toadie800's Blog

DENVER - Many Mexicans increasingly feel unwelcome in Colorado because of a perceived anti-immigrant sentiment, and some are looking back home for opportunities as the U.S. economy sours, Denver's Mexican consul general says.

"What I've found is that in our communities, with few exceptions, there's a sense that the state (of Colorado) is not friendly toward immigrants, that they don't feel welcomed and that they encounter this feeling of, 'I don't like you but I need you,'" Eduardo Arnal said during a recent interview.

Arnal said that in his travels around Colorado people tell him about losing their jobs as the state's major employers — the construction and service industries — have seen a decline.
 
Subjects = Illegal Immigration, Colorado, economy, Eduardo Arnal, Mexican consul, employers, President Felipe Calderon, immigration bills, smuggling, state services, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, immigration authorities


November 23, 2008
Ivan Moreno
Associated Press
msnbc.com

We don't have statistics, but I can tell you with certainty that Mexicans are abandoning Colorado," he said. Some, he said, are "considering returning to Mexico definitely."

The U.S. Census suggests a drop, too. According to its data, there were an estimated 240,754 Mexicans in Colorado in 2005. That number increased in 2006 to 254,844 but fell to an estimated 243,253 in 2007.

Arnal, a former Mexican congressman and member of President Felipe Calderon's transition team, was named Denver's consul general in August 2007. His office serves Colorado, and he supervises consulates in Wyoming, Utah, Montana, Nebraska, Idaho, South Dakota and North Dakota.

To date, Arnal has visited 59 of the state's 64 counties. It is partly from those visits, aimed at establishing ties with local law enforcement and businesses, that he has drawn his own conclusions about the feelings of Mexican immigrants.

Arnal points to a series of immigration bills passed in 2006 during a special legislative session as one reason many Mexicans feel marginalized.

One law created a state patrol unit with the authority to enforce immigration law during routine patrols and curb human smuggling. The unit has arrested more than 930 suspected illegal immigrants since July 2007.

Another law barred immigrants from receiving some state services unless they prove they are in the country legally. Also in 2006, but during a regular legislative session, lawmakers passed a bill requiring police to report anyone they believe to be in the country illegally to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

"There are situations where people live in fear because they think that there are all of these pretexts in day-to-day life that can be used to report them to immigration authorities," Arnal said.

Arnal said one of his goals is to make Coloradans aware of Mexico's contribution to their economy.

Mexico is Colorado's second biggest trading partner after Canada — trade totaled $950 million in 2007 — and is the state's top source for agricultural products, Arnal said.

Mexico is the United States' third largest trading partner.

Founding Fathers included clause that prevents Clinton appointment

---

Posted: November 30, 2008
6:03 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2008 WorldNetDaily

 

Barack Obama, it has been reported, intends to announce Sen. Hillary Clinton as his choice for secretary of state, an appointment America's Founding Fathers forbade in the U.S. Constitution.

The constitutional quandary arises from a clause that forbids members of the Senate from being appointed to civil office, such as the secretary of state, if the "emoluments," or salary and benefits, of the office were increased during the senator's term.

 

The second clause of Article 1, Section 6, of the Constitution reads, "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."

During Hillary Clinton's current term in the Senate, the salary for Cabinet officers was increased from $186,600 to $191,300. Since the salary is scheduled to again be raised in January 2009, not only Hillary Clinton, but all sitting Senate members could be considered constitutionally ineligible to serve in Obama's Cabinet.

But wait! Is the entire Barack Obama administration unconstitutional? Where's the proof he was born in the U.S. and thus a "natural-born American" as required by Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution? If you still want to see it, sign WND's petition demanding the release of his birth certificate.

James Madison's notes on the debates that formed the Constitution explain the reason for the clause. Madison himself argued against "the evils" of corrupt governments where legislators created salaried positions – or increased the salary of positions – and then secured appointments to the cushy jobs they just created. Others agreed that such tactics were evident in Colonial and British government, and they wrote Article 1, Section 6 to prevent the practice.

Presidents in the past, however, have found a sometimes controversial way to skirt the clause and nonetheless fill their cabinet with constitutionally ineligible legislators.

In 1973, President Richard Nixon was able to appoint Sen. William B. Saxbe as his Attorney General, despite the fact the Saxbe was part of a Senate that nearly doubled Cabinet pay 1969, by convincing Congress to reduce Saxbe's pay as Attorney General to its pre-1969 levels.

The sidestep, since known as the "Saxbe fix," was also used by President Taft in 1909, President Carter and President George H. W. Bush, who actually implemented the fix to enable Sen. Lloyd Bentsen to serve as treasury secretary for President Clinton's incoming administration.

