and ordered a virtual hiring freeze. Another sign that...

• State workers are pampered. Example: For years, working holidays for the state earned what amounted to double time-and-a-half: Overtime pay for working the day, plus another day off with pay.

Schwarzenegger and the Legislature changed those workplace rules and others during the last budget crisis. Although the new policies are in line with federal standards, the unions are fighting to keep the old ones.

• Retiree benefits. State workers have $48 billion coming to them in the future, money that the state doesn't have. The government has been making minimum payments, when it should be setting aside extra.

And the state's retirement plan uses a formula based on pay and service time – not the value of, say, stock investments – to set payments. Some folks say that the deal is an example of how.

• State worker unions have too much power.
Another measure is money. The California Correctional Peace Officers Association, for example, spent about $4 million on state political campaigns last year, according to state records. Service Employees International Union Local 1000, representing about 95,000 state workers, paid out $3.4 million.

Sphere: Related Content

Keeping Obama in check; Democrats got their 60 in the Senate, but will Blue Dogs Keep Dogging Obama?

Keeping Obama in check; Democrats got their 60 in the Senate, but will Blue Dogs Keep Dogging Obama?
By Marc Chamot

Who’s really minding the store while Republicans are out of power?

Everybody’s talking about this former clown, loony and goofball, Al Franklin’s victory win for the U.S. senate. We’re hearing very loud cheers from liberals that they’ve got a filibuster-proof senate among Democrats, and that President Barack Obama’s agendas will be pushed ahead without any hindrances from Republicans.

But I really hate to burst their bubble of joy, first of all, there are two Democrats that are still missing, MIA from the U.S. senate, the ever old, one foot in the grave, geezer, and former KKK Robert Byrd, and the ailing Edward Kennedy, and these are two votes shy of the sixty that they really need.

And then there are these “Blue Dogs” Democrats that I keep writing about on my blogs.

I don’t think that the media has quite caught on to the Blue Dogs yet, they are being ignored by most, but some are mentioning them by name. Before, when the media used to mention conservatives, they would only use Republican, but now when they mention conservatives, they include these Blue Dogs Democrats without the Republican.

As the years go by, with President Obama and his policies, we’ll be hearing a whole lot more about these Blue Dog Democrats.

These are the guys that will make or break Obama’s policies until he leaves office and, or until the Republicans can get back on track in Washington.

Actually a better name for the ‘Blue Dog” Democrats would have been better named as “Red Dog” Democrats, this is because these Blue Dogs Democrats are more conservative of all Democrats, and they predominately come from traditional Republican red states. They are fiscally conservative, and most of them come from the Bible belt areas, and most have stringent Southern religious upbringings.

Blue Dogs were created by a splinter group of Democrats around 1995 who were fed up with the liberal left leanings of the Nancy Pelosi’s, but weren’t interested in the far right wing of the Republican Party.

From their website:
“The fiscally conservative Democratic Blue Dog Coalition was formed in 1995 with the goal of representing the center of the House of Representatives and appealing to the mainstream values of the American public. The Blue Dogs are dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics, including a deep commitment to the financial stability and national security of the United States. Currently there are 51 members of the Blue Dog Coalition.”

There are around 15 to 20 of them in the senate alone, and they do not tow leftwing liberal ideals or agendas. They are way more conservative than most Democrats, and some have to be, to keep their jobs in predominantly Republican conservative districts."

Democrats' Senate Supermajority Not as Strong as Advertised
“And then there are the moderate-to-conservative lawmakers who populate the Senate Democratic Caucus: Sens. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.; Mark Pryor, D-Ark.; Ben Nelson D-Neb.; Bill Nelson, D-Fla.; Jon Tester, D-Mont.; and Arlen Specter, D-Pa.

This crowd is known to oppose the Democratic leadership on critical issues and often requires special courting. With them, the big Democratic majority could work against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., since it gives these moderates the perceived opening to bolt the party on key votes and freelance -- or act as holdouts that Democratic leaders must woo.”

