Shocking Forbes Report: Bluest/Democrat States are Most Broke & Going Bankrupt; Because of Unions, Pensions, Costly State Programs & Social Services:

Shocking Forbes Report: Bluest/Democrat States are Most Broke & Going Bankrupt; Because of Unions, Pensions, Costly State Programs & Social Services:
By Marc Chamot

If anybody really wants to know as to why Republicans are making a BIG comeback, it doesn’t take too far to look for the answers. There is a track record that proves, Democrats are total FAILURES, when it comes to sound fiscal policies.

What’s truly amazing folks, most of the Democrat Leaderships in the U.S. congress, including this American president, they all come from these failing blue states. And they want to enact fiscally dangerous policies, like healthcare, Cap and Trade and more?

In a stunner of an article, written by Forbes Magazine, tells it all that we need to know about Democrats, for those, who are extremely concerned about our nations financial and economic situations, need to be aware of.

It’s not surprising at all. I live in Sad Sack City of San Francisco progressives, and in the sorriest state of Pelosi’s California. I just live to write about it. It’s something I’ve been saying all along in my blogs, here and there, but there’s concrete proof now.

Democrats and their party ideals are truly bankrupting this nation and our states. This explains as to why progressive liberal Democrats like to expand government, and tax folks into oblivion.

"Why do Democratic states appear to be struggling more than Republican ones? It comes down to stronger unions and a larger appetite for public programs, according to Kent Redfield, professor emeritus of political studies and public affairs at the University of Illinois' Center for State Policy and Leadership.

"'Unions in general have more influence in Democratic-controlled states,' he says.’This isn't to say that unions are bad, but where they're strong you have bigger demands for social services and coalitions with construction companies, road builders and others that push up debt.'"

Political Litmus Test: Bluest States Spilling the Most Red Ink
Neil Weinberg,
Powerful unions, big spending put Democratic states in deepest fiscal holes.
Want to know which states are in the worst financial condition? One telling indicator that might not immediately come to mind is whether most of its citizens identify themselves as Democrats.

The five states in the worst financial condition--Illinois, New York, Connecticut, California and New Jersey--are all among the bluest of blue states. The five most fiscally fit states are more of a mix. Three--Utah, Nebraska and Texas--boast Republican majorities and two--New Hampshire and Virginia--skew Democratic.

The financial ranking of the states is part of a recent Forbes report on the Global Debt Bomb. The political affiliation data was compiled in a 2009 poll of 350,000 adults by Gallup Daily.

Forbes' metrics for each state included unfunded pension liabilities, changes in tax revenue, credit ratings, debt as a percentage of Gross State Product, debt per capita, growth expectations for employment and the state economy, net migrations and a "moocher ratio" that compares government employees, pension burdens and Medicaid enrollees to private-sector employment.

In Pictures: Bluest States Spilling The Most Red Ink
Why do Democratic states appear to be struggling more than Republican ones? It comes down to stronger unions and a larger appetite for public programs, according to Kent Redfield, professor emeritus of political studies and public affairs at the University of Illinois' Center for State Policy and Leadership.

Do you think state finances are better in Democratic or Republican hands? Share your thoughts in the Reader Comments section.

"Unions in general have more influence in Democratic-controlled states," he says. "This isn't to say that unions are bad, but where they're strong you have bigger demands for social services and coalitions with construction companies, road builders and others that push up debt."

Of the 10 states in the worst financial condition, eight are among a total of 23 defined by Gallup as "solidly Democratic," meaning the Democrats enjoy an advantage of 10 percentage points or greater in party affiliation. These states include the ones listed above as making up the bottom five, plus Massachusetts, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Of the three other basement-dwellers, Kentucky is defined as "leaning Democratic" (a five- to 10-percentage-point Democratic advantage) and the remaining two--Louisiana and Mississippi--are termed politically "Competitive" (less than a five-percentage-point advantage for either party). Louisiana tilts slightly Democratic and Mississippi slightly Republican.

The majority Republican states ranked among the financially healthiest are Utah, Nebraska, Texas, North Dakota and Montana. All told, seven of the 10 most Republican states rank in the top half in terms of fiscal fitness.

The exceptions are Kansas at No. 28, Alaska (31) and Mississippi (44). It should be noted that four of these red-leaning states are categorized as "competitive" by Gallup. In total only three of the 50 states (Idaho, Utah and Wyoming) are rated "solidly Republican"; only Alabama ranks as "Republican leaning."

Utah, the fiscally fittest state, has debt of just $442 and unfunded pension obligations of $7,272 per resident. It is also America's second reddest state with a 21-percentage-point Republican advantage in party affiliation. The Beehive state boasts a triple-A credit rating from Moody's.

Illinois is in the worst financial condition, with per-capita debt of $1,877 and unfunded pensions of $17,230. Moody's rates Illinois' general obligation debt A1, ahead of only California's.

Trillion-Dollar Pension Gap Just Beginning of States' Fiscal Woes
Asher Hawkins, 02.18.10, 12:36 PM EST

Figure doesn't account for market drop, $500 billion in unfunded health care promises.
U.S. states face a 13-figure shortfall in meeting their pension obligations to public employees, a new report by the Pew Center on the States has concluded. Just when you thought things couldn't get worse, keep in mind that the recently released data don't cover the latter half of 2008, when crashing markets cut many large public pension funds' assets by upward of 30%.

That $1 trillion-plus is but one piece of the growing debt bomb facing governments across the globe. For a look at which U.S. states are in danger of fiscal meltdown, visit our interactive Debt Atlas of America.

A glance at the figures underlying states' pension gaps might indicate that some states are in better shape than others. While Illinois and most of New England (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island) all face pension under-funding approaching 50%, America's largest states, California, Florida, New York and Texas, went into the recession better prepared, with funding levels of roughly 85% or more.

The stock market rollercoaster that's played out since mid-2008 didn't help matters, but the fact that fewer states had only enough funds to cover half their promises is somewhat good news.

Interactive: Is Your State A Debt Disaster
However, funding for retiree health care and other benefits is even scarcer than it is for pensions. California, for example, had $59.5 billion in unfunded pension liabilities in mid-2008, according to the Pew study. Meanwhile, the state faced a $62.5 billion gap for health care and other non-pension liabilities. New York's public pension liabilities were fully funded in mid-2008.

But the Empire State didn't have the same foresight regarding its $56.3 billion public-employee healthcare liability, with none of it funded at the time.

One ray of hope for states seeking to bridge their health care funding gaps: Unlike pension benefits, which are often constitutionally guaranteed, states have considerable leeway in adjusting medical benefits and thus the ability to reduce the liability side of the equation.

The Red Menace; U.S. Jobs & World Influences in Decline, While China keeps rising Polls Say:

The Red Menace; U.S. Jobs & World Influences in Decline, While China keeps rising Polls Say:
By Marc Chamot

Americans are finally waking up and smelling the coffee on the Red Menace, and that is China. Most Americans NOW think China is a big problem for the United States and for its future.

As U.S. jobless benefits claims spike, layoffs are no longer dropping as they were in the final months of last year, reinforcing fears that the jobs crisis will weigh down consumer spending and the economic rebound. But thanks for years of inept and very corrupt Washington politicians, and now, the majority of Americans believe that the United States has fallen second best to China, over jobs and world influence.

“Facing high unemployment and a difficult economy, most Americans think the United States will have a smaller role in the world economy in the coming years, and many believe that while the 20th century may have been the "American Century," the 21st century will belong to China.

These results come from a new Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted during a time of significant tension between Washington and Beijing.”

It’s been slow in coming, but we all saw it, we knew that it would happen sooner or later, and it has. At the accelerated pace in which it occurred, over the past two decades, it’s just too mind boggling to even think about it.

Presidents in both parties, and congress, one after the next, just pandering away to China’s every whims.

American industries after industries, at the expense of massive American jobs losses, which were all given away to China, in return for their massive loans that are sustaining our growing massive debts and deficits, it’s just incredulous.

And here are these Obamacrats, who want to add billions of dollars more onto our debts and deficits, and more loans from China, to help finance their asinine and costly liberal public programs, and there is no end in sight from all these stupidities.

But, “Analysts say the bubbling anti-China sentiment in the United States could constitute a problem for U.S. policy toward that country if the polls also coincide, as they seem to, with growing support for trade protectionism.”

I say heck yes, Americans are finally waking up, we’re communicating with each other, and we don’t trust the corruptive presses either, and we’re fighting back, this should constitute a big problem for these inept Washington politicians, who keep up with these anti-American destructive charades.

Mark my words, as China unpopularity polls keep raising, this issue among Americans will become a Death Rails in American politics, with no job securities and futures of these useless and stubborn Washington politicians.

Poll shows concern about American influence waning as China's grows
"China's on the rise," said Wayne Nunnery, 56, a retired U.S. Air Force employee from Bexar, Tex., who was one of 1,004 randomly selected adults polled. "I don't worry about a Chinese century, but I do wonder how it's going to be for my three sons."