The so-called "fix," however, has been criticized as perhaps honoring the spirit of the law, but nonetheless violating a clearly written statute of the Constitution.

In the 1973 case, the Washington Post reports, 10 senators, all Democrats, voted against Saxbe's appointment on constitutional grounds. Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., the only one of them who remains in the Senate, said at the time that the Constitution was explicit and "we should not delude the American people into thinking a way can be found around the constitutional obstacle."

"The content of the rule here is broader than its purpose," Professor Michael Stokes Paulsen, a constitutional law expert at St. Thomas School of Law in Minneapolis, told MSNBC. "And the rule is the rule; the purpose is not the rule."

"A 'fix' can rescind the salary," Paulsen added, "but it cannot repeal historical events. The emoluments of the office had been increased. The rule specified in the text still controls."

And at least one administration, that of President Ronald Reagan, chose to avoid the controversy of the Saxbe fix by striking Sen. Orrin Hatch from a short list of potential Supreme Court nominees because of Hatch's ineligibility under Article 1, Section 6.

While questions remain about the constitutionality of the Saxbe fix in Clinton's case, some bloggers – such as Professor Eugene Volokh of the UCLA School of Law and Jack M. Balkin, professor of constitutional law at Yale – have pointed out that during her term of office, Hillary did not actually vote on an increase of Cabinet salaries. A 2008 executive order from President Bush created the increase, based on cost of living adjustments, leading some to argue that appointing Clinton doesn't violate the spirit of the law in Article 1, Section 6, at all.

Andrew Malcolm, whose blog is featured by the Los Angeles Times, however, believes the Constitution needs to be strictly followed.

"We're not lawyers. But we do speak English," Malcolm writes. "And to our eyes that constitutional clause doesn't say anything about getting around the provision by reducing or not benefiting from the increase of said 'Emoluments.'"

Malcolm continues, "It flat-out prohibits taking the civil office if the pay has been increased during the would-be appointee's elected term. Period. Which it has."

http://www.ksat.com/video/18021272/index.html

Barack Obama and George W. Bush seem to have come away from their study of the Great Depression with similar conclusions:

To wit: After the Crash of 1929, the Federal Reserve did not move fast enough to save the banks and inject cash into the economy. Second, the New Deal, far from being wastrel deficit spending, was not bold enough. So it was that America wallowed in depression for a decade until the unbridled spending and mammoth deficits of World War II pulled us out.

Bush and Obama seem determined not to make the same mistake.

We are all Keynesians now.

Thus, we have the $700 billion Bush bank bailout, the $700 billion "stimulus package" Obama wants by inauguration to "jolt this economy back into shape" and the $800 billion fund Hank Paulson created to get consumers borrowing and buying again.

These come on top of Bush $455 billion deficit, the $29 billion bailout of Bear Stearns, the $105 billion in pork to grease the $700 billion bailout, the $100 billion to $200 billion to keep Fannie and Freddie afloat, the $140-billion-and-counting for AIG, the $25 billion for the greening of GM, Ford and Chrysler, the $25 billion more to save the Big Three and the $20 billion for CitiGroup.

Now much of this overlaps, and some will be retrieved. But we are still staring at a deficit that could approach $2 trillion.

How would this stack up historically?

A deficit of $1.4 trillion would be 10 percent of gross domestic product, dwarfing the postwar record 6 percent run by Ronald Reagan in the Jimmy Carter recession.

Bewailing the "Reagan deficits" has been a staple of Democratic oratory. This will stop. But the politics of this is not the point, the policy is.

Consider what we are about to do. Bush in 2008 spent 21 percent of GDP. States, counties and cities spent another 12 percent. Thus, one third of GDP is spent by government at all levels. Obama and Co. propose to raise that by another 10 percent of GDP. We may soon be north of 40 percent of gross domestic product controlled and spent by government.

That is Eurosocialism.

And where, exactly, are we going to get the money?

Americans save nothing. We spend more than we earn. Thus the levels of consumer debt, credit card debt, auto debt and mortgage debt. U.S. foreign-exchange reserves amount to a piddling $73 billion.

The only nation with the kind of cash on hand we need now -- if we don't print the money and invite another gigantic bubble -- is China, with its $2 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves.

Will Beijing lend back the dollars it has piled up by selling to us?

China certainly has an incentive to keep Americans spending. For our purchases of Chinese-made goods have often been responsible for 100 percent of China's growth. China does not want to kill the American goose that lays those golden eggs -- until the goose can't lay any more eggs. Then they won't need the goose.