These Blue Dog Democrats made big inroads into politics during these past two election cycles of 2006 and 2008, where they grew in numbers as Republicans lost theirs.

They are caught between a rock and a hard place, not only that they owe allegiances for the Democratic Party, they also owe their allegiances’ to their conservative bases within their districts. And if they fail their constituents, their political lives will be short lived.

These are the guys who are keeping our gun rights around, they are also the guys that keep preventing President Obama’s amnesties for illegal aliens to run amuck and they also keep Obama from providing illegal alien’s with driver’s licenses as he promised during his campaign.

They are also putting roadblocks on Obama that is keeping him from changing or revising the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the homosexuals in the military policies, and repealing the federal statutes which does not recognize gay marriages.

And it now seems that these Blue Dog Democrats will not support Barack Obama on his cost prohibitive health plans either.

Blue Dogs are also impossible to replace with another more liberal leaning Democrat. If they anger their party hierarchy, the party can’t just come into their conservative district and say we will not support you, we will support this more liberal guy! Blue Dogs are also more independent than traditional Democrats.

But these Blue Dogs are also Democrats, and they will do what Democrats do, they will support Obama in other things, such as the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court Justice, and for less costly social issues that this country needs, which Republicans don’t normally support.

All the Republicans have to do is stand united against some of Obama’s zany policy proposals, and watch these Blue Dogs lock-in step with them.

Liberal Democrats can’t stand these Blue Dogs, but when it comes to a choice between Republicans and these Blue Dogs, it will be Blue Dogs all the way with these liberals, the lesser of two evils sort of way.

What President Obama needs to do, is to stop pandering to minority groups and their special interests, like same sex equality issues and amnesty for illegal aliens.

Instead he needs to figure out on how he’s going to get over 15 million unemployed Americans back to work. And bring back these lost industry jobs and reform NAFTA like he promised to do. And maybe both, the Blue Dogs and the Republicans will lock-in step with him on those issues. If not the Republicans, then the Blue Dogs certainly will.

Filibuster-proof? My foot! Maybe this country isn’t going to hell in a hand basket after all.

Blue Dog Leadership Team
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD), Blue Dog Co-Chair for AdministrationRep. Baron Hill (IN-09), Blue Dog Co-Chair for PolicyRep. Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Blue Dog Co-Chair for CommunicationsRep. Heath Shuler (NC-11), Blue Dog Whip
Blue Dog Members
Altmire, Jason (PA-04) Arcuri, Mike (NY-24)Baca, Joe (CA-43)Barrow, John (GA-12)Berry, Marion (AR-01)Bishop, Sanford (GA-02)Boren, Dan (OK-02)Boswell, Leonard (IA-03) Boyd, Allen (FL-02)Bright, Bobby (AL-02)Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18)Carney, Christopher (PA-10)Chandler, Ben (KY-06)Childers, Travis (MS-01)Cooper, Jim (TN-05)Costa, Jim (CA-20)Cuellar, Henry (TX-28)Dahlkemper, Kathy (PA-03)Davis, Lincoln (TN-04)Donnelly, Joe (IN-02)Ellsworth, Brad (IN-08)Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ-08)Gordon, Bart (TN-06)Griffith, Parker (AL-05) Harman, Jane (CA-36)Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (SD)Hill, Baron (IN-09)Holden, Tim (PA-17)Kratovil, Jr., Frank (MD-01)McIntyre, Mike (NC-07)Marshall, Jim (GA-03)Matheson, Jim (UT-02)Melancon, Charlie (LA-03)Michaud, Mike (ME-02)Minnick, Walt (ID-01)Mitchell, Harry (AZ-05)Moore, Dennis (KS-03)Murphy, Patrick (PA-08)Nye, Glenn (VA-02) Peterson, Collin (MN-07)Pomeroy, Earl (ND)Ross, Mike (AR-04)Salazar, John (CO-03)Sanchez, Loretta (CA-47)Schiff, Adam (CA-29)Scott, David (GA-13)Shuler, Heath (NC-11)Space, Zack (OH-18)Tanner, John (TN-08)Taylor, Gene (MS-04)Thompson, Mike (CA-01)Wilson, Charles (OH-06)

Sphere: Related Content

1997 Jordan Commission Report on Immigration Predicted Mass Importations of Low Waged & Low Skilled Foreign Workers Would Decimate Jobs & Wages:

Bipartisan 1997 Congressional Jordan Commission Report on Immigration Predicted Mass Importations of Low Waged & Low Skilled Foreign Workers Would Decimate Jobs & Wages:
By Marc Chamot

“Report specifically said that the United States doesn’t benefit from foreign low skilled workers and undocumented aliens, only they do.”

