Obama is the first ever American President to give a press conference without the American flag.

It’s only a trespassing charge, but there is something really gratifying about seeing the corrupt, race-baiting Bertha Lewis being led away in handcuffs. This happened just yesterday, at an immigration rally in NYC. Skip ahead to the 7:30 mark to see the arrest (Lewis is dressed in all white, at the far left of the still image below):

But don’t take my word for it, Bertha Lewis outlined the whole strategy just a couple of months ago:

By Judson Berger

- FOXNews.com

A member of Arizona’s top government utilities agency threw down the gauntlet in a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, threatening to cut off the city’s power supply as retribution for the city’s boycott of Arizona.

If Los Angeles wants to boycott Arizona, it had better get used to reading by candlelight.

That’s the message from a member of Arizona’s top government utilities agency, who threw down the gauntlet Tuesday in a letter to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa by threatening to cut off the city’s power supply as retribution.

Gary Pierce, a commissioner on the five-member Arizona Corporation Commission, wrote the letter in response to the Los Angeles City Council’s decision last week to boycott the Grand Canyon State — in protest of its immigration law — by suspending official travel there and ending future contracts with state businesses.

Noting that a quarter of Los Angeles’ electricity comes from Arizona power plants, Pierce threatened to pull the plug if the City Council does not reconsider.

“Doggone it — if you’re going to boycott this candy store … then don’t come in for any of it,” Pierce told FoxNews.com.

In the letter, he ridiculed Villaraigosa for saying that the point of the boycott was to “send a message” by severing the “resources and ties” they share.

“I received your message; please receive mine. As a statewide elected member of the Arizona Corporation Commission overseeing Arizona’s electric and water utilities, I too am keenly aware of the ‘resources and ties’ we share with the city of Los Angeles,” Pierce wrote.

“If an economic boycott is truly what you desire, I will be happy to encourage Arizona utilities to renegotiate your power agreements so Los Angeles no longer receives any power from Arizona-based generation.”

Appearing to tap into local frustration in Arizona over the raft of boycotts and threatened boycotts from cities across the country, including Los Angeles, Pierce warned that Arizona companies are willing and ready to fight boycott with boycott.

“I am confident that Arizona’s utilities would be happy to take those electrons off your hands,” Pierce wrote. “If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s economy.”

Pierce told FoxNews.com that he was speaking for himself, not the entire commission, though he has the support of at least one other member. But Arizona has some serious leverage over Los Angeles, as well as the rest of California. The state and city get electricity from a nuclear power plant outside Phoenix, as well as from coal-fired power plants in northern Arizona and two giant hydroelectric power generators along the Colorado River.

Despite that, the Los Angeles City Council voted overwhelmingly last week to ban future business with Arizona — a decision that could cost Arizona millions of dollars in lost contracts.

Los Angeles officials were furious with the Arizona immigration law passed last month and joined local officials in cities across the country in pushing boycotts to register their dismay. Critics say the law will lead to racial profiling and civil rights abuses.

Arizona officials have defended the law, saying the state needed to take its illegal immigration problem into its own hands. Pierce said he’s “supportive” of the state’s efforts to control the border.

The law requires local law enforcement to try to verify the immigration status of anyone they have contact with whom they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. It empowers them to turn over verified illegal immigrants to federal custody. The legislation explicitly prohibits screening people based solely on race or national origin.

By: Devvy
May 14, 2010

Worldnetdaily carried a headline earlier this week regarding Barack Hussein Obama, aka Barry Soetoro, aka Barry Obama, aka Barack Dunham, aka Barry Dunham using a social security number issued in the state of Connecticut.

NEW YORK – “Two private investigators working independently are asking why President Obama is using a Social Security number set aside for applicants in Connecticut while there is no record he ever had a mailing address in the state.

“In addition, the records indicate the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, yet Obama’s earliest employment reportedly was in 1975 at a Baskin-Robbins ice-cream shop in Oahu, Hawaii.

“WND has copies of affidavits filed separately in a presidential eligibility lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia by Ohio licensed private investigator Susan Daniels and Colorado private investigator John N. Sampson.