But should China decide to lend us the money, what will Beijing demand in interest rates and assurances that we will not default. After all, the U.S. debt is 70 percent of GDP, our savings rate is near zero, and our merchandise trade deficit is still running at 5 percent to 6 percent of GDP.

Unlike the 1950s, we are today dependent on foreigners for two-thirds of our oil and for much of our manufactured goods -- toys, TVs, radios, cameras, cars, shoes, clothes, bikes, motorcycles -- and for the $700 billion to $800 billion we borrow each year to pay for these imports.

With U.S. homeowners, consumers, companies and banks now going bust, why must the nation borrow trillions more to bail them out? So we can maintain our status and standard of living as the last superpower.

Bush and Obama are competing to shovel out trillions of dollars, so we can return to the good times of yesterday.

But wasn't yesterday the root cause of today? Didn't saving nothing and spending more than we earn, purchasing what we cannot afford in cars, consumer goods and houses, buying far more from abroad than we sell abroad -- didn't that cause this crisis and crash?

A family man in America's condition, awash in debt, spending more than he makes, would cut back consumption, find a second job and get out of debt. Or declare bankruptcy, accept the shame and humiliation, change his wastrel ways and start anew.

Is it different for a nation?

Yet we seem to believe we can borrow and spend our way out of a swamp of unpayable debt into which borrowing and spending have plunged us.

We are headed either for default on our debts and bankruptcy as a nation, or something less honorable: a quiet cheapening of the debts we have incurred by inflating and destroying the dollar, robbing our creditors of what we owe them and robbing our own people of the value of what they have earned. And so it has come to this.

What would the Founding Fathers think of us now?

November 30, 2008 -- American Patrol Report

The Associated Press is a well-known bleeding heart liberal organization. When reporting on illegal immigration they rarely point to murderous gangsters who have been deported. Rather they pick examples designed to illicit sympathy and, in turn, to immigration law enforcement.

Consider the following excerpts from two Associated Press stories posted recently.

"My sister lives in Beverly Hills. She goes to UCLA," Rivera said as he sat on a hot sidewalk waiting for a small migrant shelter to open for the night. "My mother is a cosmetologist and a nurse. She lives in Culver City. My girlfriend lives in Granada Hills, and she's manager of a restaurant. She's born over there. My daughter's born over there.

"What do I have here?" he continued. "Look at me. You think this is life?"

The 24-year-old construction worker who grew up near the Texas border was deported twice before this year, but he is indifferent on this cool morning at O'Hare International Airport.

"I'll probably be back," he told the Associated Press.

[...]

Arellano was born while his mother visited Mexico, but has several siblings who are U.S. citizens. His father died in 1993.

"I was supposed to be born in Texas, but I came out earlier," he said. "I haven't got any family in Mexico."

The lack of Obama showing his birth certificate has prompted the following in a chicago news paper.

http://www.americanpatrol.com/08-FEATURES/081130-FE
ATURE/ChicagoTribune-ObamaLtr-Nov-2008.pdf

http://www.americanpatrol.com/VIDEO/OBAMA/ShowMeTheDL_
BHO_081129.html

According to the WorldNetDaily headline above, that was the retort of an Obama campaign spokesperson when asked about complaints requesting that Senator Obama produce a valid Birth Certificate to prove that he is constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States.

   Article 2, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, states, "No person except a natural born citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."

   The Constitution of the United States is NOT "garbage" and furthermore, securing the rights of the people under the Constitution is NOT "garbage"!

   The Obama campaign's response is an elitist, condescending slap in the face to patriotic Americans. No one is above the law and Team Obama cannot make the question of Obama's eligibility go away by disrespecting the American people - and, by inference, the Constitution of the United States.

   That's why we just filed an action that Senator Obama will not be able to ignore... an action that WILL NOT GO AWAY!

   In fact, in my humble opinion... we will ONLY "LOSE" if we do NOT have the resources we need to carry on for as long as it takes, and we will "win" as long as we can carry on this fight (more on that later).

   SO PLEASE KEEP READING... I promise that when you're done, you will agree that we have filed the mother of all actions.

The United States Justice Foundation (USJF) is a nonprofit public interest, legal action organization and has been your conservative voice in the courts since 1979. And since USJF is a 501(c)3 nonprofit, your generous assistance is also TAX DEDUCTIBLE!

You can use this link or the hyperlink below to help - it's TAX DEDUCTIBLE. Is it worth a TAX DEDUCTIBLE effort of $5000 or $2500 or even $100 or $50 or $25 to defend the Constitution and the integrity of our electoral process?