President Barack Obama recently tried to get his new comprehensive immigration reform policies back on track, like amnesty for illegal aliens. But unfortunately, he was met dead on by a roadblock, and he was stopped dead on his tracks. He just couldn’t muster the votes to accomplish his mission, the votes weren’t there, and not even Democrats like the “blue dogs Democrats” were there for him on this one.

A 1997 congressional bipartisan commission report on immigration had warned of dire and dangerous consequences in keeping uncontrolled flow of both, legal and illegal low skilled immigrants into the United States, and that it would slowly deteriorate, obliterate jobs and lower wages for regular Americans.

It specifically recommended blocking our borders, and reducing immigration and reforming our entry visas systems for jobs.

These are the sad realities that President Barack Obama and this congress have to face with.

“The chief beneficiaries of immigration, on the other hand, are the immigrants themselves whose wages are still higher in the United States than they are in their homelands and the U.S. employers who are able to hire them at depressed wage levels.

The greatest losers are the native-born workers who are low skilled and the American taxpayers since the study also found that the fiscal costs of immigration (i.e., the public costs of health care, welfare, incarceration, and education) far exceed the amount of taxes paid by the foreign-born population, leaving the native-born population to pick up the considerable deficit.”

This is where we are at today, with over 15 million Americans unemployed and wages have dropped across the board for most of the currently employed.

Back around 1997, this comprehensive bipartisan commission report by experts on immigration, which was initiated by the U.S. congress and former president Herbert Walker Bush in 1990, went totally ignored by the previous two administrations and congress.

It was then in 1995, when former President Bill Clinton and the Republicans in control of congress; they all agreed and signed on to NAFTA. NAFTA was the death knell for American middle class workers who primarily made their living off industrial jobs.

NAFTA was the legalizing of American industries to take their factories and industries abroad for cheaper labor, and at the same time they would get tax free tariffs, to help them bring back their products into the United Sates and to the consumers at no cost to their business.

But two years later, and after NAFTA, this new explosive government initiated commission report comes out. And they, the powers to be, didn’t like it one bit. It wasn’t talking their kind of language, like money for their corporate buddies.

So Americans got a double whammy! A two punch knockout from our elected politicians!

So now, it looks like that President Barack Obama and congress may be forced to take a harder look, and revisit this report, and even act on it, if they want to get Americans back to work.

Here are tidbits of the report which has been making news lately.

The Report of the Commission on
Immigration Reform (i.e. the Jordan
Commission): A Beacon for Real
Immigration Reform:

The immigration policy of the United States is steeped in legal complexities and is considered to be so politically combustible that most politicians are loathing addressing the issue unless circumstances absolutely require them to act.

In those instances when extant policies have become so incongruent with prevailing national interests that public pressure can no longer be ignored, the reform process has usually been preceded by the formation by Congress of a national commission or congressional panel to study the needs and to frame the appropriate policy responses before the professional politicians will touch the subject. Indeed, one would be hard-pressed to find another policy issue where the use of special commissions or committees has been so frequently used to identify policy shortcomings and to offer policy changes [Briggs, pp.81-2; 110-13; 178-9; and 253-7].

Social security and welfare policies have sometimes relied on commissions to serve the same buffer role because they are also complex and controversial for politicians to address directly. But commissions were used to review immigration policy long before these other two public policies ever existed.

Thus, when Congress and President George Herbert Walker Bush created the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform as a provision in the Immigration Act of 1990, the move was not seen as an extraordinary event. Rather, it was viewed as but a normal part of the evolutionary process by which immigration policy is periodically reviewed and developed.