Asked whether this century would be more of an "American Century" or more of a "Chinese Century," Americans divide evenly in terms of the economy (41 percent say Chinese, 40 percent American) and tilt toward the Chinese in terms of world affairs (43 percent say Chinese, 38 percent American). A slim majority say the United States will play a diminished role in the world's economy this century, and nearly half see the country's position shrinking in world affairs more generally.

The results are consistent with recent polls by Gallup, the Pew Research Center and others that have tracked a significant public concern about China's growing prominence on the world stage, as its economy has expanded into what is arguably the second-biggest in the world.

In 2000, for example, when the U.S. economy was booming, 65 percent of Americans polled by Gallup said the United States had the world's strongest economy. By last year, the United States and China ran neck-and-neck on the question.

Annetta Jordan, another poll participant, said in a follow-up interview that she has witnessed the shifting economic strength firsthand. Jordan, a mother of two from Sandoval, N.M., was working at a cellular telephone plant in the early 1990s as production and hiring were ramped up. By 1992, the plant had 3,200 workers. "Then this whole China thing started and we were very quickly training Chinese to take our jobs," she said. Now the plant has 100 people left.

"We're transferring our wealth to China," she said. "I see that as a very negative thing. When I was younger, a lot of corporations had a lot of pride and patriotism toward America. But corporations have changed. If we in the U.S. go down, that's okay; they'll just move their offices to Beijing."

Carla Hills, the former U.S. trade representative who negotiated China's entry into the World Trade Organization in the late 1990s, said any shift in American public opinion away from China is a concern.

"I really worry about public opinion in both countries getting ahead of where we want to be," she said. "I worry about the public discourse here that 'it's all China's fault,' and the reverse in China that says we're trying to push China around."

In a poll last year in urban areas of China done by the Lowy Institute, Australia's premier think tank, Chinese respondents picked the United States as the No. 1 threat to China's rise by a factor of two over Japan and India, which were tied for second place.

Charlotte Woolard: “Cities aren’t Liable for Criminal Illegal Aliens Who Commit Mass Murders; Even When Sanctuary Policies are Breaking Federal Laws:”

A Raving Lunatic! Judge Charlotte Woolard's Rulings, “Cities aren’t Liable for Criminal Illegal Aliens Who Commit Mass Murders; Even When Sanctuary Policies are Breaking Federal Laws:”

By Marc Chamot

An insane federal judge, Superior Court Judge, Charlotte Woolard made a recent disastrous ruling. She said “the city of San Francisco isn’t legally to blame, or are not liable for crimes that illegal aliens perpetrate against its citizenry, including mass murders, and even though some city sanctuary policies are breaking Federal Laws.”

What’s that??? This is the kind of thing that is tearing this nation apart. We’ve got federal activists judges, those who are way out of line regarding laws and liabilities when citizens get killed, by criminal murderous illegal aliens. And even though San Francisco’s sanctuary policies are in direct violation of federal laws, the city is being shielded from its responsibilities, when one of these dangerous ingrates commits mass murders upon our citizens.

There is no background or bio on this judge, and we don’t know the imbecile of an American president that nominated her to this post, and not only that, besides this federal judge being a raving lunatic; she’s also a yellow bellied coward.

There aren’t any Google or Bing photos of her, and she doesn’t have a webpage set up anywhere on the Net. She seems to be locked up somewhere around the San Francisco Federal Court house, like a third world Banana Republics, where judges done masks to protect their identities.

This is the shame of today’s America folks; it’s a San Francisco shame, it’s so disgraceful that Judge Charlotte Woolard took it upon herself to protect the rights of criminals’ illegal aliens, and the cities that protect them like San Francisco, rather than caring for the security and safety of their own citizens.

This is a real travesty folks, this is an absolute OUTRAGE! We as Americans shouldn’t be putting up with these kinds of judges anymore and we shouldn’t be taking this lying down, either.

What’s going to happen when terrorists do decide to attack us? With these kinds of federal judges on the bench, “we’re pretty much up “crap” creek without a paddle.”

Judge tosses sanctuary suit in S.F. killings
The family of a father and two sons who were shot dead on a San Francisco street in 2008 can't hold the city responsible for failing to turn their alleged killer over to immigration authorities after earlier arrests, a judge has ruled.

The city isn't legally to blame for any crimes Edwin Ramos, a suspected illegal immigrant from El Salvador, committed after his release for the offenses he committed as a juvenile, Judge Charlotte Woolard of San Francisco Superior Court said Monday.

Cities "generally are not liable for failing to protect individuals against crime," Woolard said.
She dismissed a damage suit by the widow and daughter of Tony Bologna, 48, who was shot to death in his car near the family's home in the Excelsior district in June 2008. His sons Michael Bologna, 20, and Matthew Bologna, 16, were also killed.

Their brother, who survived the attack, identified Ramos, then 21, as the man who fired the fatal shots from a passing car. Police said the gunman may have mistaken the younger Bolognas for gang members.

Ramos told police that he had been driving the car but that another man had fired the shots. He has pleaded not guilty to three counts of murder and faces life in prison without parole if convicted.

The Bologna family's lawyer, Matthew Davis, said they would appeal Woolard's ruling. Davis said he agrees that a city usually can't be held responsible for failing to prevent a crime, but he contended that the shield of immunity shouldn't protect San Francisco because by failing to turn over Ramos to immigration authorities, it was "flat-out violating the law."

Matt Dorsey, spokesman for City Attorney Dennis Herrera, said Woolard had relied on well-established law in deciding that San Francisco was not liable for Ramos' actions.

Ramos, whom prosecutors describe as a member of the MS-13 gang, was arrested as a juvenile for an assault in October 2003 and an attempted purse-snatching in 2004. Juvenile courts sent him to a shelter after the first incident and to the city-run Log Cabin Ranch in the Peninsula hills after the second.

Case records don't show whether police or juvenile courts suspected that Ramos had entered the United States illegally. But under the city's sanctuary policy, as juvenile authorities then interpreted it, they would not have passed along that information to federal immigration officials.
Mayor Gavin Newsom reversed that practice in 2008 and ordered city employees to report suspected illegal immigrant youths to federal authorities after felony arrests.

City supervisors passed an ordinance over Newsom's veto that delayed reporting until a youth is found to have committed a felony, but the mayor is refusing to enforce it, saying it violates federal law.

After Ramos' release, federal authorities learned of his immigration status but did not take him into custody. The family's lawsuit contended, however, that the city was responsible for the shootings because its policy had allowed Ramos to go free.

In her ruling, Woolard said San Francisco had no duty to protect the Bolognas or anyone else from Ramos unless city officials had information that he posed a specific danger to them. There was no such evidence in this case, she said.

Davis also argued that San Francisco had violated a federal law prohibiting local authorities from interfering in immigration enforcement and should be held responsible for any resulting harm. The judge, however, questioned whether the law applied to the city's actions.

She said the law couldn't be a basis for finding the city liable because it was intended to improve immigration controls, not to prevent crime.

United States of Chicago: Progressive Thug Politics Still Thriving in Washington D.C.; Ignoring Majority Opinions & Don’t Know the True Meaning of No:

United States of Chicago: Progressive Thug Politics Still Thriving in Washington D.C.; Ignoring Majority Opinions & Don’t Know the True Meaning of No:
By Marc Chamot

The Obama administration is still not getting it. President Obama is still pushing for those healthcare reforms that people don’t want, regardless of the consequences.

With attitudes like, “ignoring the wishes of the American people, we know more about this than you do. And we’re going to jam it down your throats no matter what” being said by U.S. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

To progressive politicians, no means yes, and Chicago style thug politics is still thriving in Washington D.C.

While the nation is screaming for more jobs, and while we’re heading into apocalyptic deficits, small businesses are looking for financial help, and states like California are going bankrupt; we’ve still got this anemic moron in the White House pushing for healthcare reforms and for other cost prohibitive agendas to no end.

Author Bill Thomas, had an awesome piece in the San Francisco Chronicle today that will resonate with most of you.

One of President Obama’s biggest backers, Bill Maher, called opponents of Obama and his Democratic cohorts, “Americans are not bright enough to really understand issues.” And the jackass at the Washington Post, Chairman and Editor in Chief at the Washington Post also says “the childishness, ignorance, and growing incoherence of the public at large.”

And per Author Bill Thomas’ article, who said “the same voting public mainly (Independents) that fell for Obama’s hope and change charades are suddenly too stupid to notice the Great Genius at work in the White House.” Awesome!

While these rat packs of idiots are going along with the Great Messiah, the rest of us who want to keep this country solvent and secure, are seen as being very stupid and uninformed. All while ignoring the facts that most of us are most concerned about keeping our jobs and keeping this nation from being so debt ridden, and securing the futures for our children.

Americans are becoming more concerned about their collapsing states, skyrocketing taxes and fees, and so what’s wrong about ventilating our concerns about that? But oh no, according to these Obama lefties, those people who think this way and lash back, folks like us, are considered the dumbest of the dumbest.

These progressives thought they had a revolution going their way, like they did in Chicago and San Francisco, all going in their favor, but to their big surprise and shock, all they’ve done, they left legions of angry voters behind their wakes.