“The investigators believe Obama needs to explain why he is using a Social Security number reserved for Connecticut applicants that was issued at a date later than he is known to have held employment.”

This issue has been around for quite some time; I wrote a column about it November, 5, 2009:

“In a letter from licensed investigator Susan Daniels to Judge Carter, Ms. Daniels states:

“I am the private investigator who contacted Dr. Orly Taitz when I found that Barack Obama has been using a bogus social security number for years, which is a felony. I have been a licensed investigator for almost fifteen years and recognized it immediately as fraudulent.”

“While this may well be true, without any documentation to prove Obama used all those SSNs (For what purpose? Tax evasion, fraud regarding business transactions or campaign cash?), we just don’t know. Several months ago, I had email exchange with an individual (I will not name for privacy), who believes Obama used his former home address for fraudulent reasons. This person seems to have good grounds support his allegation. However, only a full blown criminal investigation by law enforcement (like DOJ) would provide evidence.”

Long ago, Neil Sankey was once attached to elite Scotland Yard units which hunted down IRA bombers and other high level criminals. He is now semi-retired from a life long career as a private investigator. Sankey collected hundreds of SSNs belonging to dozens of Barack Obama’s, Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama’s mother) and Michelle Obama. As they were in no order, I put them in three separate files:

Barack Hussein Obama
Stanley Ann Dunham(his deceased mother)
Michelle Obama

Due to a corrupt Congress that stood mute and accepted the Electoral College vote, even though the issue of Obama’s citizenship was a raging issue in this country, the communist occupying the White House has done enormous damage to this republic. The entire Congress who sat there without raising a single objection demonstrated the greatest act of cowardice in my life time. I expected nothing less from the Democrats in Congress. There isn’t one of them with an ounce of integrity or honor. I can only assume the cowardice displayed by incumbent Republicans was either fear or “we lost, get over it.” Either way, it was and is inexcusable.

There’s no need to cover all the lawsuits. There are still two remaining: (1) Appeal in the Kerchner v Obama case -  filed last November 2009. A motion for leave to file supplemental Appendix was filed April 20, 1010.  It is astounding that the courts feel no urgency in dealing with usurpers.

The same putrid situation is dragging on regarding the removal of usurper, Marxist Hillary Clinton [1] That lawsuit was filed January 29, 2009. The appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed December 31, 2009. In the meantime, Clinton is running around the globe playing Secretary of State. This is an outrage. The courts are over loaded, but when it comes to high level public officials like Obama/Soetoro and Clinton, the courts, must put those cases ahead of others for obvious reasons. Instead, they’re sitting on them. Now, there is another grossly unqualified candidate (Sotomayer the other) nominated to the high court, Kagan. These games are sickening and the American people should be outraged.

The second case is the Leo Donofrio and Stephen Pidgeon lawsuit on behalf of the Chrysler dealers. That one will take time. But, time is not on our side. The date for Lt. Col. Lakin’s Article 32 hearing is set for June 11, 2010. Everyday Comrade Obama remains in office is a crime, yet an honorable 18 year veteran of our military faces court martial and prison because he is entitled to the truth about the commander in chief. The dark forces who own Washington, DC., will go to any lengths to protect the big lie.

I don’t know for a fact that Obama/Soetoro has been using one or more fake social security numbers, but where there’s smoke, there’s usually a fire.

Rev. David Manning, has been on Obama since he became aware of the serious, constitutional question of Obama/Soetoro’s citizenship. Dr. Manning is chief pastor at the ATLAH World Missionary Church in NYC. Because Congress and the courts (never mind the lackey media and that includes cable networks like FAUX, CNN and MSNBC) refuse to stop the fraud of Comrade Obama occupying the White House, Dr. Manning decided to hold a trial:

“Starting Friday and for a full week, the Atlah World Missionary Church will hold in essence a citizen’s court in what it bills as “the greatest trial in American history.”

“The trial, which will include legal scholars and retired court officers, will examine several issues, including Obama’s birth place, his citizenship status, his academic credentials and alleged ties to the Central Intelligence Agency as a student.