But when the Commission issued its final report on September 30, 1997, its findings and recommendations were anything but routine [Commission (1997)]. Indeed, the work of this
Commission was exceptional with respect to the bipartisan nature of its efforts; the virtual unanimity of the panel over what reforms were needed; the factual support it garnered to justify its findings; and the cogency and relevancy of its recommendations for the accomplishment of real immigration reform. It is surprising, therefore, that with all of these positive characteristics when it came to the next step -- the implementation phase of the reform process -- that Congress and President Bill Clinton fumbled the ball.

They ignored the signals given by the Commission about the vital importance of the subject matter and purposely chose not to act on the Commission’s major recommendations. Maintenance of the status quo, which is what the special interests wanted, was allowed to prevail over serving the national interest as manifested by enacting the changes proffered by the Commission. Immigration reform has languished in the years since that time. All of the problems identified by the Commission were left unaddressed and have been allowed to fester. But the blueprint for real reform is all there − just waiting for true political leadership or a coalition of dedicated citizens to pick it up and follow the instructions.

The major findings of the NRC panel were that the educational attainment levels of post-1965 immigrants had steadily declined over the ensuing years. Consequently, foreign-born workers, on average, earn less than native-born workers and the gap between them was widening. The wages of immigrant workers from Latin America -- who account for over half of the entire foreign-born population of the United States -- were the lowest wages of all immigrant groups. The study, however, found no evidence discriminatory wages being paid to immigrants. Rather, immigrant workers were paid less because they were considerably less skilled than were native-born workers.

The decline in both the skills and wages of the foreign-born population were attributed to the fact that most immigrants are coming from the poorer nations of the world where on average educational attainment levels, wages, and skill levels are far below those of the United States. Hence, as a consequence, the post-1965 immigrants have caused the low skilled segment of the nation’s labor supply to swell. That is to say, immigrant workers on average are lowering the wages of all workers, with wages of low skilled workers -- citizen and non-citizen alike -- being lowered the most.

The chief beneficiaries of immigration, on the other hand, are the immigrants themselves whose wages are still higher in the United States than they are in their homelands and the U.S. employers who are able to hire them at depressed wage levels. The greatest losers are the native-born workers who are low skilled and the American taxpayers since the study also found that the fiscal costs of immigration (i.e., the public costs of health care, welfare, incarceration, and education) far exceed the amount of taxes paid by the foreign-born population, leaving the native-born population to pick up the considerable deficit.

The NRC study is without question the most comprehensive and the best documented study ever conducted of the impact of immigration on the U.S. economy and labor force. Although the Jordan Commission relied on the use of multiple sources of information, the detailed findings of the NRC study heavily influenced its conclusions and recommendations.

The Commission concluded that the present legal admission system be “shifted away from the extended family and toward the nuclear family and away from the unskilled and toward the higher-skilled immigrant” [Commission (1997), p. XVII]. To accomplish these changes, the Commission recommended the elimination of the existing family based admission categories for adult unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens; for adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens; for adult, unmarried sons and daughters of legal permanent aliens; and for adult brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens.

As for the employment-based admissions, the Commission recommended “the elimination of the admission category of unskilled workers” because the country already has a vast surplus of unskilled workers. In the same vein, the Commission also recommended the elimination of the diversity admission category (which only requires that the 50,000 persons who are selected each year by a lottery application process be chosen from a list of foreign countries with a low level of immigration to the United States in the preceding 5 years and that the applicant have at least a high school diploma).

As a consequence of all of these proposed changes, the Commission recommended that a “modest reduction in the level of immigration” be made to “about 550,000 per year” (or by about 30 percent below the then-existing ceiling in 1997 which remains the current ceiling in 2009) [Commission (1997, p. XIX].

With respect to illegal immigration, the Commission acknowledged that “illegal immigration continues to be a problem.” It recommended the enactment of a “comprehensive strategy” based on enhanced border management to prevent illegal entries; improved worksite enforcement of the ban on employment of illegal immigrants; and speedy removal of those illegal immigrants apprehended within the country [Commission (1997), p.103].