We all know about Chicago politics, it’s as corrupt as they come. San Francisco has emulated Chicago politics with their Democratic former mayor, Willie L. Brown and their progressives, where all COMPLAINERS are totally ignored; no matter if they are in the majority, and where they have passed series of disastrous economic policies, illegal immigrations and business tax killing resolutions, no matter what people thought.

That’s the very same attitude President Obama took to the White House, and some of his chronic, and drug laced supporters want to insult our intelligence, especially when we fight back against their stupidity.

I must admit that Author Bill Thomas’ open forum article in the Chronicle, just about hit it way out the ballpark, and made it a home run to what most of us are feeling about what’s going on in Washington these days.

The United States of Chicago
By Bill Thomas
Some on the extremes, as Obama himself noted, believe his health care reform program is part of a "Bolshevik plot" to wreck the nation's economy. Others, not smart enough to think in those terms, are just afraid of losing their jobs, homes and life savings.

Obama learned his politics in Chicago, where complainers are ignored. But in Washington, Democratic Party officials are concerned his "transformative" presidency may be transforming millions of former supporters into an angry mob.

The latest polls show the party has something to worry about. Obama's job approval numbers are in free-fall, from over 62 percent early last year to 47 percent last week. On top of that, surveys of voter sentiment suggest the 2010 congressional elections will see GOP gains.

Scott Brown's win last month in Massachusetts took away the Democrats' 60-vote majority in the Senate, forcing the administration to work with Republicans, something it was planning to avoid.
Obama ran for the presidency promising to be the exact opposite of what he's turned out to be: a Chicago political operator too slick for his own good.

This isn’t that surprising, because the Chicago way of doing things is what he’s brought to the White House.

Chicago, it's important to know, has been run by the Democratic Party since 1931. That's one-party rule for 79 years. Currently under the control of Mayor Richard M. Daley, son of a former Chicago mayor, the city's political machine, in exchange for unquestioning loyalty, dispenses everything from jobs to Thanksgiving turkeys.

That these goodies should flow through the Democratic Party makes perfect sense. Chicago's politburo-style city council has 50 members. Forty-seven seats are held by Democrats, two seats are vacant, and one seat is Republican. Do the math.

In most American governing bodies, business is done by compromise. In Chicago, there's no need for compromise because there's practically no opposition party. This is how Obama and Co. thought it would be running Washington.

The problem is things don't work that way anymore - not after Democrats lost their supermajority in the Senate, where the administration's agenda can now be stopped by a single vote.

In Chicago, a situation like that could be easily corrected by the application of muscle. In Washington, that may help, or it could make more Americans realize how wrong they were to believe this bunch in the first place.

Open Borders & Pro-Amnesty Groups Convinces Medias & D.C. Politicians; Latino Voters a Force to reckon with, Election Results show it was a Big Lie:

Open Borders & Pro-Amnesty Groups Convinces Medias & D.C. Politicians; Latino Voters a Force to reckon with, but Election Results show it was a Big Lie:
By Marc Chamot

After Scott Brown’s U.S. senate victory, our American congress, and mainly Democrats are in total shock. They are still in shock today, because they were all lied to.

They were all lied to by the press, mainstreams Medias and they were lied to by a certain minority group. Washington politicians believed it, they fell for it, and it could cost them dearly in future elections.

For the past few elections, Latino groups and their hardcore mainstreams media supporters had practically convinced our Washington politicians that Latino voting power was becoming so powerful in the United States, and that they were the biggest minority swing voters on Election Day, and they better push for comprehensive immigration and amnesty reforms fast.

Then around 2006, after the Democrat’s take over of U.S. congress from Republicans, Pro-Hispanics amnesty and Latino groups came out with their own figures and propagandas. They allied themselves with the lying press’ and medias, who took their lies and convinced Washington politicians, mainly Democrats that Latino voter Power was here to stay and that they better act on “amnesty” soon, if they want to stay in office.

Around 2007, less than a year away from the U.S. presidential campaigns, some Republicans believing in all this nonsense, just as the Democrats have been suckered all along, John McCain and Ted Kennedy co-wrote the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, to grant the nations’ undocumented’s legal paths towards citizenships.

During the presidential campaigns Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain were pandering away to Latino groups and with their mediums for the Hispanic votes. They were all pandering away for Latino and Hispanic votes, while ignoring the Independents, America's largest voting bloc.

Then soon after President Barack Obama won the U.S. presidency with 66% of the Latino votes, I as well as many others, truly believed that Latino voters were the swing voters in national elections. Medias like the New York Times, and numerous others, with their pro-open borders and amnesty cohorts, all told us about it, and led us to believe that this was really so.

Then recently, I read this article on HispanicLink.org, a web organization for Hispanic/Latino media writers, who support open borders and the legalizing undocumented aliens in the United States. These people think that they have an inside track into the Obama’s White House on immigration reforms, as this article suggests.

Frank Sharry the executive director of America’s Voice, the nation’s most prominent immigration reform advocacy group, and Angela Kelley, vice president for immigration policy and advocacy at the Center for American Progress, briefed Hispanic Link News Service and a select group of other journalists Jan. 29 about their ongoing sessions with White House and congressional leaders in the seemingly never-ending reform negotiations.

“The White House is operating full steam ahead,” Sharry insisted. “The activity on the inside, which they are deliberately not making public, is with an intensity that shows they are getting ready for a legislative battle.”

Capitol Hill veteran Kelley contributed, “This remains a priority for the President. It is an issue where I have never seen so much being done by Cabinet secretaries, high-level White House people, senators and staff that nobody knows about.

Sharry and Kelley asserted that immigration reform is no longer a divisive issue that congressional moderates need to shy away from. Referring to the 2006 and 2008 elections, Sharry said, “Illegal immigration didn’t work as a wedge issue. In fact, the demonization of Latino immigrants served to mobilize Latino voters who turned out in record numbers in the last two elections.”

It is really why immigration reform has a chance in this Congress, he said. But here is the contradiction. In essence the Latino groups are saying, Latinos rose up and voted for Democrats over the undocumented’s issue in America, but there’s a big contradiction with their claims. Here they claim that Scott Brown’s victory was theirs too, but unfortunately, Scott Brown was the anti-amnesty candidate.

Sharry said Republican Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts to fill the U.S. Senate seat of the late Edward Kennedy would not stall immigration reform as it has health care. He mentioned a poll (Politico/Insider Advantage, http://www.southernpoliticalreport showing Brown won more than three-fourths of the Hispanic vote as evidence that GOP candidates can and must appeal to this swing group. “The politicians have finally figured out that the Latino immigrant vote is where the action is,” Sharry said.”

But unfortunately for Sharry and Kelly, they are both wrong on this issue and with their statements; there are recent statistics that proves quite the opposite of what they are saying. Scott Brown opposed “amnesty” for undocumented’s, so why then, do Latino groups like to claim Scott Brown’s victory with their two-thirds of the votes?

Scott Brown Victory and Illegal Immigration
“One under-reported aspect of the Scott Brown victory was that he campaigned hard against illegal immigration. The voters knew it, but the nation mostly does not. Americans for Legal Immigration endorsed Brown "due to his focus on the issue of illegal immigration..."Even in Massachusetts, in these hard times working people don't like losing their jobs and getting their wages undermined by illegal aliens. And it’s a good bet that a lot of the illegal aliens in that state are of European origin.”

According to statistics, Latinos are only 8.6% of the population in Massachusetts and 15.4% nationally, while African Americans are 7% in Massachusetts and average of 12.8% nationally. And of course, Latinos have surpassed the African American as the largest minority group in the United States by 2.4%.

Big Lie number one, according to Sharry and Kelley, if what they are saying about Latino voters is true, then the Pro-Obama, pro-illegal immigration and amnesty, Martha Coakley would have been the better choice for Latinos, not Scott Brown.

Big Lie number two, if what they are saying about Hispanic/Latino voters’ influences in American politics are true, let’s look at the recent New Jersey’s governor’s race. 16% of the population is Hispanic in New Jersey, and former governor Corzine received a whopping 77% of the Hispanic vote, but still lost the governorship to an upstart Republican Chris Christie, who only won with 32% of the Latino votes.

What does this all mean? It tells us that the pro-open borders Latino, and Hispanic amnesty groups, with their mainstreams media supporters, were all full of BS and laden with unsubstantiated facts, and LIES. It also means, we've got the most lame-brained and most gullible Washington politicians on the planet, in other words,"imbeciles."

After these past elections, they prove beyond the shadow of doubt, it never was about the Latino voters at all, it was more about the Independent voters.

There is no question that Independents are the swing voters in today’s national elections not Latinos, and that is why the United States Congress is in total shock today, they made a huge blunder in judgments. Independents, not Hispanics were instrumental behind the Democrats’ victories in 2006 and 2008, and Independents will be their defeats in the future.

IMMIGRATION BILL NOT IN THE COFFIN YET, INSIST ADVOCATES
By Adrian Rocha and Ruth Gened

Despite the short shrift President Obama gave immigration reform in his State of the Union speech to Congress Jan. 27, the White House remains firmly committed to passage of comprehensive immigration reform this year, claim key advocates who follow the issue on a daily basis.

Rejecting conventional wisdom, they have pieced together the essential scenario for gathering enough votes to move a bill through Congress before the mid-term November elections.