“The Atlah World Missionary Church, headed by Rev. James Manning, says the proceedings are not a mock trial and are permitted under the U.S. Constitution:

“A number of Americans have been gravely concerned about the eligibility issue of Barack Obama… We have been able to look at the briefs filed by several attorneys and the courts have just refused categorically to allow any access or due process on the matter… We are going to call a 10th Amendment sanctioned trial. It is not a grand jury, it’s not a hearing, it’s a trial and we are going to follow all the rules and practices of both federal and state jurisprudence… We are going to adjudicate this trial in such a way that it will be historically respectful and appellate proof.”

The trial begins Saturday. On Friday, May 14, 2010, Rev. Manning will lead a protest march at Columbia University. The entire trial will be filmed and media will there in full force; there will be transcripts. Of course, you won’t hear anything about it on ABC, NBC or CBS. Likely any mention on CNN or MSNBC will be a slam against “the birthers.” Master gas bag, Bill O’Reilly, will simply label Rev. Manning a loon and move on to some sex story.

Apparently there is at least one law professor who doesn’t believe Manning’s effort has any clout:

“Meanwhile, a Constitution law professor at Southern University in Baton Rouge says the American Grand Jury  doesn’t hold the clout the Manning team espouses. This professor, who wants anonymity, and when asked about Justice Antonin Scolia’s opinion of the court in United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992), says he wouldn’t accept anything Scalia says and despises all people on the far left and the far right. Yet, this position the professor takes goes completely against what the Supreme Court found in their decision in that 1992 case; the power is placed in the hands of the people in the American Grand Jury as the Fourth Branch of Government.”

The case referred to here is: United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36 at 48 (1992)

“This Court’s cases relying upon that power deal strictly with the courts’ control over their own procedures, whereas the grand jury is an institution separate from the courts, over whose functioning the courts do not preside….”

And:

“[R]ooted in long centuries of Anglo-American history,” Hannah v. Larche, 363 U.S. 420, 490 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), the grand jury is mentioned in the Bill of Rights, but not in the body of the Constitution. It has not been textually assigned, therefore, to any of the branches described in the first three Articles. It “`is a constitutional fixture in its own right.’” United States v. Chanen, 549 F.2d 1306, 1312 (CA9 1977) (quoting Nixon v. Sirica, 159 U.S. App. D.C. 58, 70, n. 54, 487 F.2d 700, 712, n. 54 (1973)), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 825 (1977). In fact, the whole theory of its function is that it belongs to no branch of the institutional Government, serving as a kind of buffer or referee between the Government and the people. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960); Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43, 61 (1906); G. Edwards, The Grand Jury 28-32 (1906). Although the grand jury normally operates, of course, in the courthouse and under judicial auspices, its institutional relationship with the Judicial Branch has traditionally been, so to speak, at arm’s length. Judges’ direct involvement in the functioning of the grand jury has generally been confined to the constitutive one of calling the grand jurors together and administering their oaths of office. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343 (1974); Fed. Rule Crim.Proc. 6(a).  [504 U.S. 36, 48]

“The grand jury’s functional independence from the Judicial Branch is evident both in the scope of its power to investigate criminal wrongdoing and in the manner in which that power is exercised. “Unlike [a] [c]ourt, whose jurisdiction is predicated upon a specific case or controversy, the grand jury `can investigate merely on suspicion that the law is being violated, or even because it wants assurance that it is not.’” United States v. R. Enterprises, Inc.,498 U.S. 292, 297 (1991) (quoting United States v. Morton Salt Co.,338 U.S. 632, 642-643 (1950)). It need not identify the offender it suspects, or even “the precise nature of the offense” it is investigating. Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 282 (1919). The grand jury requires no authorization from its constituting court to initiate an investigation, see Hale, supra, at 59-60, 65, nor does the prosecutor require leave of court to seek a grand jury indictment. And in its day-to-day functioning, the grand jury generally operates without the interference of a presiding judge. See Calandra, supra, at 343. It swears in its own witnesses, Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 6(c), and deliberates in total secrecy, see United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 424 -425 (1983).”