Sphere: Related Content

Is L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in Big Trouble? An Illustrious Political Career Maybe Gone Due to the Alex Sanchez Fallout:

Is L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in Big Trouble? An Illustrious Political Career Maybe Gone Due to the Alex Sanchez Fallout:
By Marc Chamot

"Another Californian sanctuary city goes down in flames."

In June 25th the FBI arrested Alex Sanchez the executive director of Homies Unidos, a gang-intervention nonprofit.

Alex Sanchez, who was known nationally for his anti-gang work with Homies Unidos, is held on conspiracy and racketeering charges. He allegedly was involved with the Mara Salvatrucha gang and seven homicides. See, Broken Borders & Immigration; A Once Deported Criminal Illegal Alien, Uses Public Moneys to Finance L.A.’s MS-13/Mara Salvatrucha Gang Activities:

But, something more sinister is going on in Los Angeles California these past few days, between its current mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s decision to abandon his bid for the California governor’s race, and with the most recent arrest of a criminal non-profit benefactor, Alex Sanchez by the FBI. Who’s being accused of running an LA youth group and at the same time running a reviled and violent criminal organization like the Mara Salvatrucha on the side.

Did Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa know of the impending FBI arrest of Alex Sanchez four days earlier, which could probably end his illustrious political career, and it could put him in jail for a very long time?

According to June 22nd of the LA Times, Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles, mayor of the United States' second-most-populous city, has decided not to seek the Democratic Party nomination for governor of California in next year's election.

They say that Villaraigosa's local popularity has slipped to 55% in recent months, following his divorce and revelations of his romantic affair with a second female television reporter. That's about the same tepid percentage as he got in the mayoral election against political nobodies. A recent Times poll indicated 47% did not want the mayor to run for governor.

But in earlier field polls it showed that Antonio Villaraigosa, the newly re-elected mayor of Los Angeles, is a surprisingly strong contender if the senator stays in Washington.
March field polls on California’s gubernatorial candidates, "Villaraigosa is in a fairly strong second place, next to Jerry Brown and well positioned if he decides to run for governor."

Villaraigosa, a former Assembly speaker, probably got a boost from his re-election campaign, which put him, center stage in Los Angeles during the days the poll was conducted.

He has not said whether he will run for governor, but he hasn't denied it - and his likely position as the only Democratic candidate from Southern California would help him.
But Villaraigosa, like Newsom, is relatively unknown outside his home territory, the poll shows. He has 29 percent backing in Southern California and 12 percent in the northern portion of the state, while Newsom has 25 percent support in Northern California compared with 9 percent in Southern California.

"Newsom has a very regional constituency," DiCamillo said. "He's got a base to work from, but it's a narrow base."

Even though, everything is showing that Antonio Villaraigosa had incredible opportunities, and a far better advantage over San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, to get the Democratic nomination for governor, he abruptly pulled out the race.

The big problem is this, why didn’t the LAPD, who are considered to be one of the most advanced law enforcement agencies in the land, and who have the most advanced intelligence gathering apparatus’ on gang activities in the nation, but why weren’t they able to detect Alex Sanchez as gang member?

As an experienced and knowledgeable player in California non-profits, on their rules and regulations, most non-profit moneys are awarded to groups by both, the local city mayors and the local city councils. Knowingly that Alex Sanchez had criminal records, but why was he given taxpayer funds in the first place?

And why did it take the FBI, not the LAPD to bring down this politically connected taxpayer and free loader individual? How did Alex Sanchez get away with it in Los Angeles with his criminal activities all this time?

It’s beginning to look like that the recent arrest of criminal gangster Alex Sanchez, has ties to powerful, local politicians who range from L.A. City Council President Eric Garcetti to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Villaraigosa & Garcetti Backed the Arrested Anti-Gang Expert Alex Sanchez. And it sure looks like that Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s sudden departure from the governor’s race, might be bracing for this huge scandal that may rock his administration soon.

Sphere: Related Content