“That’s not an accident. This is an initiative. We know that if you put a bill out there, it has a major target on its back and the [opponents] will go after it and go after it hard. So, it’s very deliberative,” she said.

Earlier that week, a high-ranking Administration official described to Hispanic Link the President’s assessment as “optimistic,” but conceded, “We all know that it is not going through without Congress’s support.”

Sharry and Kelley said Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (RSC) are close to completing work on bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform legislation — a bill that unlike health care, will pick up some bipartisan support.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (DNev.), they added, remains fully committed to moving forward with a bill. He faces a difficult reelection battle in a state with a significant Hispanic population.

“They are working on it,” Sharry said. “Schumer and Graham want an additional Republican and Democrat to flank them when they roll it out. Clearly, Graham doesn’t want to be the only Republican out there. Who will it be? Well, there are lots of names being mentioned but no one has signed on, and we are not interested in putting targets on anyone’s back.”

The strongly pro-immigrant bill introduced last month by Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-Ill.) will likely be pushed aside, but he is expected to remain a player in the process.

To gain a bit of bipartisan backing, Kelley said, “There’s a small window of Republicans who are possible, maybe six or seven.”

Sharry and Kelley asserted that immigration reform is no longer a divisive issue that congressional moderates need to shy away from. Referring to the 2006 and 2008 elections, Sharry said, “Illegal immigration didn’t work as a wedge issue. In fact, the demonization of Latino immigrants served to mobilize Latino voters who turned out in record numbers in the last two elections,” It is really why immigration reform has a chance in this Congress, he said.

Still, many — maybe even most — Hispanic advocates and leaders (the latter not for attribution) hold little hope for passage of an immigration bill this election year. Only one Latino in Congress, Democratic Rep. Henry Cuéllar of
Texas, has dared to opine publically that it’s a dead issue.

Speaking to Adrian Campo-Flores of Newsweek, Rev. Samuel Rodríguez of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, which has campaigned for a reform package, referred to Obama’s remarks as “the
death knell of immigration reform in 2010.”

If that happens, it’s a given that the Democratic Party, with Obama at the top of the list, will be the biggest immediate loser with the Hispanic electorate. Obama’s failure in his State of the Union address to utter the words “comprehensive immigration reform” or mention its essential elements infuriated thousands who trusted his oft-repeated campaign promise to address reform during his first year in office.

A “Viewer Guide” released to the press by the White House the day of Obama’s speech clearly stated his commitment to “a path for legalization” for the country’s estimated 12 million undocumented residents. These words were absent from his address to Congress.

Evan Bayhs’ Electoral “shock” to Dysfunctional & Broken System; Rifts and Fissures within the Political Structures in D.C. growing:

Evan Bayhs’ Electoral “shock” to Dysfunctional & Broken System; Rifts and Fissures within the Political Structures in D.C. growing:
By Marc Chamot

Why I am not surprised? Once again, the ever corrupt, mainstreams, and Obamacrats Medias are downplaying the Evan Bayh “Electoral Shock” and "dysfuntional" comments.

Can Senator Evan Bayh be a real champion for congressional reforms? If you didn’t know it, it seems that some of Evan Bayh’s “electoral shock” and "dysfuntional" comments, were directed towards Democrats.

“Republicans who had co-sponsored a bill with him to rein in the deficit turned around and voted against it for purely political reasons. He also stated repeatedly that members of his own party should be more willing to settle for a compromise rather than holding out for perfection.”

If folks are surprised by Senator Evan Bayh’s recent remarks to MSNBC, about the need for Americans to deliver electoral shock into congress, by voting incumbents out en masse, and replacing them with new bloods, who want to reform a broken system? Don't be.

Even though Senator Bayh voted against the majorities’ opinions on both, President Obama’s failed $800 billion stimulus and for the very unpopular healthcare reforms, Evan Bayh, after the Democrats’ loss of their supper majority in the senate, thanks to Massachusetts, Mr. Bayh had a big wakeup call. Evan Bayh had a rude and sudden realization of what the political realities are in Washington D.C. today.

But, don’t be too surprised about it, because it’s the beginning of the unraveling of the United States Congress as we know it. What Senator Evan Bayh said, it’s what most Americans want done. And it’s inevitable that it could happen, within the next two to four election cycles to get the job done.

After recent polls showing 81% of the American electorates want to replace the entire U.S. Congress, it’s not surprising that cracks, rifts and fissures within the political structures in Washington D.C. are beginning to show, through angry retiring senators like Evan Bayh.

No matter what happens now, even if Obama’s presidential approval ratings go back up again, and the economy improves a bit and jobs go back up. It’s quite evident to most Americans right now, according to polls, our ailments has never been just about the American presidents, it’s all emanating from years, of a very dysfunctional and corrupt U.S. congress, and all coming from both sides of the political spectrums.

It is very commendable as to what Mr. Bayh did. But the problem with Bayh and other Congressistas, they only criticize the concerns of many on the left and the right has been a recent Supreme Court decision to strike down the country's existing campaign finance laws. Put simply, the ruling opens the door for an even greater influence of money by allowing corporations spend money directly on campaigns.

But they fail to see, the Democratic Party pandering goings on with special interests, lobbyists, some corporate entities, and with the labor unions. They all fail to recognize these poll numbers, “80 percent to 13 percent, Americans saying members of Congress are more interested in serving special interests than the people they represent.”

Even though, Americans were fortunate enough to have some U.S. congressional and senatorial career politicians, who had no term limits, when term limits were finally enacted by recent deaths.

This is all going to stick in the minds of voters within the next few elections cycles. It’s something congress going to have to do, either change or DIE. Those in office now, will no longer represent us, and keep getting these perky salaries, and benefits that no American citizen GETS. Game’s pretty much over!

Disillusioned Bayh advocates electoral “shock” to broken system
In an interview on MSNBC this morning, newly retiring Sen. Evan Bayh declared the American political system "dysfunctional," riddled with "brain-dead partisanship" and permanent campaigning.

Flatly denying any possibility that he'd seek the presidency or any other higher office, Bayh argued that the American people needed to deliver a "shock" to Congress by voting incumbents out en masse and replacing them with people interested in reforming the process and governing for the good of the people, rather than deep-pocketed special-interest groups.

Bayh's announcement stunned the American political world, as up until just last week he looked to be well on his way to an easy reelection for a third term in the Senate, and his senior staff was aggressively pursuing that goal.But Bayh had apparently become increasingly frustrated in the Senate.

In this morning's interview he noted that just two weeks ago, Republicans who had co-sponsored a bill with him to rein in the deficit turned around and voted against it for purely political reasons.
He also stated repeatedly that members of his own party should be more willing to settle for a compromise rather than holding out for perfection."Sometimes half a loaf is better than none," Bayh insisted.It's no secret that the Senate has struggled to take action this year. With the two major parties unusually far apart in their substantive proposals for the direction of the country, even finding half a loaf to agree on has been difficult.

Though the Democrats have had a substantial majority in the Senate for the last year, Republicans have escalated their threats to use filibusters (by forcing a cloture vote, see the graph below) to force Democrats to come up with 60 votes to pass any major legislation. And after Scott Brown's election to the Senate last month gave Republicans a 41st seat, health-care reform and other Democratic goals were stopped dead in their tracks.

Bayh blamed the current atmosphere of intense partisanship on the need for senators to constantly campaign to be reelected to another six-year term. Citing his father, a popular liberal senator in the '60s and '70s, he noted that "back in the day they used to have the saying: 'You campaign for 2 years and you legislate for 4.' Now you campaign for 6!" He noted that the need for constant fundraising made it nearly impossible to focus on passing legislation.

Frustration over the increasing amount of money being spent on political campaigns isn't exactly a new thing, as spending by candidates in the 2008 presidential election nearly quadrupled the amount of money spent by candidates in the 2000 election.

Additionally, winners of House races in 2000 spent an average of $849,158 to do so, while House winners in 2008 spent an average of $1,372,591. Enhancing the concerns of many on the left and the right has been a recent Supreme Court decision to strike down the country's existing campaign finance laws.

Put simply, the ruling opens the door for an even greater influence of money by allowing corporations spend money directly on campaigns.However, reforms of Congress appear unlikely.

There doesn't appear to be any significant momentum at this time behind efforts to change the rules that govern passing legislation or Congress's need to constantly campaign and fundraise. With an election year beginning, it's also unlikely that congressional leaders will begin to see eye to eye more often on major legislation.

Perhaps a "shock" is indeed called for in order to change that.

DRINOS’ Democrats and Republicans in Names Only, are new breeds of Washington politicians Independents Want & Obama Medias Still Censoring Bloggers:

DRINOS’ Democrats and Republicans in Names Only, are new breeds of Washington politicians Independents Want & Obama Medias Still Censoring Bloggers:
By Marc Chamot

We're the Real Agents of Change, Independents want Democrats or Republicans who’ll listen and support their causes. We all know it’s futile to field our own candidates in a two party system, so we will go after, and or field some of YOURS, whether you like it or not.