Now, going back to fraud. Besides the issue of Comrade Obama using fake or multiple SSNs, there is also the issue of did Nancy Pelosi and others commit fraud when they submitted Comrade Obama’s candidate certification to the 50 Secretary of State’s prior to the election? I believe the answer is yes. I also obtained the “official” documents submitted here in Texas to our Secretary of State. There’s no question of fraud. Now, where’s law enforcement?

Obama/Soetoro has always known he was ineligible due to his father’s citizenship status at the time of his birth, yet he solicited over $600 million dollars in campaign funds and is guilty of wire fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343. That’s down the line, but he knows.

What can be done about this? We all remember when Ken Starr was appointed Special Counsel to investigate Marxist Bill Clinton about Whitewater, the death of former White House Counsel, Vince Foster and then lying about Monica Lewinsky servicing him in the Oval Office. At that time under the statute, a three-judge panel was charged with administering the Independent Counsel Act.

The Office of Special Counsel in the United States Department of Justice replaced the former Office of the Independent Counsel in 1999. The updated version is charged with investigating alleged misconduct in the federal government’s executive branch. The Office of Special Counsel is supposed to be an independent agency; it is also charged with protecting civil service employees from unfair personnel practices. The current Special Counsel is Patrick Fitzgerald, who was appointed in 2003 by Deputy Attorney General  James B. Comey.

Eric Holder is the Attorney General; a corrupt political animal guilty of obstruction of justice in the Michael Trentadue murder.

Could Patrick Fitzgerald in his capacity as Special Counsel open an investigation into the allegations of social security fraud and all the testimony and whatever hard evidence comes from Rev. Manning’s trial taking place right now? Comey, due to a conflict of interest in the Valerie Plame affair with Ashcroft, appointed Patrick Fitzgerald under Department of Justice regulation 28 CFR Part 600.

In a second letter to Fitzgerald from Comey dated February 6, 2004, he crystallized the authority of the Special Counsel: “…further, my conferral on you of the title of ‘Special Counsel’ in this matter should not be misunderstood to suggest that your position and authorities are defined and limited by 28 CFR Part 600.”

It goes without saying that Eric Holder will never give up Obama/Soetoro, which means he will never authorize Fitzgerald to act in his capacity as Special Counsel to open an investigation into:

1. Fraud: Obama/Soetoro and social security numbers
2. Fraud by Nancy Pelosi and others to ballot qualify Obama/Soetoro for the 2008 presidential election knowing full well he was not constitutionally eligible
3. Any and all real evidence in the possession of Rev. David Manning and testimony of witnesses. According to Rev. Manning, two could blow this wide open:

DR. MANNING: “Right now, we are anticipating at least two government officials will testify. One will be through statements that will be uttered that will be documented, and the other will be a physical presentation where he will actually take the stand.

MRS. RONDEAU: “And are they in government now or were they past employees of the federal government?”

DR. MANNING: “One is in government now, and one is a past employee.”

MRS. RONDEAU: “How did you reach out to them and when?”

DR. MANNING: “Actually, one reached out to me and the other became a matter of my investigation discovery.”

Dr. Manning is nobody’s fool and he has put his reputation and credibility on the line big time.

4. Any and all employees regardless of level of Occidental College and Columbia University who altered records to protect Obama/Soetro.

Fitzgerald is very familiar with Comrade Obama from investigations originating from his office which put Tony Rezko, big bud of Obama, in federal prison. On-going is Fitzgerald’s investigation of former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. I would bet a lot that should a real investigation as Special Counsel be opened and conducted by Fitzgerald, all of the above and more would be exposed to the world.

How could this happen? I don’t know because I’m not an attorney. Can Fitzgerald open a RICO without Eric Holder’s permission? Can he as Special Counsel open a full investigation and convene a federal grand jury without Eric Holder’s permission? The Office of Special Counsel is supposed to be an independent agency, but reading § 600.4  Jurisdiction. from 28 C.F.R. PART 600—General Powers of Special Counsel it says:

(a) Original jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a Special Counsel shall be established by the Attorney General. The Special Counsel will be provided with a specific factual statement of the matter to be investigated.

Do I read the fox guarding the hen house? When you have an AG as dirty as Eric Holder, where do we the people go for justice? We the people need the advice of some good constitutional attorneys. There has to be a way to have the Special Counsel investigate fraud and other crimes even if the Attorney General doesn’t want to do it to protect an individual who has usurped the office of president of these united States of America.