The Obama campaign has a crack team of high-priced law firms - that's not three lawyers but THREE LAW FIRMS - that will use every means that money can buy to fight this action. We're relying on you and patriotic Americans like you.

https://secure.conservativedonations.com/usjf_house/?
a=1926

Please use the hyperlink above to make your best TAX-DEDUCTIBLE effort to be a part of this battle.

Why The "Berg Case" Is Dead In The Water And Why USJF Will Succeed...

   You probably already know that Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg filed a suit in U.S. District Court several months back contending that Senator Obama is not a "natural-born" citizen.

   And you probably already know that the court dismissed the suit claiming that Berg, as a private citizen, "lacked standing to bring the case."

   Of course, Berg is not the only one who has filed an action and the "Berg Case" is not the only one in which the courts have relied upon the lack-of-standing technicality.

   Georgia Superior Court Judge Jerry W. Baxter denied an action saying to the plaintiff Rev. Tom Terry, "I don't think you have standing to bring this suit."

   Washington State Superior Court Judge John Erlick dismissed yet another suit ruling that even the Secretary of State did not have authority to inquire about Senator Obama's birth certificate.

   Can you believe it?  What's going on? Well, perhaps Berg said it best;

"This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be president of the United States - the commander in chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?"

  Of course, Berg's statement also illustrates why the "Berg Case" and some of these other actions are doomed to fail and why we believe our action WILL succeed!

   Simply stated, the lack-of-standing argument is already out there. Yes, it's egregious but the all too sad reality is that judges will continue to grab onto it like a life-preserver now that it has been put into play... the die has been cast!

   That's why USJF is taking a different approach. Our petitioners are Dr. Alan Keyes, Dr. Wiley S. Drake, Sr. and Markham Robinson!

   We state in the Petition we just filed with the court:

"The parties in this case have standing to bring this litigation, due to the fact that Dr. Keyes and Dr. Drake, Sr., are candidates on the California ballot for President and Vice President of the United States, and Mr. Robinson is an Elector for the Keyes-Drake ticket, and Vice Chairman of America's Independent Party, of Fenton, Michigan, which nominated Dr. Keyes for President. He is also a Chairman of the American Independent Party (California), which nominated Dr. Keyes and Dr. Drake for President and Vice President, respectively. Based on the foregoing, it is imperative for SOS to be provided proof that Senator Obama is a 'natural born' citizen."

  Alan Keyes and Wiley Drake were actually on the ballot in California and Markham Robinson is an Elector for Keyes-Drake. If they don't have standing, one would be hard-pressed to find ANYONE who has standing and if the court attempts to use the lack-of-standing argument, it's an implied admission that NO ONE has standing to enforce the Constitution!
The Usurper-in-Chief...

   Now... a dose of reality. Frankly, a case of this magnitude could be in the courts for years. There are no quick solutions... BUT THAT'S OKAY.

   The key is in the following statement which also appears in the Petition:

"Should Senator Obama be discovered, after he takes office, to be ineligible for the Office of President of the United States of America and, thereby, his election declared void, Petitioners, as well as other Americans, will suffer irreparable harm in that an usurper will be sitting as the President of the United States, and none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal."

   Part of that statement bears repeating:

"... none of the treaties, laws, or executive orders signed by him will be valid or legal."

   In other words, as long as this case is in the courts, a cloud hangs over Senator Obama's head and for the sake of our Constitution and our Republic, the issue MUST be resolved!

   If President Obama issues an Executive Order to rescind the Mexico City Policy and allows the tax dollars of Americans to fund organizations that promote abortions overseas, the door to question the legitimacy of that Executive Order remains open.

   If President Obama signs a treaty with an unfriendly power or an agreement with the United Nations, the door to question the legitimacy of that treaty remains open.

   If President Obama signs a bill granting amnesty to illegal aliens into law, the door to question the legitimacy of that law remains open.

   If President Obama appoints new Commissioners to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) who bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, the door to question those appointments and the legitimacy of the actions taken by his appointees remains open.

    That's not to say that he can't or won't be able to fulfill the duties of his office, but until this matter is resolved... until he can validate that he is constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States, the door will always remain open to question and challenge the legitimacy of his actions and the dire consequences of those actions.

Thanksgiving around a ping-pong table

Tuesday 11-25-2008 6:16am MThttp://khow.com/pages/boyles.html this is the link incase

http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=916

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82
031                                       
      

Lawyer lining up plaintiff groups until citizenship dispute addressed

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view

&pageId=82033

Tuesday 11-25-2008 6:16am MThttp://khow.com/pages/boyles.html this is the link incase

http://my.wrif.com/mim/?p=916

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82
031

 

Lawyer lining up plaintiff groups until citizenship dispute addressed

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view

&pageId=82033