Just forget the Democrats and their Left and forget Republicans and their right, and never mind the DINOS, Democrats in Name Only, and RINOS, Republicans in Name Only, who fill Washington DC legislative chambers full of inept and corrupt politicians.

What the last three key national elections, from Virginia and New Jersey’s governor’s races, to the Massachusetts’ senatorial race have shown, Independent voters were the end results and the successes for these Republicans getting into office, and Independents are the ones that want to turn politics back to the people, and into moderate and center right.

There is so much being said about the Tea Parties, and don’t forget, the Tea Party movements are from the ranks of dissatisfied, and very angry Independent American voters. So when the Left wing of Democrats and the Right wing of Republicans, poke insulting nuances towards the Tea Party, they are actually insulting most Independent voters in general, those like me.

Believe it or not, as I’ve said before on my blogs, the new political revolts with Independents began around 2004/2005 on the Internet, at the turn of President George Bush’s second term in office and it has never ceased since then. It helped bring about the Democratic Party’s take over of congress in 2006, and furthered their causes in 2008 with Obama and full control of congress.

And now, the goal for Independents is to do thorough house cleanings of U.S. Congress. With polls just out, showing that 81% of Americans Have had enough with the U.S. Congress & Incumbents in Serious Trouble for 2010, New Polls Say:

There is no question that President Obama opened up a Pandora’s Box during the presidential campaigns, on his promised changes in ridding Washington of special interests and lobbyists.

This is the number one problem with 81% of Americans with Washington politics, the anti-incumbent anger is in, and no one is being spared, not even a Republican like John McCain can be saved from this movement.

President Obama made a grave error in not fulfilling his anti-lobbyist and special interests promises, it brought down his stock considerably in the eyes of American voters. This is the disasters facing Democrats and Republicans alike.

Senator John McCain is definitely a target from the movement, who likes to bill himself as the “don’t count me out candidate,” and a “great maverick,” but unfortunately, during the presidential campaigns he misread the signs of voter anger.

Obama won, because he had a message of change and hope which helped sway throngs of angry voters towards him and the Democrats, while John McCain’s message was business as usual, with pro-special interests, and pro-globalists, free trader in DC, benefitting foreign nations and their interests over our own.

That is why people did not vote for John McCain for president, and now he’ll be lucky if he gets to be re-elected into the U.S. senate. A new DRINO, another Scott Brown is in the making in Arizona with former talk radio host, J.D. Hayworth. Conservatives, independents and Tea Partiers are all for Hayworth.

But unfortunately, some Republicans aren’t getting the message, such as Republican Senator Jim DeMint. He decided to keep neutral; he would not endorse J.D. Hayworth, an independent and conservative favorite.

If Hayworth wins, which looks like he should with no problems, it could spell a whole lot of trouble later on for Jim DeMint. This proves that some Republicans are still not open to change or to Independents and Tea Party supporters.

But, blog censorships for Independents like me, is still a persistent problem on the Net. I keep on talking about the influence of credible bloggers on the Internet, but American politicians and mainstream liberal Medias, and even some on the right are still in denials.

They prefer to ignore us, or they just stop posting articles from bloggers like me, and others, those who are becoming somewhat politically influential. It’s just crazy to be ignoring Independents, one of the fastest and largest growing political forces in American politics.

When things go bad for the Obama and Democratic machines, censorships on opposing views kick in. The very last time my news Medias blog syndication I belong to, had posted one of my articles was on January 11th, my extremely popular blog post, Republican Scott Brown has a Great Shot to Unseat the Democrats’ Veto-Proof Majority in the U.S. Senate:

It generated over 100,000 views, and no, not onto my blog, but to their websites through my feed. This blog post was carried by four major newspaper websites, the ones that I openly promote on my blogs, where numerous of my written articles have been.

With the mood of this country, especially among Independents, I had predicted Republican like Scott Brown had a good chance in winning former Ted Kennedy’s senate seat. I suppose, when they posted my blog post about it, they thought it would make me look like another foolish right-wing blogger to Democrats and to some of their left-wingers, right? And especially if Mr. Brown had lost, which he didn’t.

As having been right on the nail, I should have been rewarded with more blog postings with these mediums, right? But to the shock and dismay of the Obamacrats mediums, when Scott Brown won, these mainstreams Medias did what they usually do; clam up news sources and opinions they don’t agree with.

Especially those that are not within their pre-conceived ways of thinking, and mainly, when they are losing their influences over American politics over “bloggers,” they SHUT you DOWN. Why don’t you Give Up a lost cause? There’s just too few of you, versus too many of us.

But regardless what they want to do, they cannot shut down our voices on the Net anymore. Even though my blog, the Marc Chamot Report is growing, and getting more popular, by the number of backlinks and feed subscribers’, word of mouth is a huge part of the Net.

First, there was Entrecard, then Google search engines, which helped me with decent streams of traffic into my blog. According to statcounter.com, most of my traffic now is being generated by No referring link marcchamot.blogspot.com/, which means my blog was referred by someone to somebody else, directly, other than from search engines and news sources. It means stuff gets out; people are reading it, and passing it on no matter what these mediums do to stop it.

It’s very true. A recent article came up that Facebook has surpassed Google search in generating traffic into people’s websites. "People are spending less time navigating the Internet on their own and are now navigating the Internet based on their friends' recommendations or their friends' activities," said Dave Yovanno, chief executive of Gigya Inc., a Palo Alto firm that offers social-media services. "That's one of the big trends we started picking up on probably four or five months ago." Read Full Story.

Even a “scrappy” blogger like me, a wannabe writer, with no journalism experience, is out-trafficking most well known syndicated journalists around the nation. That says a whole lot about me and them.

According to Alexa.com, the Marc Chamot Report is ranked 65,300, amongst the under 100,000 in the United Sates; out of millions of blogs and websites, and 95.3 of my readers are proud American patriots. I’m very proud to have such a large following of American readers; I speak their political language, which most foreigners don’t understand.

I love to compare my blog, with some of the most renowned journalists’ blogs and websites, I beat a good many of them straight up in Alexa.com rankings. I’ve got things people want to read, and I resonate politically with most people’s lines of thinking, while these high priced journalists with these liberal mediums, sugarcoat their pile of nonsense to the public, and don’t garner readership interests.

If news Medias are wondering as to why they are going down the tubes? Maybe that’s the answer. Our policies are winning in DC, while YOURS are losing; take that to the bank, eh?

Polls Show: Amnesty for Undocumented Aliens, not Third Rail in Washington Politics, more like Death Rails in American politics for its Supporters:

Polls Show: Amnesty for Undocumented Aliens, not Third Rail in Washington Politics, more like Death Rails in American politics for its Supporters:
By Marc Chamot

Do Washington politicians listen to polls? You bet your rear ends they do, especially when they are heavily lopsided and stacked against their favor for their very political survival.

Recent immigration poll results went largely ignored and unnoticed by the left-wing Medias, and numerous conservative mediums, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s main mouth piece, the Examiner.com. It’s because, both parties support illegal immigration and amnesty, one party wants their votes, while the other wants the cheap labor for their Wall Street supporters.

The general public overwhelmingly favors immigration reform. Polls are showing that majority of Americans really want comprehensive immigration reforms, but not the kind Washington wants to provide for this country. Majority of Americans want the Mexican border secured, less immigration, less illegal immigration, tougher employer sanctions against employers who hire the undocumented, and no amnesty what’s so ever.

Polls also show another clear example of black politicians not caring or listening to their constituents, 88% of African Americans oppose amnesty for undocumented aliens, even though President Obama and the Washington black caucuses support amnesty for illegal immigrants.

Around August 10th 2009, President Obama went to Mexico and promised comprehensive immigration reforms, including amnesty for undocumented aliens, and it would happen. But, this would take a bi-partisan effort in congress to get it done.

Latino and Hispanic Medias all over were pretty ecstatic about it, Obama and his Democrats will grant undocumented citizenships! Whoopee and hooray for that!

Then around November 21, 2009, the Senate began the very unpopular Demo-Bamacare debates on comprehensive reforms for our healthcare industries. But in the mean time, President Obama wanted to keep his first 100 days promise, in giving amnesty to almost 15 million or so undocumented’s in America.

But back around December 7th 2009, Senate Majority Harry Reid began to work on Obama’s roll calls in the Senate on comprehensive immigration reforms, including granting amnesty for undocumented aliens.

Unfortunately for amnesty supporters, Harry Reid announced that the senate votes weren’t there for comprehensive immigration reforms, amnesty, mainly because of conservative Democrats, “Blue Dogs,” weren’t going to touch it with ten foot poles, and that’s when President Obama pushed off immigration reforms for March 2010.

But Holly and behold, folks! Something happened along the way for comprehensive immigration and amnesty reforms with Obama and the Democrats, polls!