If there is a way, then we the people need to go into overdrive in putting the heat on Fitzgerald to open an investigation. If it means marches and demonstrations in front of his office, then it gets done. If it means a massive campaign like Worldnetdaily.com has been doing with bill boards and petitions, then we get it done and we keep the pressure on until an investigation is opened. No more secrecy. No more protecting the criminal syndicate out in Washington, DC. This is our country, not theirs. We have a right to a legitimate president and opening a full blown investigation will not only expose the fraud, but also the cover up regarding Obama’s past.

The issue of his dual citizenship at birth, by his own admission, still has to be settled by a court. One step at a time. First, we need to find out if Fitzgerald in his official capacity as Special Counsel can open an investigation. This is one of the greatest frauds in the history of our republic. We can’t give up. I am hopeful this column will spur on some of these larger organizations who have attorneys they can consult with about the statues governing the Special Counsel and make their qualified opinion available on the Internet. Then we the people will go into action.

Footnote

[1] Judicial Watch lawsuit to remove Clinton
Appeal filed January

Implementation of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Special Council Regulation

Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law
of the Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
February 26, 2008
Serial No. 110-172

Pay particular attention to the testimony beginning on page 123 - 126 and
Patrick Fitzgerald’s testimony beginning on page 128.

B-302582, Special Counsel and Permanent Indefinite Appropriation
September 30, 2004

The Nonsense Published by Our Nation’s Editors
Regarding Obama’s Eligibility to be President

Obama, the Putative President of the U.S., was Born a British Subject
Governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948, and is Currently
also a British Protected Person and/or a British Citizen to This Day

Eye-popper: Is Nancy Pelosi in on eligibility cover-up?

NWC Leads Worldwide Letter Writing Campaign for
Independent Review of Major Tax Fraud Whistleblower
(Corruption is Eric Holder’s middle name)

Google hides Obama’s Social Security Number story
(Which is why I use www.scroogle.org)
Devvy’s Obama Archives

Obama’s proven communist connections in Hawaii and Chicago :

Hawaii

Chicago

Devvy Kidd authored the booklets, Why A Bankrupt America and Blind Loyalty; 2 million copies distributed. Devvy appears on radio shows all over the country. She left the Republican Party in 1996 and has been an independent voter ever since. Devvy is a constitutionalist who believes in the supreme law of the land, not some political party.

Visit Devvy’s website at: http://www.devvy.com. You can also sign up for her free email alerts. Devvy’s radio show broadcasts Mon-Fri. To listen, go to: http://www.devvy.com/new_site/rense_show.html

Marxism 101….

(RCP)- “Any health care funding plan that is just equitable civilized and humane must, must redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and the less fortunate. Excellent health care is by definition redistributional,” Donald Berwick said. Berwick is Obama’s nominee to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

Columbia Trial to begin Friday

The Eligibility Question has been answered

AKA Obama Ineligible if he was born on the steps of the Capital in D.C.

The Radical Left came up with a new term to ridicule anyone that questions Obama's eligibility, Got Birther or Dualer!?

New Ad - Washington Times Natl Wkly - 3 May 2010 Issue on Pg 5 - The Minister of Lands in Kenya Declares Obama "was born here in Kenya"

By Chuck Baldwin
April 30, 2010
NewsWithViews.com

Open borders advocates are livid that the State of Arizona has enacted a new law authorizing State law enforcement personnel to arrest illegal aliens. The Reverend Al Sharpton is threatening to march. The mayor of San Francisco has declared Arizona off limits as a travel destination. The national government of Mexico has issued travel warnings. President Barack Obama is contemplating bringing a federal lawsuit against the State. Some are calling for a boycott of the State.

So, why all the fuss?

The State of Arizona is rightly sick and tired of the federal government's refusal to protect our nation (and the State of Arizona specifically) from this foreign invasion that is commonly referred to as "illegal immigration." In other words, the State of Arizona has said, "If the federal government won't enforce the law, we will." I say, good for them! Now, the other border states (Texas, New Mexico, and California) should do the same thing. Arizona has it right, and the vast majority of the American people know it.