78% of likely U.S. voters oppose amnesty, with 19% in favor. 88% of African-Americans oppose amnesty. (Pulse Opinion Research, August 2009).
73% of Americans want to see a decrease in illegal immigration, while only 3% believe there should be an increase (CNN, October 2009).
78% of likely U.S. voters believe that mass immigration has adversely impacted the quality and cost of the U.S. health care system (Pulse Opinion Research, August 2009).
70% of American voters feel that increased border control should be the most important priority in immigration reform. Only 22% prioritized legalization of illegal aliens (Rasmussen, August 2009).
80% of likely voters oppose healthcare coverage for illegal aliens (Rasmussen, June 2009).
67% of liberals and progressives believe that the level of immigration into the U.S. is too high (Pulse Opinion, April 2009).
68% believe that employers who hire illegal aliens should be punished (Rasmussen, March 2009). 79% of voters say the military should be used along the border with Mexico (Rasmussen, March 2009).
73% believe law enforcement officers should check immigration status during traffic stops (Rasmussen, March 2009).

These polls were coming out the woodworks and Democrats and Republicans in Washington saw them, they listened, and mainly the more conservative Blue Dogs, including Republicans, all refused to go against the majorities’ thinking on immigration.

Latino and Hispanic Medias has been pretty mum since then, and that is when immigration reforms, mainly amnesty for illegal aliens in the United States has practically died.
The Latino open borders pundits’ ways of thinking, if you don’t support immigration and amnesty, Latinos will not vote for you, and they will affect elections’ results.

This theory now seems to be baseless and filled with whole lot of horse manures, because with the 88 percent of African Americans who do not support legalizing illegal immigrants, including amnesty, makes the Latino votes, pretty much, zilch and nada in American politics over this issue, I think.

Amnesty Death Rails for American Politicians who Support it:

Public Opinion Polls on Immigration
The general public overwhelmingly favors immigration reform. Poll after poll shows that Americans want well-enforced, sensible, and sustainable immigration laws.

87% of U.S. voters believe that anyone receiving federal health care subsidies should be required to prove they are in the United States legally (Rasmussen, December 2009).
85% of likely voters say that individuals should be able to prove that they are in the country legally before they receive any federal, state, or local government services. Only 8% disagree (Rasmussen, November 2009).
68% oppose the creation of sanctuary cities (jurisdictions that have a policy of not enforcing immigration law) with only 13% in favor (Rasmussen, October 2009).
73% of Americans want to see a decrease in illegal immigration, while only 3% believe there should be an increase (CNN, October 2009).
56% of Mexicans believe that granting amnesty to illegal aliens in the United States would make it more likely that people they know would attempt to illegally migrate to United States. Only 17% think it would make people less likely to migrate illegally to the United States (Zogby, October 2009).
65% of Mexicans who have a member of their immediate household in the United States said that amnesty would make people they know more likely to attempt to illegally migrate to America (Zogby, October 2009).
55% of Mexicans who expressed a desire to migrate to the U.S. said they would attempt to enter the U.S. illegally (Pew Hispanic Center, September 2009).
56% of U.S. voters believe that the policies of the federal government encourage illegal immigration (Rasmussen, October 2009).
83% of U.S. voters say that citizenship verification should be part of any health care reform legislation (Rasmussen, September 2009).
78% of likely U.S. voters believe that mass immigration has adversely impacted the quality and cost of the U.S. health care system (Pulse Opinion Research, August 2009).
78% of likely U.S. voters oppose amnesty, with 19% in favor. 88% of African-Americans oppose amnesty. (Pulse Opinion Research, August 2009).
70% of American voters feel that increased border control should be the most important priority in immigration reform. Only 22% prioritized legalization of illegal aliens (Rasmussen, August 2009).
50% of American think immigration to the U.S. should be decreased, while only 14% want to see an increase in immigration to the U.S. (Gallup, August 2009).
68% of adults think limiting care to illegal aliens is a good to excellent way to reduce overall health care costs (Zogby, July 2009).
80% of likely voters oppose healthcare coverage for illegal aliens (Rasmussen, June 2009).
67% of liberals and progressives believe that the level of immigration into the U.S. is too high (Pulse Opinion, April 2009).
68% believe that employers who hire illegal aliens should be punished (Rasmussen, March 2009). 79% of voters say the military should be used along the border with Mexico (Rasmussen, March 2009).
73% believe law enforcement officers should check immigration status during traffic stops (Rasmussen, March 2009).
Only 32% of Obama voters considered his support for amnesty as a factor in their decisions to vote for him (Zogby, November 2008).

These are only a few examples of the many statistics demonstrating that Americans want lower immigration, greater enforcement, and more commitment to making immigration work in the best interests of the nation.

Most Recent National Polls
Zogby, December 2009, poll of 42,026 likely voters who belong to the largest U.S. religious groups
64% of both Catholics and Mainline Protestants support greater enforcement to encourage illegals to return to their home countries.
76% of Evangelical Protestants support greater enforcement.
Think immigration to the U.S. is too high: Catholics 69%, Mainline Protestants 72%, Evangelical Protestants 78%, Jews 50%.
Think more unskilled immigrants are necessary to fill job shortages in U.S.: Catholics 12%, Mainline Protestants 10%, Evangelical Protestants 7%, Jews 21%.
Rasmussen, October 30, 2009, poll of 1,000 likely voters
68% oppose the creation of sanctuary cities (jurisdictions that have a policy of not enforcing immigration law) with only 13% in favor.
49% to 33% say that federal funding should be cut off to sanctuary cities.
50% believe that sanctuary policies lead to increased crime, while 20% disagree.
56% to 27% believe that the policies of the federal government encourage illegal immigration.
CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, October 22, 2009, poll of 1,039 adults
73% of Americans want to see a decrease in illegal immigration, while only 3% believe there should be an increase.
37% want to see all illegal aliens deported, and another 23% want the number if illegal aliens "decreased significantly."
Zogby, October 2009, poll of 1,004 adults in Mexico
56% believe that granting amnesty to illegal aliens in the United States would make it more likely that people they know would attempt to illegally migrate to United States. Only 17 % thought it would people make less likely to migrate illegally to the United States (Zogby, October 2009).
65% of those who have a member of their immediate household in the United States said that amnesty would make people they know more likely to attempt to illegally migrate to America (Zogby, October 2009).
Despite the recession, 36% of Mexicans (39 million people) say they would move to the United States if possible.
69% believe that the primary loyalty of Mexican-Americans (including those born in the U.S.) should be to Mexico.
69% think that the Mexican government should protect the interests of Mexican-Americans living in the United States.
Rasmussen, October 13, 2009, poll of 1,000 likely U.S. voters
56% of U.S. voters believe that the policies of the federal government encourage illegal immigration. Only 27 % of voters disagree.
With those expressing a feeling of anger over immigration, 83 % of voters are angry at the federal government with only 12 % directing their anger at immigrants.
64% of voters believe law enforcement officers should continue to target sites where illegal aliens gather to look for work.
71% believe that employers who knowingly hire legal workers should be arrested.
Pew Hispanic Center, September 23, 2009, poll of 1,000 adults in Mexico
57% believe that those who move from Mexico to the United States enjoy a better quality of life. 33% would move to the United States if possible.
Of those who expressed the desire to live in the United States, 55% expressed the inclination to attempt to live and work in the United States illegally.
42% believe that it is good for Mexico that so many of its citizens live in the United States.
Rasmussen, September 7, 2009, poll of 1,000 U.S. voters
83% of American voters say proof of citizenship should be required before anyone receives government health care aid.
95% of Republicans, 87 % of independents and 70 % of Democrats agree.
90% of conservatives and 56 % of liberals agree.
53 % of voters currently oppose proposed health care reform legislation.
Pulse Opinion Research, August 26, 2009, 1,000 likely voters
78% of Americans believe that mass immigration has adversely impacted the quality and cost of the U.S. health care system. 89% of Republicans and 69% of Democrats were in agreement on this question.
73% of likely voters agreed that hospitals should be allowed to collect data about the citizenship status of those seeking emergency room cares, while still providing the level of emergency care required by law. Only 18% disagreed.
77% believe that providing health insurance to illegal aliens will result in increased illegal immigration to the U.S.
83% were concerned that the United States will add 135 million people to its population over the next 40 years, with most of that increase due to immigration.
78% of likely U.S. voters oppose amnesty, with 19% in favor. 88% of African-Americans oppose amnesty.
Pulse Opinion Research, April 14, 2009, poll of 600 self-indentified liberals and progressives
67% of liberals and progressives believe that the level of immigration into the U.S. is too high.
58% feel that the current level of immigration is harmful to the environment.
63% said that current levels of immigration hurts job prospects for American workers.
67% believe that the current rate of immigration will worsen the future quality of life in U.S.
Rasmussen, March 14-15, 2009 poll of 1,000 voters
68% believe that employers who hire illegal aliens should be punished.
48% support sanctions on landlords who rent or sell property to illegal immigrants; only 36% are opposed to sanctions.
73% believe law enforcement officers should check immigration status during traffic stops.
67% say enforcement officers should conduct surprise raids in places where immigrants are known to gather to find work, to identify and deport illegal aliens; 24% oppose these raids.
Rasmussen, March 12-13, 2009 poll of 1,000 likely voters
79% (vs. 10%) say the military should be used along the border with Mexico to protect American citizens if drug-related violence continues to grow in that area.
82% of voters are concerned that Mexican drug violence will spill over into the United States.
61% (vs. 27%) say the United States should continue the fence.
Rasmussen, October 24-25, 2007 poll of 800 likely voters found that:
59% (vs. 22%) opposed the DREAM Act (a form of amnesty for former and present illegal alien students) concept.
68% (vs. 15%) believe the passage of the bill would encourage more illegal immigration in the future.
71% (vs. 16%) believe that illegal immigrants should not qualify for in-state tuition rates at colleges and universities.