As an aside, if you are considering a visit to the American Southwest this summer, why not support the brave legislators and governor of Arizona, and make a point to spend your leisure dollars in Arizona? And when you do, write a letter to the State capitol and tell them. Even more importantly, I suggest that everyone contact their own State representatives, senators, and governors, and urge them to enact a similar law--to the one Arizona passed--in your State.

And since the national news media refuses to set the record straight on the subject of illegal immigration (one could even say that the national news media is deliberately covering up the record), let's do that right here and now.

First, let's talk about numbers. Even though the Census Bureau (CB) estimates 11 million illegal aliens live in America, the real numbers are much higher. Even CB officials admit that many illegal aliens purposely avoid the census count. A more reliable count is provided by Bear Stearns. It puts the number of illegal aliens at around 20 million. Former US Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), who was Chairman of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, puts the number at over 18 million.

According to Tennesseans for Responsible Immigration Policies (TNRIP), 6,000 immigrants arrive in America EVERY DAY. That equates to more than 2 million EVERY YEAR. In many communities in the Southwest, including Los Angeles, California, and Houston, Texas, Hispanics now comprise a majority of the population. But numbers of illegal aliens are quickly beginning to mount in cities throughout the United States.

For example, TNRIP documents the fact that the Hispanic population grew in three Tennessee counties by more than 70% between 2000 and 2004. In one of those counties (Robertson) it grew over 95% during that time. In seven Tennessee counties, the Hispanic population grew by more than 40%. Now, Tennessee can hardly be considered a "border state." The fact is, what is happening in Tennessee is happening all over the United States. And lest you think this is all harmless, think again.

According to TNRIP, the financial cost of this foreign invasion to U.S. taxpayers is staggering! Here is a breakdown of the annual costs:

Education: $22.5 billion
Bi-lingual Education: $3.3 billion
AFDC: $2.4 billion
SSI: $2.9 billion
Social Security: $24.8 billion
Housing Assistance: $2.6 billion
Criminal Justice: $2.6 billion
Jobs Lost by Americans: $10.8 billion
Other Programs: $51.4 billion
Food Stamps: $7 billion
Health Care: $1.4 billion

The first study of the net cost of illegal immigration to American taxpayers was conducted in 1997 by Dr. Donald Huddle, Professor Emeritus of Economics at Rice University. This study concluded that from 1970 to 1997, illegal immigration had cost taxpayers over $69 billion. Obviously, the financial numbers have exploded since then.

Furthermore, during 1996 alone, more than 2.3 million American workers were displaced by (mostly) illegal aliens. Harvard Professor George Borjas estimates that today American workers lose $133 billion per year in wage depression and job loss.

Back in 2007 it was reported, "LA County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich announced that a new report shows illegal aliens and their families collected over $35 million in welfare and food stamp allocations in July.

"In the report, illegals are said to have collected nearly $20 million in welfare assistance for July 2007 and an additional $15 million in monthly food stamp allocations for an estimated annual cost of $440 million.

"'Illegal immigration continues to have a devastating impact on Los Angeles County taxpayers,' said Antonovich. 'In addition to $220 million for public safety and $400 million for healthcare, the $440 million in welfare allocations bring the total cost to County taxpayers that exceeds $1 billion a year--this does not include the skyrocketing cost of education.'"

Advertisement

Consider, too, this recent report by Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector. According to Byron York at National Review, "Rector found that in 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available, low-skill households received an average of $32,138 per household--the great majority in the form of means-tested aid and direct benefits. (Rector excluded from that figure the cost of public goods and interest; with those included, he says, each low-skill household receives an average of $43,084.) Against that, Rector found that low-skill households paid an average of $9,689 in taxes. (The biggest chunk of that was the Social Security tax--$2,509--followed by state and local taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes, and federal income taxes, but Rector counted everything, including highway levies and lottery purchases.) In the final calculation, he found, the average low-skill household received $22,449 more in benefits than it paid in taxes--the $32,138 in benefits, excluding public goods, minus the $9,689 in taxes.