Strategy Development Conference of Liberals and Progressives; the new Anti-Sarah Palin & Tea Party Groups:

Strategy Development Conference of Liberals and Progressives; the new Anti-Sarah Palin & Tea Party Groups:
By Marc Chamot

“It’s not enough to “just say no” to: The “Tea Party” and Sarah Palin right-wing populists, and the Supreme Court giving Corporations “free reign to control our elections, the freeze on social programs but not on the military and so forth.”-Tikkun Magazine

"A Constitutional Amendments to restrain corporate power and require corporate social responsibility, including overturning the Supreme Court’s ruling giving corporations same campaign rights as human beings, and to make Obama, to be the Obama that Liberals and Progressives thought they elected."

Obviously, this new left-wing organization has lots, and lots of money, with a new mission because they took out a full page ad in the San Francisco Chronicle, and in other mediums around the Bay Area, to promote their new causes.

They advertise themselves as the anti-religious right, but this group are promoting themselves as the religious left equivalent. So what's the difference? It's all the same, one religious group is far left and the other is far right.

Take for instance, The Network of Spiritual Progressives:of Tikkun Magazine, which is published by Jewish Rabbi, Michael Lerner. Michael Lerner sees, what the Tea Party movement is doing nationally, and especially with Sarah Palin, but now he wants to counter and duplicate it, with his own organized group, with these beliefs.

The Network of Spiritual Progressives: its mission: The Network of Spiritual Progressives was founded based on three basic tenets: Changing the Bottom Line in America, Challenging the Misuse of Religion, and God and Spirit by the Religious Right, and Challenging the Many Anti-Religious and Anti-Spiritual Assumptions and Behaviors, that Have Increasingly Become Part of the Liberal Culture and Changing the Bottom Line in America.

“Because it is the absence of this vision that is the primary reason why liberals and progressives are failing to remake this society even at the moment when Obama is President, the Democrats control both houses of Congress, and the economic meltdown has given overwhelming evidence that the old system doesn't work so well.

Absent a coherent world-view, the liberal and progressive forces fall back onto a non-ideological pragmatism which has nothing in it that is compelling to most Americans. So too many of them revert to the only worldview they've ever heard, and one that still seems to command the assent (however grudging) of the elected leadership of both major parties.”

Even though I wholeheartedly agree with some of their views, such as Obama’s flawed health care plans, and government’s dumping hundreds of billions into the coffers of the banks and insurance and pharmaceutical companies, while doing way too little for the poor, the powerless, and those suffering from the current economic meltdown.

And those elites, in turn, have allowed their own selfishness; materialism and cynicism about the possibility of a different kind of world lead them to rob America blind, in the process throwing millions out of work or even out of their homes.

But I don’t support any of their other issues. They want more taxes, more debts for social issues; they also have no solutions for deficits reductions. But we also know that Mr. Lerner and his groups are the motivators and the money, behind these Obama and Pelosi anti-American left-wing agendas. Unfortunately, they still don’t understand that most Americans lean right of middle, Americans will not go against the grain to move left no matter what the agendas are.

The Tea Parties were independently formed groups; they were spontaneously created because of the way the country was heading, in the wrong direction. This is why Americans are on fire right now, mostly because of people like Michael Lerner and his unpopular against the majority, left-wing policies that want our politicians to pursue.

No matter what they do, they will never be like the Tea Parties and Sarah Palin, even though they have same political points as we do, but they still miss the whole point about what Americans in general think and want.

Here is more on the group:

Foci of the conferences:1. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS: A. CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PERSONS AND SHOULD NOT HAVE SAME RIGHTS AS PERSONS B. ENVIRONMENTAL & SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AMENDMENT

We will focus on developing positive ideas and programs for an economy and society that more fully embodies your highest values, as well as concrete ideas for what we could do for global (including Middle East) peace and reconciliation, and ideas about how to put single payer health care back into the national conversation to amend whatever faulty proposal has been passed by Congress.

We will present a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT that would declare that corporations are not persons and do not deserve the protections of persons, restrict their ability to influence elections and legislation either directly or indirectly, and that would require corporations and other "limited liability economic entities" to adhere to strictly defined standards of social and environmental responsibility or lose their rights to function or do business in the US (whether or not they are based in the U.S.).

2. "Support Obama to BE the Obama We Voted for -Not the Inside-the-Beltway Pragmatist/Realist whose compromises have led to a decrease in his popularity and opened the door for a revival of the just-recently-discredited Right wing." This is the most effective way to stop the rise of potentially fascistic right-wing movements and religious fundamentalists who unwittingly serve the interests of America's elites of wealth and power.

We need to be both supportive and lovingly critical of this administration—about the escalation of war in Afghanistan; its flawed health care plan; its capitulation on human rights and gay and lesbian rights; and its dumping hundreds of billions into the coffers of the banks and insurance and pharmaceutical companies while doing way too little for the poor, the powerless, and those suffering from the current economic meltdown. We understand that Obama faces a Washington, D.C., reality that is heavily shaped by Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, and the elites of wealth and power that control most of the media.

But the 2008 election campaign demonstrated a potentially powerful counter-force: the yearning of Americans for genuine connection to each other and for a society that embodied higher values of caring, generosity, peace, and an attitude of idealism toward the world.

It was this force that could have provided a serious and "realistic" counter to the powers that be, particularly at the moment when the country was at the height of an economic meltdown and Wall Street was begging for the government to bail it out. The policies adopted by the Obama Administration had the opposite effect--it demobilized its own base while seeming to appeal to its right-wing and to show how reasonable and accommodating to the very policies and forces that the Obama campaign had promised to challenge.

One year later, many people are confused, demoralized, or even deeply depressed that Obama did not energize the latent idealism of Americans he touched in 2008 to create a different political discourse in this country that would have empowered him and millions of Americans to remain active and fight for “change we can believe in.”

Doubting that he could count on the very forces that had elected him, he turned to the "realistic" insider politics of Washington and Wall Street, with huge subsidies to the banks and capitulations to the health care profiteers and pharmaceuticals, thus making it possible for the Right-wing to present itself as a quasi-populist voice in contrast to his seeming subservience to the elites of power and wealth. What could he do?

He could have told the truth about the power relations as he saw them, as he had promised he would when he was on the campaign trail. True, the opposition might have been even more outraged. But telling the truth is the one power that the President has which does not depend on the support of a legislative majority, and would have been more important than passing pieces of legislation that are so severely compromised that they may have been worse than nothing at all.

But as we learned during the Clinton years, even the good things done by one president can quickly be overturned by the next unless the President builds a strong and ongoing consensus around a shared world view. More important than winning any particular legislative battle (because any legislation can always be undone by the next administration), the empowering of a progressive, populist, ethically-based, love-and- generosity oriented social movement would have isolated the Right and given Obama the kind of popular support that would have actually made him stronger in dealing with the Blue Dog Democrats and hence more likely to be legislatively effective.

We recognize that many who worked hard for Obama are now depressed and moving toward passivity or cynicism. But it is not too late to change the dynamics before the deep disenchantment with Obama’s failure to build on the hopeful energies his election becomes the new political reality.

3. We will develop our inner resources both intellectual and spiritual for the long-process of building fundamental transformation in our global and domestic policies so that we can save the planet and ourselves from the various lurking environmental, military, economic and political disasters we face. We will also strengthen our capacities to recognize and rejoice at all the goodness and love that is available to us and that can sustain us and make the process of Tikkun-ing (healing and transforming the world) a joyous and nourishing experience.

Our conference is sponsored by Tikkun Magazine, the voice of Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, Bahai, and other spiritual progressives (and our educational outreach arm: the Network of Spiritual Progressives). You DO NOT have to be religious or believe in God to be a "spiritual progressive." We welcome people not only from every religious community but also those who are "spiritual but not religious," including some who are militant atheists or agnostics. Our criterion: do you agree with our New Bottom Line for Western societies.

Our New Bottom Line urges people to judge institutions, corporations, legislation, social practices, health care, our educational and legal systems, and our social policies (as well as our personal behavior) by how much love and compassion, kindness and generosity, and ethical and ecological sensitivity they inculcate within is, and by how much they nurture our capacity to respond to other human beings as embodiments of the sacred who can and do respond to the universe with gratitude, awe, and wonder at the grandeur of all that is.

If you are supportive of our New Bottom Line, you are a spiritual progressive. Please read how this plays out in political policy terms by going to http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/ and reading out Spiritual Covenant with America and the details of our Global Marshall Plan.

You'll understand why many agnostics and atheists feel excited about our approach to healing and transforming American society as we seek to challenge the globalization of selfishness, materialism and corporate power.