"Taking that $22,449, and multiplying it by the 17.7 million low-skill households, Rector found that the total deficit for such households was $397 billion in 2004. 'Over the next ten years the total cost of low-skill households to the taxpayer (immediate benefits minus taxes paid) is likely to be at least $3.9 trillion,' Rector writes. 'This number would go up significantly if changes in immigration policy lead to substantial increases in the number of low-skill immigrants entering the country and receiving services.'"

See York's column here.

It has been noted that 75% of people on LA's most-wanted list are illegal aliens. Nearly 25% of all inmates in California detention centers are here illegally, and roughly 30% of inmates in the federal prisons are illegal aliens.

In addition, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reports half of all gang members in Los Angeles are most likely illegals from south of the border. According to Tancredo, gang membership by illegal aliens in many states is 50%, and in Phoenix, Arizona, illegal aliens constitute 34% of child-molestation and 40% of auto theft cases.

Furthermore, illegal aliens murder (on average) 12 Americans EVERY DAY, according to Congressman Steve King (R-Iowa). Plus, illegals that drive drunk kill another 13 Americans EVERY DAY. That means illegal aliens kill more Americans EVERY YEAR than have been killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in total.

See the report here.

Of course, Arizonans are still reeling from the recent high profile murder of a fellow citizen on his own property by an illegal.

Law enforcement agencies are very much cognizant of a surge in Latin American "ultra-violent" gangs that have sprung up in more than 40 US states. According to the FBI, one gang called MS-13 has been identified in 42 states. Another group called the 18th Street Gang is in 37 states. According to FBI MS-13 National Gang Task Force director Brian Truchon, "When the gang migrates throughout the U.S., there is always a road back to L.A. From L.A., there is always a road back to Central America."

Retired lawman Jim Kouri wrote, "According to Lt. Steve Rogers, a decorated cop and award-winning writer, there are tens of thousands of murderers, rapists, child predators, robbers and drug dealers who are illegally in the United States. One study shows over 200,000 criminal aliens are preying on U.S. citizens."

What the Arizona law does is authorize its law enforcement personnel to ENFORCE THE LAW. No one in Arizona is talking about racial profiling or violating citizens' constitutional rights. In fact, the new Arizona law actually mirrors already established federal law. But the federal government has hamstrung State and local police agencies in their attempts to arrest illegals for decades. Now, Arizona policemen can arrest illegals for being in the State of Arizona illegally, and have them deported: something they should have been doing (and have every right to do) all along. No wonder the vast majority of the American people (not to mention the citizens of Arizona) supports the Arizona law.

But there is a greater issue here: the right of the State of Arizona to protect, defend, and govern itself. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the State sovereignty movement is growing like a wildfire. Whether it is Arizona, Montana, Idaho, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Georgia, Texas, Florida, Alaska, or a couple dozen other states, legislators are beginning to awaken to the constitutional and moral responsibility of each State to govern itself. And when the central government in Washington, D.C., abridges or impedes that responsibility, it is the right and duty of states to resist.

This is why I tell people everywhere I speak, What is going on in [Your State] is infinitely more important than anything that goes on in Washington, D.C. Without the approbation of the State, DC's actions and attitudes are irrelevant. This is why we need county sheriffs, State legislators, State judges, State attorneys general, and governors who--along with their State's citizenry--understand the Constitution and are willing to courageously hold the line for freedom and constitutional government in their respective states. And by passing this anti-illegal alien bill, the State of Arizona did just that--the chagrin and consternation of open borders advocates notwithstanding.

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

© 2010 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

Jack Cafferty, CNN, Truth about AZ illegal immigration bill, Obama and Democrat lies, Arizona law mimics federal law, Cafferty speaks truth

May 2, 2010 · 12 Comments

It's easy to tell where he went off the teleprompter:

I mean, I do think at a certain point you've made enough money.

No doubt he would agree with Ralph Nader's suggestion that at a certain income level, the tax rate should be 100%, so that every single penny of wealth created is seized by greedy, parasitical bureaucrats to be flushed down the toilet instead of used to expand and create jobs.

A country that puts people like this in positions of authority will not have an even partially free market for long. Consequently it won't be prosperous for long.