Chief District Judge Vaughn Walker Being Gay, is no Issue in Federal Trial to Overturn California’s same sex Marriages Bans-Initiative Prop-8:

Chief District Judge Vaughn Walker Being Gay, is no Issue in Federal Trial to Overturn California’s same sex Marriages Bans-Initiative Prop-8:
By Marc Chamot

The San Francisco Chronicle has recently started “exclusive to print editions” articles in their Sunday paper. The way the Chron does this, whenever they have exclusive articles, it will not be posted on the Net, until the following Tuesday.

I would guess it’s a great way to sell Sunday’s newspapers, when they are going $3.00 a piece. Some of these exclusive to print edition stories have been pretty good lately, like the one I’m about to opinion on.

Going back to Proposition 8, the anti-gay marriages initiative passed last year by the voters, and which was re-affirmed by the California Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, some sore losers of the ballot measure and on the California Supreme Court decisions, decided to appeal this case to federal court. And that’s where we’re at now.

In the Matier and Ross article today, they talk about the federal judge who is on the case, the U.S. Chief District Judge Vaughn Walker, but somehow by magic, this case landed right on his lap, a former George H.W. Bush 1989 appointee, who is not only a conservative, but he is also gay. What I mean by gay-gay, he’s homosexual gay.

It’s not a highly closed secret about his sexual orientations; however he is in charge over a landmark trial which could overturn voter’s decisions into Californian bans over same sex marriages.

Some of his believers are saying they don’t believe that being gay; this judge will be prejudiced in his ruling of this case. He’s looking at it constitutionally, whether it’s legal for a state to ban same sex marriages or not, and if it discriminates against gays and lesbians.

Don’t worry his detractors’ say, “there’s nothing about Walker as judge to indicate that his sexual orientation, other than being interesting factor, will in any way bias his view,’ says, Kate Kendell head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which is supporting the lawsuit to overturn proposition 8. As evidence, take a look at the judges’ conservative and libertarian reputations, and that should make it so.

Even though I personally admired and respected Judge Vaughn Walker, when he presided over the FORCED sale of the then Hearst Examiner to the Fangs, through political extortions, that Walker uncovered throughout the trial, in the newspapers’ lawsuits back around 1999. And one being my former employer’s the Fang family, formerly of the (SF Independent) and the Randolph Hearst Corporation (Examiner) vs. Clint Reilly.

What’s ridiculous about this whole Proposition 8 thing with Walker? He talks about being a constitutionalist judge.

But twice, to the dismay of the proposition 8 backers’ and everyone else, Judge Vaughn Walker went illegally beyond the realms of the constitution in favor for repealing the law and gave the opponents the legal advantage.

He first demanded the yes on Prop-8 campaigns’ to turn over thousands of pages of emails, memos, communications and transactions between its organizers, which a higher court later overturned the judge’s order and deemed it illegal, unconstitutional, and declared it a direct assault to initiatives rights in keeping campaign strategies a secret.

Secondly, he allowed the trial to be broadcasted and be posted on you tube, by putting the prop-8 supporters at risk for bad publicity, having their faces being shown, and putting them in more danger from these nutty, left-wing lunatics, and which a higher court over ruled the judge's order on this decision.

But still the prop 8 supporters, and Andy Pugno, the general counsel for the group have not made a case, or complained about the judges’ biasness and impartialness’ and on some strange unconstitutional orders made in the case.

Look for this case going to higher court to be dismissed, and if not, it will get to the U.S. Supreme Court, the right of the voters to initiate constitutional amendments supersedes any activist judge’s rights under our constitution.

So to those people that say Judge Walker being gay is no issue on his decision making in the case, well look at his track record on this case, and it isn’t looking "constitutionally" good for him.

Same Ole’ Obama; Rhetoric’s Changing, but agendas, hypocrisies & policies same; Higher Taxes, more Lobbyists, Government Union Jobs & fewer Industries

Same Ole’ Obama; Rhetoric’s Changing, but agendas, hypocrisies & policies same; Higher Taxes, more Lobbyists, Government Union Jobs & fewer Industries:
By Marc Chamot

There’s no doubt, relief has befallen upon this nation, as Obamacare has gone into the annals of defeat. And there’s no question that President Obama bully tactics against Republicans isn’t going to pay off either, no matter what he says or does.

He’s still damaged goods as an American president to most voters.

Voters are not too amused by the Obama sideshows lately. He’s trying desperately to divert his eventual failures on Obamacare and other unpopular left-wing policies, like Cap and Trade, amnesty for illegal aliens and so forth, on Republicans.

Now President Obama wants Democratic leaders to swing back big, “be honest with an angry public and expose obstructionism by Republicans.” Excuse moi, Monsieur? Did I hear that talk about honesty again, from a very dishonest president?

Let’s talk about honesty a bit? Where was this honesty when you and your Democratic cohorts were behind the scenes, meeting in secret and were up to your yang-yang, in cahoots with special interests and the unions, while proposing every unpopular left-wing agendas through this Democrat controlled congress?

“We still have to lead,” says the president. “Turn off your TV and go out to the voters, listen to what they have to say. Get results, and this year’s midterms elections will work out fine.” Well? That’s a great idea! Why didn’t you and we all think about it before you decided to embark on these idiotic left-wing agendas, dummy? Isn’t that what the voters in Scott Brown’s Massachusetts told you recently? How shocking!

“Lawmakers should do more business in the public eye,” this is coming from the man who had promised that special interests would end, when he was elected president and this is the same man that had promised to be more transparent during his presidency. But after making secretive deals with special interests and reneging for the healthcare reforms being televised on C-SPAN.

So he’s now waking up, and telling Democrats to do, what he first said for them to do and meant for them to do in the first place during the presidential campaigns, but didn’t. I’m just dumbfounded by this president. Wow! What a crying shame, credibility for this president is at issue right now.

After a totally wasted 2009, for pursuing unpopular left-wing agendas, and then possibly another wasted year for Democrats’ to get their hides in gear for the 2010 midterms, and maybe jobs creations, this might be the only thing that we’ll get from the Obama-rats this year until the elections.

It’s obvious that the Obama-rats’ jobs solutions is having the federal government grow, while killing the private sector, but why? Laughably, taxpayers are those who support government, and you’re killing your tax base by destroying the private sector jobs, and this doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

The Wall Street Journal wrote recently, for the first time ever, members of the public (government) employees unions outnumber members of industrial unions. This shows our catastrophic demise of our manufacturing industries and industrial jobs, 51% of the 15.4 million unionized workers are government employees. Back in 1973 they were only 20% of the government workforce.

This is the fallout when parties, like the Democrats’ are too deeply dependent on unions and its employees for voter’s bases, as the private sector is rapidly declining and shrinking, while tax dollars are drying up, there is no more money to afford government employees’ perky salaries, benefits and retirements. After all said and done, at this rate, we don’t really have any Democrats’ guarantees for any jobs creations, do we?

But still, the Obama-rats don’t stop pulling their sneaky tricks through congress, for more unionizing efforts, jobs for a select few, while the rest of us have no chances of getting:

Brown arriving in Senate a week early; Dems scramble
With Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts headed to Washington to be sworn in Thursday -- a week earlier than expected -- Democrats were scrambling to push through union-friendly nominees for key posts in the Obama administration.

Brown asked Massachusetts election officials to certify his win immediately and now he is expected to be sworn in during an afternoon ceremony. He will become the chamber's 41st Republican, which will give the party enough votes to block controversial nominees like Craig Becker, President Obama's pick to fill one of three vacancies on the National Labor Relations Board -- someone who businesses fear will be able to implement pro-union changes that Democrats couldn't achieve through legislation.

Labor unions, which poured significant amounts of money and time into getting President Obama elected, had anticipated last year that Congress would quickly pass a bill allowing unions to organize a company's work force without a secret-ballot vote. But sufficient support for the bill never materialized in the Senate.

Republicans and pro-business groups fear Becker could push implementation of so called "card check" provisions in his role on the NLRB. Becker, who is the former top lawyer for the Service Employees International Union and the AFL-CIO, wrote in a 1993 journal article that union rules should be re-drafted to favor labor and shrink the rights of employers.

"Mr. Becker has been a strong advocate of the Employee Free Choice Act and is likely to effect similar changes at the board level that cannot currently be achieved in Congress," said Denise Gold, associate general counsel for labor and employment law at the Association of General Contractors.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers also oppose Becker's nomination. Becker told senators at a hearing on Tuesday that he would not use his position to alter labor laws in opposition to business groups and said his 1993 article was meant to be "provocative and to ask fundamental questions in order for scholars and others to re-evaluate."

A committee vote on Becker could happen Thursday, after which the full Senate can consider his nomination. Brown aides won't say whether Brown would cast his first vote for or against Becker, but the looming vote on his nomination is one of the reasons Brown is anxious to quickly take his seat.

Republicans complained on Monday when Democrats put forward the nomination of Patricia Smith to become the Labor Department's next top lawyer. Smith cleared a key procedural hurdle in the Senate on Monday with exactly 60 Democratic votes.

Smith is a former commissioner of the New York State labor department, where she developed a pro-union program aimed at improving labor-law compliance. "The concern is that she wouldn't be an impartial advocate in her position of solicitor and would put a heavy thumb on the scale in favor of the unions," said James Sherk a labor policy scholar at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank.