ANTI-Latino Racial Profiling Growing in America!

Guest Voz: Nick Valencia is a national news desk editor and former head of the CNN Spanish Desk
Atlanta (CNN) -- "Go home!" she yelled at me. "Why don't you go back home to Mexico before you ruin this country like you ruined your own!" I was standing in a crowd at the Music Midtown festival in Atlanta, where I live. A few minutes earlier I'd met a group of five people who'd been standing in front of me -- here from Mexico City -- and I had begun speaking Spanish with them.

Atlanta has a growing Latino community, and I am actively involved. Whenever I get the chance to speak to someone in Spanish here, I introduce myself. My new acquaintances and I were talking about what a great time we were having and how remarkable the city of Atlanta was for bringing back the festival to Piedmont Park.

And that's when I heard the yelling woman next to me. As if "go home" wasn't clear enough, the woman -- a 20-something Caucasian -- repeated the words in Spanish. "Vete!" I froze. I didn't quite know what to say, and I didn't want to believe she was talking to me or the group of people I had just met.

Nick ValenciaAs a third-generation Mexican-American growing up in Los Angeles, I had never encountered such overt racism. In fact, because my family was long since assimilated, among my Latino friends I was always considered the "pocho" or "white boy" of the group. (As I write this, a part of me knows somewhere in L.A., a friend of mine will be proud to know someone actually considered me Mexican enough to yell "go home" at me.)

My Mexican friends remind me that I am American first, Mexican second and that my English is better than my Spanish. "Yes," I tell them. "But I can never walk into a room and be white."

Evidently, to some the brown color of my skin means I'm not even American. My friends and family tell me what I experienced that night is a microcosm of what is happening to Latinos across the country. You don't have to look hard to find it. In news stories, in political discourse, on talk radio, in everyday conversation it seems it has become OK to treat Latinos in a negative and antagonistic way -- whether they are new immigrants or longtime Americans. The anti-immigration legislation sweeping across the United States has made this plain. People in my Latino networks say they've noticed the change. And now I understand what they mean.

Like many Americans whose grandparents or parents came here from somewhere else, I live at the intersection of my two cultures. I eat tacos, but I love cheeseburgers. I go salsa dancing, and listen to rock n' roll. I speak Spanish and English, and depending on the crowd, sometimes Spanglish. I love my country and my cultural community. My duality is my reality, just like the 50 million other Latinos in the United States.

I have been luckier than many. Before this incident, the closest I'd ever come to blatant racism was in junior high. I was in the jazz band and played first trumpet. One day our jazz band teacher invited in his predecessor, a local legend who had made Eagle Rock High School's jazz program famous in the 1980s.

The visiting instructor pointed me out and asked me to play him 16 bars of music. I did, but he quickly interrupted. "Stop, stop, stop. I don't want to hear any of that mariachi music. This is jazz."

I didn't think anything of it. Instead I felt terrible that the legend standing in front of me didn't think I was good enough. I went home that night, and like every night, at 6:30 p.m. my family sat down for dinner to talk about our day.

"How was your day, Nicky?" my dad asked. So I told him. Outraged, the next day he went to my principal and filed a formal complaint. The legend didn't come back to visit the jazz program again. Weeks later we received a letter in the mail from him apologizing for his insensitive comments. My family saved the letter.

My father was hypersensitive to ethnic identity and deeply proud of his Latino heritage. The son of a naturalized immigrant from El Salvador and a Mexican mother from Texas, he grew up in Los Angeles during a time of racial tension. When I was young he would tell me stories of the race riots in his high school, violence against people of color, and awful accounts of the struggle he had to make it as a Mexican-American teen in the 1960s.

He died when I was 17 years old, but one of the phrases he implanted in my mind before he passed was a statement activist Cesar Chavez made famous: "Si se puede" -- "Yes you can."

And now, here I was, at 28, with this stranger yelling at me to "leave." I stood there in the middle of a damp crowd on a late Atlanta evening, not comprehending, the wind still and the vibrations of Coldplay's "Yellow" filling the space in the air. I didn't say a thing. I didn't have to.

The crowd around us looked in amazement at this woman. Some of them spoke up to her, telling her she was wrong to talk to us like that. The group of people from Mexico City looked at her in disgust and, realizing from the look on my face that I must not be accustomed to what I was hearing, they turned toward me to offer support.

One of them, a young man, grabbed my hand and raised it high in the air. "Estamos aqui," he said, which translates to "We are here." It was the "Si se puede" moment.

The (crazy) woman continued to taunt us for some minutes, but when we did not reciprocate her hatred, she stopped. The band played a few more songs before ending the set, and the crowd dispersed across the park into the Saturday evening.

As I walked away, the woman and I locked eyes. "I don't think you understand who you said that to," I told her. Thinking to myself, I am as American as you are. "What," she said laughing. "Are you some kind of celebrity or something?"

No. But like the Mexicans I was standing with, I am a human being. And I am home.

Guest Voz - So Mexican: "You know you're So Mexican if you grew up eating chorizo con frijoles"

Guest Voz - So Mexican: You know you're So Mexican if you grew up eating chorizo con frijoles and huevos con weenie as a major food group!

Don't laugh at the pic, this is homemade style mi gente!

Try Something New Tonight! Try Abuelita Salazar's Cactus Paddle Salad

Guest Voz - Chef Traci (Salazar) Des Jardins:
My son, Eli and I were down at my aunt's house in Santa Cruz spending a few summer days with the family. While there we usually shop local, which includes visiting the Mexican markets and fruit stands near their house looking for ingredients for our meals. During our stay I had it in my mind to make Eli's favorite salad of jicama and oranges. For some strange reason that day, the markets were out of jicama, but they did have large piles of nopales or cactus paddles.
When I was growing up in the small Central Valley town of Firebaugh, California, my grandparents had a big cactus in their backyard that my grandmother used for making a wonderful nopales salad along with other cactus dishes. Grandma Angela Salazar moved from Torreon, Mexico, as a baby and grew up to be a great cook. As a child, I spent many days following her around the kitchen helping and learning from her. My restaurant Mijita is actually named in tribute to my grandmother. She used to call me Mijita, meaning "little one" in Spanish. Family meals were an important part of my childhood when everyone spent time cooking together in the kitchen or gathered around the table to celebrate a holiday. Today a lot of my inspiration in the kitchen is rooted in what I learned from my grandparents.
When my grandmother prepared her nopales salad she would start by picking the cactus paddles from her yard. The best paddles were the small succulent ones and often she would have to climb a ladder to reach the good paddles cutting them with a knife or yard sheers for those that were even harder to reach. Then I would help her clean them, which was very difficult because the paddles have lots of stickers and we didn't wear gloves, so you can only imagine how much it hurt... especially as a small girl. After we picked out the stickers from the paddles, my grandmother would pick the stickers out of my hands. Today you can buy cactus paddles cut and ready to go, it's amazing how easy kids have it these days!

For my salad, I bought a bunch of paddles and proceeded to cube and tenderize them, sweating them with a few tablespoons of olive oil until their bright green color dulled to a muted shade, about 5 minutes. Then I chilled them down in the refrigerator for about a half hour before adding spring onions, lime juice, Serrano chile, more olive oil, cilantro and salt and pepper to taste. My recipe probably differs from what my grandmother used to throw together in her kitchen.

Cactus Paddle Salad:
- 4 cups cactus paddles, cubed
- 2 bunches spring onions, finely diced (about 1/2 cup)
- juice of one lime
- 1 chopped Serrano chile
- ¼ olive oil
- ¼ cup chopped cilantro (optional)
- Salt and pepper to taste

Eli was busy playing with his cousins and didn't help me cook this time around. When I finished making the cactus paddle salad, I served it with carnitas that I had slow cooked the day before, and with tortillas of course. I wasn't sure that Eli would like the nopales, nevertheless, I put a pile on his plate with the rest of his dinner. He didn't say anything; he just ate all of it, a sign to me that it had passed his approval. Grandmother Angela would have been proud!

Guest Voz - Ruben Navarrette: Has Marco Rubio sold out?

Poor Marco Rubio. Florida’s junior senator could have been a contender. Instead, he’s become a caricature. In parts of the Hispanic community, Rubio is thought of as just another ambitious politician who is willing to sell out Latinos to curry favor with Anglo colleagues. That’s what you hear from Internet chatter, letters to the editor, Latino listservs and comments on Spanish-language media.

Just seven months after taking office, Rubio, the Republicans’ Great Latino Hope, has squandered the one thing that made him unique, interesting and valuable to his party: the potential that he could help mend fences with disaffected Latino voters alienated by the GOP’s simplistic and mean-spirited approach to the immigration issue. In a recent poll by Latino Decisions and ImpreMedia, immigration (aka Racial Profiling bills) was the No. 1 issue for Latino voters, topping jobs and the economy by more than 15 points. More than half of the respondents said they know someone who is undocumented. This issue hits close to home.

Over the past few years, Republicans have dug themselves into a hole with Latino voters, and Rubio was supposed to help pull them out. It’s one reason that Beltway pundits continue to speculate whether he could wind up as the GOP’s vice presidential nominee in 2012 and whether this alone would be enough to persuade Latinos to give Republicans a fair hearing. This is what Rubio was supposed to bring to the party. Otherwise, what good is he to his colleagues if he can only deliver votes — for instance, from Tea Partyers — that would probably go to Republicans anyway?

Former Florida Republican Party chairman Al Cardenas believes that Rubio could do the GOP a lot of good in 2012. Now head of the American Conservative Union, Cardenas recently told Politico that putting Rubio on the presidential ticket would “almost guarantee” a Republican victory. Cardenas needs to get out more — out of Florida and, better yet, out to the Southwest.

Rubio is becoming persona non grata among Latinos outside of the Cuban American community, which represents only 3 percent of the Latino population in the United States. Specifically, he is becoming intensely disliked by many naturalized Mexicans and Mexican Americans, who make up as much as 67 percent of the U.S. Latino population. Those voters could affect the electoral outcome in battleground states such as Colorado and New Mexico, and in vote-rich states such as Texas and California.

All this has happened because, since arriving in Washington, Rubio has followed his party’s pitiful example of dealing with the immigration issue in a clumsy, reactionary and unimaginative way. A few months ago, the Miami Herald reported that conservative activists in Florida — including members of the Tea Party — were to take a hard line on immigration. They complained that the issue wasn’t even listed on his Web site and that Rubio hadn’t co-sponsored any legislation to beef up immigration enforcement. So Rubio joined the (Tea-Party) feel-good but do-nothing effort in Congress — led by Rep. Lamar Smith (Republican-Tex.) — to make it mandatory for businesses to participate in the “E-Verify” program, which is supposed to tell them whether a Social Security number is authentic. He even became a co-sponsor of the companion bill proposed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (Republican-Iowa). Republicans hope that Rubio’s support will dull the accusation that the legislation is anti-Latino because the measure could discourage employers from hiring Latinos who are assumed to be in the country illegally.

Rubio also SUPPORTS the Arizona immigration law (sb1070), which directs local and state law enforcement to enforce federal immigration statutes. And, he told the television network Telemundo, he opposes the reintroduced Dream Act, which would give legal status to illegal immigrants who go to college or enlist in the military, because he considers it “part of some broader effort to grant blanket amnesty.”

This self-proclaimed “son of exiles” has it all WRONG! It’s fine to be tough on immigration, but you don’t have to be predictable and shallow. When that happens, people assume you’re not really thinking through this issue but simply following the herd and pandering to the special interests controlling your party.

As a Latino conservative, Rubio was bound to struggle with the immigration issue. Had he been too lenient on illegal immigrants, fellow conservatives would have accused him of leading with his heart. Now that he’s gone in the other direction, fellow Latinos will accuse him of not having a heart.

Guest Voz - Ruben Navarette: Facing a cultural divide in my mixed marriage

Guest Voz - Ruben Navarette -- I'm in a mixed marriage. My wife is Mexican and I'm Mexican-American. You might think there isn't much of a difference between the two, but you'd be wrong. We share the same ethnicity, but we were born in different countries. That makes all the difference. Our story is a reminder of just how complicated cultural identity can be in this country.

According to the 2010 census, about 50.5 million Latinos live in the United States, accounting for 16% of the population. About two-thirds of that 50.5 million -- or about 34 million people -- are Mexican or Mexican-American. It's no secret that there are divisions among Latinos. Mexicans and Mexican-Americans have little in common with Cuban-Americans, Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, Brazilians, etc.

But what isn't often talked about is the less noticeable chasm between Mexicans and Mexican-Americans. Well, it gets talked about a lot at our house. My wife is a legal immigrant who came to the United States as a child and went on to become a U.S. citizen. But, at heart, she considers herself Mexican. You can take the girl out of Guadalajara ...

For my part, I'm a Mexican-American Yankee Doodle Dandy. Born in Fresno, California, to parents who were also born in the United States, I view the world with the eyes of an American. Even our taste in food is different. She could eat Mexican food every day of the week, while I'm just as partial to hamburgers and hot dogs. And when we do settle on one kind of food, there are still cultural variations in how it's prepared.

Growing up, my idea of what a taco looked like was a hard shell, meat filling, lettuce, tomato and cheese. My wife would have none of that. For her, a taco is a small corn tortilla with meat, onions, and cilantro. Anything else is uncivilized.

But where the cultural divide really becomes clear is when I try to transfer my values and worldview south of the border. Climbing on my soapbox, I've been known to say things that my wife contends are utterly naive and ridiculous. For instance, when Mexicans complain about a corrupt government, I'll become Jeffersonian and say: "Well, why don't people just organize and replace it with a government that works better?" My wife will shake her head and say: "You're such an American. You think anything is possible, and that change is easy. This is Mexico. People there have no power."

I'm not alone. I have a friend, also a Mexican-American, who was for a time married to a Mexican woman. He told me similar stories. Whenever he would say something that made him sound like the quintessential American, his exasperated wife would ask: "Exactly what part of you is Mexican again?"

Ironically, long before I met my wife, while growing up in central California, I never considered myself anything but a Mexican. Not a Mexican-American, but, in ethnic shorthand, a Mexican. Just as important, it was how others saw me and people like me. Adults referred to the "Mexican" part of town or talked about the high school's first "Mexican" quarterback or first "Mexican" homecoming queen.

Years later, when I was admitted to Harvard, jealous white classmates informed me: "If you hadn't been Mexican, you wouldn't have gotten in." Not Mexican-American. Just Mexican.

My readers do the same. Not long ago, one accused me of welcoming the "Mexican invasion ... because you're Mexican." OK, so I'm Mexican. Just like my friends in Boston who call themselves Irish, and friends in New York who call themselves Italian, and friends back home in Fresno who refer to themselves as Armenian.

Cool. I'm Mexican, right? Wrong, says my wife. Wrong, wrong, wrong. To her, I'm an American, plain and simple. Born and raised in the United States, how could I be anything else?

She's the Mexican. She came to the United States with her mother and three sisters when she was 9 years old. Later, she returned to Mexico for two years of high school, and she stayed there for four years of college before returning to the United States for graduate school. In addition to being fluent in English, she speaks, reads, and writes Spanish with an awesome proficiency that I could never attain.

"How can you be Mexican?" she asks. "If you went to Mexico and identified yourself that way, people would laugh. They'd ask where in Mexico you were from, and they'd expect you to answer in perfect Spanish with no accent."

She's right. It's like the old saying that a Mexican-American is treated as an American everywhere in the world except America, and as a Mexican everywhere except Mexico.

I wasn't born in Mexico, she points out, and neither were my parents. My grandfather came from Chihuahua legally during the time of the Mexican Revolution, but he's the only one of my grandparents born south of the Rio Grande. The other three grandparents were all Tejanos, Texans of Mexican descent.

But I've spent my life feeling too Mexican to be 100% American and too American to be 100% Mexican.

This identity crisis is an old story. For the most part, Mexican-Americans -- and there are about 20 million in this country -- aren't sure who or what they are. I would bet that most of us see ourselves primarily as Americans. And yet there is always something out there to make us feel like second-class citizens. Like, say, the state of Arizona.

Sometimes after a discussion where my patriotism is showing, my wife will throw up her arms and say: "And you say you're Mexican. What kind of Mexican are you?"

I always respond: "The American kind."

Guest Voz - Pulitzer Prize Winner Jose Antonio Vargas: "My Life as an Undocumented Immigrant"

Guest Voz - Pulitzer Prize Winner Jose Antonio Vargas: "My Life as an Undocumented Immigrant" -- from the Phillipines
One August morning nearly two decades ago, my mother woke me and put me in a cab. She handed me a jacket. “Baka malamig doon” were among the few words she said. (“It might be cold there.”) When I arrived at the Philippines’ Ninoy Aquino International Airport with her, my aunt and a family friend, I was introduced to a man I’d never seen. They told me he was my uncle. He held my hand as I boarded an airplane for the first time. It was 1993, and I was 12.

My mother wanted to give me a better life, so she sent me thousands of miles away to live with her parents in America — my grandfather (Lolo in Tagalog) and grandmother (Lola). After I arrived in Mountain View, Calif., in the San Francisco Bay Area, I entered sixth grade and quickly grew to love my new home, family and culture. I discovered a passion for language, though it was hard to learn the difference between formal English and American slang. One of my early memories is of a freckled kid in middle school asking me, “What’s up?” I replied, “The sky,” and he and a couple of other kids laughed. I won the eighth-grade spelling bee by memorizing words I couldn’t properly pronounce. (The winning word was “indefatigable.”)

One day when I was 16, I rode my bike to the nearby D.M.V. office to get my driver’s permit. Some of my friends already had their licenses, so I figured it was time. But when I handed the clerk my green card as proof of U.S. residency, she flipped it around, examining it. “This is fake,” she whispered. “Don’t come back here again.” Confused and scared, I pedaled home and confronted Lolo. I remember him sitting in the garage, cutting coupons. I dropped my bike and ran over to him, showing him the green card. “Peke ba ito?” I asked in Tagalog. (“Is this fake?”) My grandparents were naturalized American citizens — he worked as a security guard, she as a food server — and they had begun supporting my mother and me financially when I was 3, after my father’s wandering eye and inability to properly provide for us led to my parents’ separation. Lolo was a proud man, and I saw the shame on his face as he told me he purchased the card, along with other fake documents, for me. “Don’t show it to other people,” he warned. I decided then that I could never give anyone reason to doubt I was an American. I convinced myself that if I worked enough, if I achieved enough, I would be rewarded with citizenship. I felt I could earn it.

I’ve tried. Over the past 14 years, I’ve graduated from high school and college and built a career as a journalist, interviewing some of the most famous people in the country. On the surface, I’ve created a good life. I’ve lived the American dream.
(Read his Complete Article HERE)

LIVE FROM THE FRONT Guest Voz - Felix Jaure: Arpaio Running for Senator - Running from the District Attorney!

Guest Voz - Felix Jaure: Arpaio Running for Senator - Running from the District Attorney!
In a recent interview with a local news station, Maricopa County's Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced the possibility of running for the future vacant Senatorial seat of Sen. Kyl of Arizona. Arpio appeared quite confident of a victory, as he flirted with the possibility of bestowing upon his constituents, the honor, of accepting their proposal for him to run in the 2012 general election.

Arpaio seemed to be in full control of his destiny, untouched by the allegation's of 6,300 reported cases of Civil Rights violations against his Department, of which 1,828 have resulted in lawsuits against Maricopa county, costing the taxpayer approximately $50,000,000 in legal defence spending. The federal grand jury also is investigating Arpaio over abuse-of-power and his departments inappropriately use of 99 million dollars from two jail funds over the last eight years. Arpaio, much like the Titanic, seems unsinkable at the present time in his home state of Arizona. Has his reputation, placed him in a position, that's beyond the reach of the long arm of the law? Fearful of the possibility of an uprising in the State, the Justice Department appears to be reluctant, from aggressively pursuing an indictment against the Sheriff.

Is the term illegal, is illegal in reference to everyone that violates the law, or is there some type of amnesty for the chosen few. It appears that the blindfold on lady justice has temporarily been removed for the sake of Arpaio, by his nation wide group of supporters, and the scales which were formally used for judgement, are found to be inadequate for use in the balance of justice any longer. A man Above The Law"

Note: Felix Jaure is the reputable blog owner of the Blog "In the Midst of the Worldwind" and reports LIVE from the Front in Arizona!

Guest Voz -- Talat Hamdani: This is My Son's America Too! -- or-- Why is Republican Rep Peter King Targetting Muslim Americans!

Guest Voz -- Talat Hamdani: This is My Son's America Too!
I was appalled when I learned that House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Peter King planned to hold hearings on the threat of homegrown Islamic terrorism. (The hearings are scheduled for next week.) Once again, I realized that in the continuing discussion of how to secure our country against future attacks, American Muslims would have to defend themselves against the broad stereotypes that have become embedded in our collective psyche since 9/11. I am, as much as anyone else in America, acutely aware of the need to prevent future attacks. My American Muslim son Salman Hamdani was among the nearly 3,000 Americans of diverse ethnicities, faiths and political perspectives who died in those terrorist attacks. Salman was a paramedic and a New York Police Department cadet who died trying to save his fellow Americans. He did not stop to think about the faith of the people he was trying to rescue. Instead, like scores of other first responders, he acted to save them. Despite his noble instincts, the tabloid media initially suggested that because of his Pakistani-American heritage, he might have been involved with the attacks.

My grief was compounded by the suspicions that clouded Salman's name and the suggestion that his faith -- my faith -- not the acts of 19 murderers, was somehow responsible. Now, nearly a decade later, the American Muslim community has been singled out for scrutiny by Rep. King on the flimsy theory that American Muslims do not cooperate with law enforcement. This perspective is disputed by law enforcement and counter-terrorism experts ranging from the sheriff of Los Angeles County to the former director of transnational threats at the National Security Council.

In fact, a recent study by a research group affiliated with Duke University found that 48 of the 120 Muslims suspected of plotting domestic terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001, were turned in by fellow Muslims. These include parents, mosque members and even a Facebook friend.

Make no mistake: As a mother who lost a son, I am aware of the need to ensure that our country is secure, that an event like 9/11 never happens again, and that other mothers do not have to bury their sons. And I understand that it is the job of our elected officials to ensure that we are safe. But I reject the notion that it is mainly Muslims in America who pose a threat to our security. Domestic terrorism stalked America before 9/11, and it continues to come in all forms. That is why I support the call from Rep. King's fellow congressmen and a coalition of Muslim, civil rights and interfaith groups to expand the hearings to include a consideration of extremists of all kinds, not just those who are Muslim.

History teaches that extremism is not a feature of any one ideology, and certainly should not be used to single out and discriminate against an entire community. This is my son Salman's America, too. It is our duty as American citizens to honor his sacrifice and that of all those people who died that day by making sure that while we strive to keep this nation safe, we do not compromise the values of tolerance and fair play.

As one of those who paid the ultimate price on September 11, I believe that the healing we must do as family members and as a nation involves moving beyond our fears and seeking truth and justice. I urge Rep. King to hold fair and objective hearings that cover the full scope of potential threats to our country.

Guest Voz -- The Week.com: TeaParty Favorite, Republican Rep Debbie Riddle receives Jest & Jeers for Her New "Save My Maid" Bill

I have been getting a few threats from a new Anonymous regarding my posting FACTS about Teaparty Favorite, Republican Rep Debbie Riddle. This "brave" anonymous commenter has sent me half a dozen threats about this since I posted it yesterday. As I referenced back to the new Bad Anon, I always write the TRUTH, the FACTS. Riddle was ridiculed last year by the Mainstream Media for your ludicrous comments to Anderson Cooper on CNN regarding her "Fear of Alien Baby Terrorists." This year, the MSM is ridiculing her for her new ANTI Immigration bill which "targets everyone but my maid." Here is another report on this subject by "TheWeek.com." And New Bad Anon: Quit being a coward. Comment with your real name! Quit hiding behind your "anonymous" label. Also, QUIT YOUR THREATS!"
Guest Voz - THE WEEK.com: Texas' proposal to kick out all illegal immigrants (except the maids)
"A Texas Republican wants to fine or even jail anyone who hires an illegal immigrant... unless that illegal immigrant works in your yard or house. Huh?"
Texas is weighing several immigration proposals modeled on Arizona's strict (and controversial) law, but one in particular is drawing nationwide "jest and jeers." A bill from state Rep. Debbie Riddle (R) would fine or jail anyone who employs undocumented immigrants — unless it's to clean the house, mow the lawn, or do other work "performed exclusively or primarily at a single-family residence." Riddle aide Jon English says exempting maids and nannies is a "clumsy" way to keep from "stifling the economic engine" in Texas. So, is that a nod to reality, or a wink to the wealthy? This is a glaring double standard: Riddle clearly thinks a $10,000 fine and two years in jail would "inconvenience the rich folks," says O. Ricardo Pimentel in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. But "the business guy trying to eke out a profit? Just too bad" for him, and the rest of us. Maybe it's time to "recognize that undocumented workers across the board wouldn't be here if there weren't a demand." "We interrupt our coverage of the Madison showdown to bring you..."

But the bill wouldn't work without this exception: Riddle is just legislating in the real world, not an ideal one, says state Rep. Aaron Pena (R), as quoted by CNN. If she included domestic workers, "with things as they are today, her bill will see a large segment of the Texas population in prison." Hiring undocumented workers to work in your home of on your yard is "extremely common" in Texas, so much so that "it is often overlooked."
"Texas immigration bill has big exception."
Riddle's bill is refreshingly honest... sort of: What's remarkable about Riddle's bill is that a right-wing legislator is actually acknowledging that undocumented immigrants "have become a necessary part of our economy," says L.S. Carbonell in Lez Get Real. "Tea Party, meet reality." But her rationale for the "don't touch my maid!" loophole is bunk. "Hitting farmers and ranchers would have more impact on the Texas 'economic engine' than going after nannies," by far. "Don't touch my maid!"

Guest Voz - Latino Politico: Racist Russell Pearce Declares Arizona is 1st Tea Party Senate -- Announces Anti-Latino "Birthright Citizenship" Bill!

Guest Voz - Latino Politico: Arizona's Continued Downward Spiral
When the AZGOP dropped SB1070 onto the heads of migrant and Latino communities, there were immediate calls for a boycott. Rep. Raúl Grijalva bravely joined the movement, putting his political future at risk but ultimately won his reelection in November 2010. Unfortunately, that election also saw a huge wave of conservatism sweep a veto-proof GOP supermajority into both the state House & Senate chambers. The agenda is now driven by the author of SB1070 himself, Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance), who was installed as Senate President in January.

When Pearce took the reins, he declared that Arizona would have the country's first Tea Party Senate.
A blog from Pearce picked up by the Sonoran Alliance website is signed “Russell Pearce…Tea Party Senate President-Elect.” He said in the blog, “I consider this to be the Tea Party Senate and we intend to take back America one state at a time.” - AZCentral.com

That threat - and it is a threat - is becoming reality. Yesterday, the state's Senate Appropriations Committee became the first in the nation to advance a repeal of birthright citizenship for a full vote.
After a rocky start, the birthright legislation finally received committee approval on Feb. 22, overcoming the initial hurdle before the full Senate can debate and vote on the measure that is stirring so much raw emotion and is solidifying Arizona’s reputation as ground zero in the struggle to confront illegal immigration. By an 8-to-5 vote that hewed nearly along party lines, the Senate Appropriations Committee gave the green light to a two-bill proposal whose ultimate aim is to get the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the issue of American citizenship, though critics question whether the judiciary would actually answer this exact issue and not dismiss the legislation on some other grounds. - AZ Capitol Times

Yesterday's hearing was packed with a passionate audience on both sides. Interestingly enough, the Chamber spoke out against the bill because they fear an even worse backlash than the one from SB1070, proving that the boycott is working. There's an opportunity to drive a wedge between them if an economic populist message starts entering the conversation as to why voters should reject the AZGOP's extremist agenda.

"Russell Pearce's vision for Arizona is killing jobs, etc etc" ...because it's clear that the moral argument falls on deaf ears in this state. Of course, it's vital that it continues to be made strongly, and it will.

There's really no end in sight to what these Tea Party bigots have planned for the state. From banning race-based abortions to saving the republic from the threat of healthcare for the poor, it's no wonder that Baja Arizona is starting to organize a secession of its own.

Guest Voz - Indigenous Xicano: Illegal Immigration:"The law is the law"

Guest Voz - Indigenous Xicano: "The Law is the Law!"
The law is the law. So let us treat everyone the same. Show empathy for first-time offenders. Offer an avenue of forgiveness as we do to those who break the law and never get in trouble again. Allow good hard working people a chance to pay a price for their crime of illegal entry...
The law is the law. I hear that short phrase used often to argue for the enforcement against the workers in this country who entered illegally. I agree-the law is the law and popcorn is popcorn and purple dinosaurs are purple dinosaurs. None of these phrases actually mean a thing in any intelligent conversation. I know that the meaning of the phrase is supposed to mean that it is against the law to enter, reside, and work in the U.S. Point noted. The phrase also is meant to convey the message that the law calls for the deportation of the workers who are here illegally. Again, the point is taken. But the phrase is still meaningless. “No nation can exist without laws.” I hear this phrase often repeated by those passionately fighting for the deportation of all illegal immigrants. But no one is arguing for the nation to exist without laws. But the presence and functionality of illegal immigration strongly suggest that current laws do not work. We have evolved into a nation of bad laws that we stubbornly cling on to in order to maintain a facade of being tough on crime, when in reality we create the status of crime when and where there is no crime.

We do not need to create criminals out of workers simply from our lack of sound immigration policy and law.
Some things should obviously be crimes. Thou shall not murder. Without saying, it helps to maintain societal order if people are not ruthlessly killing each other. Ironically, our bad drug laws plays a major part on the rate of murder in our country. By criminalizing the street drugs that we keep illegal, we surrender both the regulation of commerce and the distribution of a product that is as every part of our reality as stocks, sports, and drive-through restaurants. Our bad laws surrender this regulation and distribution to ruthless thugs. One can argue that our bad laws that fail to regulate Wall Street also surrender that regulation to ruthless thugs in pin-striped suits. But these are other arguments for other times.

Immigration. Illegal immigration.
Cheap, inexpensive labor is historically part of the American way. The illegal immigrant is the latest group to become exploited by the need of capitalists to maximize profits. Defenders of our system argue that capitalism and profits are good things. The most conservative of these defenders will also stress that regulation suppresses the ability of free markets to flourish. Illegal immigration is a symptom of that free market playing out. Thus we have a reality in conflict with our laws. Businesses want the inexpensive illegal laborer. The law against hiring illegal workers is then ignored.

When I was a kid growing up in Chicago, I would often hear the phrase “nothing is illegal if you do not get caught.” If there was no one to see you drive through the red light at 3am then it is not illegal. If the government does not punish employers for hiring illegal workers, then it is not illegal for employers to hire illegal workers. But the illegal worker does not get the same pass. No one gets caught and nothing is illegal. For some unethical people in power it is the American way. For business owners who hire illegal laborers it is the latest example of the “nothing is illegal if you do not get caught” mentality.

If powerful people can break a law with no consequence while the vulnerable and exploited worker are punished for participating in the same crime, then something is wrong with the law or the enforcement of the law. The law is uneven when it comes to enforcement. The law is only meant for the voiceless poor. The government does not want to punish and stifle commerce. So it goes after the worker in planned and publicized events meant to showcase their desire to enforce the law.

Turning the other way creates a de facto immigration policy when it comes to employing illegal workers and enforcing current laws against employers. The law seems to apply more for the exploited that it is for the exploiter. The law is never just the law. Justice is not blind; it winks at those it gives a pass to. Unethical employers who break laws to maximize profits go unscathed. Workers who only want to earn money by selling their labor should not be casted as criminals simply because we are unable to provide sensible laws that allow for reality to become legal.

With the breaking of the law comes varied legal consequences. The supporters of the “law is the law” do not want to enter this realm of legal reality. They want deportation as the only option for the breaking of immigration law. But no laws are adjudicated in the same manner to those who break the same law. There is no “one punishment fits all” sentence for every law breaker. There are different consequences for breaking laws. Then people get on with life. See Michael Vick run.

Deportation is not the only option for entering the country illegally. Precedent has been set in many cases when factors are weighed in to allow someone to remain here. Then there are laws that allow for some to remain here legally such as victims of domestic violence and victims of human trafficking. When someone breaks a law and is found guilty, there are factors that are taken into consideration. A judge may offer a plea in abeyance to first time offenders of a non-violent crime. A plea in abeyance basically is a plea where the defendant pleads guilty to a crime and if he/she does not re-offend in a set time, then the conviction is tossed out. It is as if it never happened. Probation is almost a sure thing for first-time offenders of non-violent crimes. First time big time swindlers in suits have benefitted from no jail time. But we cannot offer probation to a college student who lacks nine-digits?

Putting up dry wall at minimum wage without papers is a non-violent offense. If a person has been here for years and has never been in trouble with the law, then why can they not be afforded the same options as other first-time offenders? After all the law is the law. Empathy is part of the law-it is part of how our judicial system plays out in its daily arenas.

The same people yelling “the law is the law” also demand that there is never an amnesty for illegal immigrants. But our laws offer amnesty to many that violate the law. Not only do first-time offenders receive probation or a plea in abeyance, they usually have an opportunity to expunge the arrest and conviction from their record if they prove worthy. It is an act of forgiveness.

Many undocumented workers have proven themselves worthy of this same type of forgiveness that is a part of our legal system. If we are to use “the law is the law” rhetoric as the main point of an argument against the undocumented worker, then we should go beyond the surface of that statement and allow the full application of the law in dealing with the undocumented. Mercy and forgiveness are without a doubt part of our legal system.

I am all for deporting the dangerous criminals who enter illegally. But those who work and contribute are not criminals. They are not the drug runners and/or human smugglers. They come here to work. Our inability to repair our immigration policy surrenders the regulating of the employment of the undocumented over to the employers who choose to break the law. They know they can get away with it.

When we surrender the regulation of employment of these workers, we allow for a system of cheap wages, lack of benefits, fake social security numbers, and unsafe working conditions to flourish. The workers no longer are the mainstays of only the agricultural industry. Greedy employers from all industries are now dipping into this pool of cheap labor. All American workers are hurt when greedy employers exploit workers.

Immigration reform that protects and regulates the fair wages and safety of all work places benefits all workers.

The law is the law. So let us treat everyone the same. Show empathy for first-time offenders. Offer an avenue of forgiveness as we do to those who break the law and never get in trouble again. Allow good hard working people a chance to pay a price for their crime of illegal entry into the country. Then, if they are worthy, allow them the dignity to have their case heard on its individual merits. Punish them as we would others in the same situation. The law is, after all, the law. If they are worthy of probation and eventual forgiveness, then allow them that legal consequence.

Then let us get on with life.If Michael Vick can receive forgiveness and another chance, then why can't a worker whose only crime was sneaking into this country to work not receive the same forgiveness and a chance to shed the demonizing and perpetual status of being illegal?

One of the Wounded Speaks Out -- Guest Voz: Eric Fuller

Guest Voz: Eric Fuller (Wounded at Safeway Shooting):
Disabled Veteran Eric Fuller, 63, who was struck by a bullet in the hail of gunfire in Tucson that killed six and wounded 13 on Saturday, said Thursday that conservative figureheads such as Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Sharron Angle were to blame for the violence in Arizona. "How many more demented people are out there? It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target," Fuller, a former campaigner for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), told Democracy Now.

"Their wish for Second Amendment activism has been fulfilled -- senseless hatred leading to murder, lunatic-fringe anarchism, subscribed to by John Boehner, mainstream rebels with vengeance for all, even nine-year-old girls," he added, reading from comments he said he had written down while being treated for his wounds. Fuller was taking part in Giffords' "Congress on Your Corner" meet-and-greet when he was shot in the back of the knee and grazed in the back.

In the wake of Saturday's shooting, the debate over the need for possible self- or legally-imposed limits on political rhetoric has largely revolved around criticism of language used by Palin, Beck, Angle and other conservatives, a contention that some on both sides of the aisle have vehemently rejected.
-----------------------------
Let's ALL ask those in the political and media arenas who promote the use of Violence, Guns and Hate Speech to STOP IT! Let us all heal from this tragedy, live in peace and support our President!

Guest Voz - Frank Sharry of America's Voice: We (Latinos/Humanitiarians) Will REMEMBER Those That Voted Against the DREAM Act/Latino Students!

Yesterday morning, in a procedural vote requiring 60 votes to advance the legislation, the U.S. Senate voted for the DREAM Act by a 55-41 margin, effectively shutting the doors of opportunity to thousands of bright and talented young people who grew up in America and wanted to give back to the country they call home.
Guest Voz - Frank Sharry Executive Director of America's Voice: “Yesterday morning we won a majority of votes in the Senate. Last week we won a majority of the votes in the House. But because of a Republican filibuster we needed 60 votes to pass DREAM and we fell short. To those who did the right thing and voted for DREAM, you had our back and we’ll have yours. But to the majority of Republicans and the handful of Democrats who voted against the best and the brightest of the Latino immigrant community, your vote against DREAM will be remembered as long as you are in politics. Many of you have expressed your sympathy for the DREAMers. But today we did not need your sympathy. We needed your vote.

As disappointed as we are in those who slammed the door of opportunity on talented young people who are Americans in all but paperwork, we are buoyed by the nationwide outpouring of support for this cause, the unprecedented mobilization in support of DREAM across the nation, and the leadership and courage of the DREAMers who came to Washington to insist on making their DREAM come true.

Where do we go from here? We will continue fighting, organizing, mobilizing and educating. We will continue to build an ever more powerful movement. We will continue to speak up and speak out for immigrant youth, for immigrant families, for immigration reform that embodies the best of our ideals rather than the worst of our fears.

We get stronger every day. We may have lost this battle, but in the war between justice and injustice, inclusion and exclusion, courage and cowardice, victory is not a matter of if, but a matter of when.”

Guest Voz - Robert Reich: The Big Economic Story, and Why Obama Isn't Telling It

These are the two competing stories Americans are telling one another.
Yes, I know: It's more complicated than this. In reality, the lousy economy is due to insufficient demand -- the result of the nation's almost unprecedented concentration of income at the top. The very rich don't spend as much of their income as the middle. And since the housing bubble burst, the middle class hasn't had the buying power to keep the economy going. That concentration of income, in turn, is due to globalization and technological change -- along with unprecedented campaign contributions and lobbying designed to make the rich even richer and do nothing to help average Americans, insider trading, and political bribery.

So B is the truth.
But A is the story Republicans and right-wingers (& Teapartiers) tell. It's a dangerous story because it deflects attention from the real problem and makes it harder for America to focus on the real solution -- which is more widely shared prosperity. (I get into how we might do this in my new book, Aftershock.)

A is also the story President Obama is telling, indirectly, through his deficit commission, his freeze on federal pay, his freeze on discretionary spending, and his wavering on extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich.
Most other Washington Democrats are falling into the same trap.

If Obama and the Democrats were serious about story A they'd at least mention it. They'd tell the nation that income and wealth haven't been this concentrated at the top since 1928, the year before the Great Crash. They'd be indignant about the secret money funneled into midterm campaigns. They'd demand Congress pass the Disclose Act so the public would know where the money comes from.

They'd introduce legislation to curb Wall Street bonuses -- exactly what European leaders are doing with their financial firms. They'd demand that the big banks, now profitable after taxpayer bailouts, reorganize the mortgage debt of distressed homeowners. They'd call for a new WPA to put the unemployed back to work, and pay for it with a tax surcharge on incomes over $1 million.

They'd insist on extended unemployment benefits for log-term jobless who are now exhausting their benefits. And they'd hang tough on the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy -- daring Republicans to vote against extending the cuts for everyone else.

But Obama is doing none of this. Instead, he's telling story A.
Making a big deal out of the deficit -- appointing a deficit commission and letting them grandstand with a plan to cut $4 trillion out of the projected deficit over the next ten years -- $3 of government spending for every $1 of tax increase -- is telling story A.

What the public hears is that our economic problems stem from too much government and that if we reduce government spending we'll be fine.
Announcing a two-year freeze on federal salaries - explaining that "I did not reach this decision easily... these are people's lives" -- is also telling story A.

What the public hears is government bureaucrats are being paid too much, and that if we get the federal payroll under control we'll all be better off.
Proposing a freeze on discretionary (non-defense) spending is telling story A. So is signaling a willingness to extend the Bush tax cuts to the top. So is appointing his top economic advisor from Wall Street (as apparently he's about to do).

In fact, the unwillingness of the President and Washington Democrats to tell story B itself promotes story A, because in the absence of an alternative narrative the Republican story is the only one the public hears.
Obama's advisors explain that the president's moves are designed to "preempt" the resurgent Republicans -- just like Bill Clinton preempted the Gingrich crowd by announcing "the era of big government is over" and then tacking right.

They're wrong. By telling story A and burying story B, the president legitimizes everything the right has been saying. He doesn't preempt them; he fuels them. He gives them more grounds for voting against raising the debt ceiling in a few weeks. He strengthens their argument against additional spending for extended unemployment benefits. He legitimizes their argument against additional stimulus spending.
Bill Clinton had a rapidly expanding economy to fall back on, so his appeasement of Republicans didn't legitimize the Republican world view. Obama doesn't have that luxury. The American public is still hurting and they want to know why.

Unless the President and Democrats explain why the economy still stinks for most Americans and offer a plan to fix it, the Republican explanation and solution -- it's big government's fault, and all we need do is shrink it -- will prevail.
That will mean more hardship for tens of millions of Americans. It will make it harder to remedy the bad economy. And it will set Republicans up for bigger wins in the future.

Guest Voz - AJ Langguth: Why US apologized for the Trail of Tears

Guest Voz - AJ Langguth: Why US apologized for the Trail of Tears
With the midterm elections over, it's time for Americans to leave behind the recent attempts to demonize an entire people. We needn't look to Nazi Germany or apartheid South Africa for examples of the labeling and abusing of others. The suspicions promoted about Hispanics as criminals and Muslims as terrorists were only the latest reminders of discrimination throughout our own history. We may be ashamed later, but our apologies usually come too late.

The targets keep changing. Abigail Adams, admirable in many ways, was violently hostile to the French, "Was there ever," she demanded, "a more basely designing and insidious people?" Had it been up to her, the United States might have gone to war with France in 1798, barely 15 years after French support had made America's independence possible. In 1850, voters in New Hampshire refused to delete the provision in their state constitution that barred Roman Catholics from holding public office. By World War I, Henry Ford was publishing, "The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem."

But it was in the 1830s that a particularly malignant offense was committed, and it was against the original owners of this continent. In the War of 1812, Andrew Jackson had vanquished those Creek Indians who sided with the British. Jackson was not generous in victory. Not only did he strip the tribe of much of its territory, he didn't spare those Creeks who had fought at his side for the United States.

Elected president in 1828, Jackson decreed that the Creeks' neighbors, the Cherokees, must also surrender their ancestral lands in Georgia and move west across the Mississippi River.
From George Washington's time, the United States had signed treaties promising the Cherokees friendship and federal protection. To violate those agreements required painting the Cherokees as savages unfit to live near civilized men. Jackson was not swayed by evidence that the Cherokees were something quite different. They had developed a written language, published their own newspaper and adopted a constitution based on that of the United States.

In fact, Europeans often found them more impressive than their white neighbors, and religious leaders, especially Quakers, and Northern abolitionists, rose to the Cherokees' defense. Even those allies, however, tended to patronize the Indians as simple children. From Concord, Massachusetts, Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote an angry open letter denouncing the forced removal, but he, too, described the Cherokees as "savage."

Georgia's politicians, coveting the rich Cherokee cotton land, were more brutal: They claimed that the tribe consisted of "barbarians," and if the government in Washington did not force the Indians out of Georgia, they would take up arms and do the job themselves. Appealing for help to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Cherokees won a significant legal victory, but Jackson's adamant response was summed up in a few words: Chief Justice John Marshall has made his decision. Let him enforce it now if he can.

Long before Henry Thoreau advocated passive resistance, the Cherokees had pledged that they would never go to war against the United States for their land. They would trust to the fairness of the American people. If they were disappointed, they believed that one day the country would come to understand the wrong that was being done to them. In 1838, Gen. Winfield Scott arrived in Georgia and began rounding up those Cherokees who would not leave willingly. Some 16,000 members of the tribe were herded into makeshift prisons. Scott's men seized women and children first to guarantee that the men would come out of hiding to protect them.

The Cherokees were then forced into wagons, often at bayonet point. As they left their ancestral land, some saw Georgians digging up family graves, looking for silver jewelry. For five months, they were jolted along the route from Georgia to Oklahoma that became known as the Trail of Tears. Northern missionaries who shared the ordeal testified to families wrested from their homes so suddenly that they had nothing to protect them against the freezing winter rains. Pneumonia and exhaustion carried off the old and the very young. Although estimates vary about how many did not survive, wagon trains stopped every day for rough burials along the roadside.

The years passed, and America's attention turned elsewhere. Then in 2004, Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas introduced a resolution calling for a formal apology to the Cherokees and to all of the continent's Indian tribes for past wrongs by the United States. Sixteen years earlier, the Congress had apologized for imprisoning Japanese-Americans during World War II, but Brownback's resolution languished until last year when it was added as an amendment to the 2010 defense appropriations bill. President Obama signed it on December 19, 2009. The apology, however belated, would have pleased Davy Crockett. He had once fought together with Jackson against the British and their Creeks allies. But for opposing the Cherokee removal, Crockett had lost his seat in Congress. Although he regretted his defeat, he said that at least his vote would "not make me ashamed on the last day of judgment."

I find his example worth remembering, along with a hope that no future generation need apologize for what we are saying or doing today.

Guest Voz - Bob Cesca: Tea Party Is All About Race

Guest Voz - Bob Cesca:
I was going to open this piece with an analogy about the tea party groups and why they're treated seriously by the press and the Republicans. The analogy would go something like: "Imagine [insert left-wing activist group here] getting a serious profile in a mainstream newspaper, and imagine serious Democratic politicians appearing at their convention." The problem is, when I really evaluated what the various far-left activist groups are all about and compared them with the tea party movement, there really wasn't any equivalency. At all. Because when you strip away all of the rage, all of the nonsensical loud noises and all of the contradictions, all that's left is race. The tea party is almost entirely about race, and there's no comparative group on the left that's similarly motivated by bigotry, ignorance and racial hatred.

I hasten to note that I'm talking about real racism, insofar as it's impossible for the majority race -- the 70 percent white majority -- to be on the receiving end of racism. That is unless white males, for example, are suddenly an oppressed racial demographic. But judging by the racial composition of, say, the Senate or AM talk radio or the cast members playing the Obamas on SNL, I don't think white people have anything to worry about. This isn't an epiphany by any stretch. From the beginning, with their witch doctor imagery, watermelon agitprop and Curious George effigies, the wingnut right has been dying to blurt out, as Lee Atwater famously said, "nigger, nigger, nigger!" But they can't. Strike that. Correction. TeaParty.org founder Dale Robertson brandished a sign with the (misspelled) word "niggar." So they're not even as restrained as the generally unstrung Atwater anymore.

Most of the time, they merely imply the use of the word. Rush Limbaugh referring to the president as a "black man-child," for example. Every week, a new example pops up on the radio and somehow the offenders are able to keep their job while Howard Stern is fined for saying the comparatively innocuous word "blumpkin." Limbaugh, on the other hand, can stoke racial animosity on his show by suggesting that health care reform is a civil rights bill -- reparations -- and no one seems to mind. And no, the impotence isn't an adequate Karmic punishment for Limbaugh's roster of trespasses.

The tea party is an extension of talk radio. It's an extension of Fox News Channel. It's an extension of the southern faction of the Republican Party -- the faction that gave us the Southern Strategy, the Willie Horton ad, the White Hands ad and the racially divisive politics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. It's an extension of the race-baiting and, often, the outright racism evident in all of those conservative spheres. But unlike the heavy-handedness of Dale Robertson and others, the tea party followers are generally more veiled about why they're so outraged by our current president...

From the outset, the tea party was based on a contradictory premise (the original tea party was a protest against a corporate tax cut). And when you throw out all of the nonsense and contradictions, there's nothing left except race. There's no other way to explain why these people were silent and compliant for so long, and only decided to collectively freak out when this "foreign" and "exotic" president came along and, right out of the chute, passed the largest middle class tax cut in American history -- something they would otherwise support, for goodness sake, it was $288 billion in tax cuts! -- we're left to deduce no other motive but the ugly one that lurks just beneath the pale flesh, the tri-corner hats and the dangly tea bag ornamentation.

Irrespective of whether the president passed a huge tax cut or went out of his way to bring Republicans into the health care process, the seeds of racial animosity from the far-right were sown during the campaign. In those lines waiting for then-vice presidential candidate and current tea party heroine Sarah Palin, their loud noises spread the pre-scripted lies, lies that entirely hinged on the president's African heritage. A white candidate would never be accused of being a secret Muslim. A white candidate would never be accused of being a foreign usurper. Only a black candidate with a foreign name would be accused of "palling around with domestic terrorists."

In the final analysis, when you boil away all of the weirdness, it becomes clear that the teabaggers are pissed because there isn't yet another doddering old white guy in the White House -- like they're used to. That's what this is all about.

By way of a postscript, one of the many faceless radio talk show wingnuts, Jim Quinn, this week called President Obama a "Kenyan wuss" who should be "slapped silly." The Kenyan lie and the "slap silly" insult aside, this president is no wuss. You know how I know? He's a black man who ran for president and won despite the growing mob of gun-toting militant white bigots like Jim Quinn who are sucking air in America. President Obama achieving this despite the hatred and threats against him takes serious guts. Guts that Jim Quinn and the tea party movement will never understand.

Guest Voz - Ezra Klein: Explaining Tax Cut Proposals Democratic vs Republican Proposals

Tax cuts for the middle-class are also tax cuts for the rich
I think people are actually quite confused about how the tax cuts work. So here's Annie Lowrey:
Pop quiz. Say you make a steady $250,001, every year. How many dollars of additional income tax will you pay if the Obama administration’s tax plan goes through? A thousand dollars? A few thousand? Nope. Three cents.
Here’s how it works. Your taxes below $250,000 remain the same. And on that excess $1, your income tax rate increases from 33 percent to 36 percent. For most earners making between $250,000 and $500,000 a year, the Obama plan would increase income tax liability by just a few hundred dollars — an average of $600, according to the Center for Economic and Policy Research’s Dean Baker.

Annie is comparing the Republican tax cuts vs. the Obama tax cuts. But if you compare the Obama tax cuts to a world without either set of tax cuts, you learn something interesting: The rich are still getting a big tax cut.

Obama's "tax cuts for the middle class" aren't actually tax cuts for the middle class. They're tax cuts on all family income up to $250,000. So if you make $300,000 a year, you're getting a tax cut on $250,000. That's a serious tax cut! That's why the graphs showing how different taxpayers make out under the Obama and Bush tax plans all show a tax cut for the rich under Obama's plan. (see picture)

Now, the tax cut for the rich is obviously much larger under the Republican plan, and rich people would prefer a big tax cut to a modest tax cut. But that doesn't change the facts of the situation: Under Obama's tax plan, everyone gets a tax cut, including families making more than $250,000 a year.

Guest Voz - MeeMaw: As More Healthcare Fraud is Revealed through "Obama Care" initiatives, Billions are Saved!

Guest Voz: Meemaw's Medical Joural reports:
Medicare Fraud Continues to Skyrocket but Obama Administration Arresting Them All -- Anti-Fraud Law Coming to the Rescue!
I am always amazed by the amount of Medicare Fraud that continues to happen every year. Every time the Feds have a large bust, they say it is the largest fraud ever. In 2010, we have had four of the "Largest Medicare Fraud ever!" headlines.
March 2010 - "The largest Medicare fraud ever in the nursing home industry"
Medicare fraud by California-based nursing home company North American Health Care (NAHC), which operates 35 nursing homes in four states. NAHC may be falsifying patient records and overcharging Medicare by tens of millions of dollars each year. Indeed, a number of former NAHC employees have testified to repeated orders to alter and falsify patient records. NAHC appears to be an industry leader in "upcoding" services provided to Medicare patients and charging Medicare the highest possible rates for resident care.

July 2010 - "Brooklyn Arrests Are Part of "Largest Medicare Fraud Bust Ever"
The FBI has arrested three doctors and doctors "professional patients" in Brooklyn for allegedly submitting thousands of bogus medical claims to Medicare and Medicaid. Prosecutors said the doctors and their clinics stole more than $80 million from taxpayers. The local arrests are part of the largest Medicare fraud bust ever. Dozens of suspects accused in scams totaling $251 million were busted in five states, authorities said. In one Brooklyn office, the doctors had set up a "cash kickback room" to pay patients for allowing them to submit false bills to the government health programs. The so-called "kickback" room had a poster on the wall resembling Soviet-era propaganda, showing a woman with a finger to her lips and two messages in Russian: "Don't Gossip" and "Be on the lookout: In these days, the walls talk."

October 13, 2010 - "44 Charged in Huge Medicare Fraud Scheme" An Armenian-American crime syndicate stole the identities of doctors and thousands of patients and used them and more than a hundred spurious clinics in 25 states to bill Medicare for more than $100 million for treatments no doctor ever performed and no patient ever received, the federal authorities announced on Wednesday.

October 21, 2010 - 4 arrested in alleged $200 million Medicare fraud case
Federal agents arrested four Miami-Dade health care operators Thursday in one of the nation's biggest Medicare fraud cases, charging them with scheming to fleece $200 million from the taxpayer-funded program by billing for bogus mental health services. Lawrence S. Duran, 48, of North Miami, and his company, American Therapeutic Corp., were charged along with other employees in a conspiracy indictment. The Miami-based company's chief executive officer, Marianella Valera, 39, was also among the defendants named in the indictment.
=================================================
This fraud has been going on for years. The good news is, the Obama Administration is catching up to them and filing charges against them. Additionally, for decades, Medicare and its contractors have relied upon a largely antiquated policy of reimbursing health care claims quickly without verifying them. The brisk payments, typically made within 14 days, keep the healthcare system going but also fuel corruption.

In September, President Barack Obama signed an anti-fraud law that will require the behemoth Medicare bureaucracy to act more like a credit card company in flagging suspicious claims that could save taxpayers billions of dollars a year in wasteful government healthcare spending. The anti-fraud provision, tucked into the Small Business Lending Act, will force Medicare and its claims contractors to adopt new billing software with "predictive modeling" for the 10 worst states by next year.

No wonder many in the Healthcare Industry, including Doctors, want to make sure President Obama does not win re-election in 2012.

Guest Voz- Porter Corn: Another smack down for racist Az Senator Russell Pearce – 9th Circuit kills racist provision of Prop 200

Guest Voz: Porter Corn from Immigration Clearinghouse:
Another smack down for racist Az Senator Russell Pearce – 9th Circuit kills racist provision of Prop 200
Sitting here reading the latest but of trite propaganda from Willy Gheen and ALIPAC, I see irony in what Stephen Lemmons of Phoenix New Times wrote about the decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals striking down a decidedly racist provision of Prop 200, that sought to make proving one’s citizenship a prerequisite for voter registration.

The unelected governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer made the normal statement of outrage, which we expect every time their attempts to usurp Federal law fails.

“The decision is an outrage,” Governor Jan Brewer and Secretary of State Ken Bennett announced in a joint statement, “and a slap in the face to all Arizonans who care about the integrity of their elections.”

The statement continues, “Arizona voters have made their will crystal clear — non-citizens do not have the right to vote.”

PNT clarified:
Which is a classic straw man argument, because non-citizens didn’t have the right to vote in federal elections before Prop 200, any more than they do after this ruling. As the decision itself points out, the National Voter Registration Act, which supersedes Prop 200, requires registrants to sign and attest under penalty of perjury that they are citizens.
The NVRA details federal penalties for voter fraud and voter registration fraud, making such activities punishable by up to five years in prison. Moreover, voting by an illegal alien is expressly forbidden by 18 USC 611, and punishable by up to a year in prison.
You see, Prop 200 had nothing to do with preventing non-citizens from voting. In fact, in the year or so before it was passed, it was widely reported that instances of voter fraud involving non-citizens were practically non-existent.
At the time, Maricopa County elections director Karen Osborne told the Arizona Republic that, “If we have one case a year, it’s an amazement.”

Why I bring up the whacked out President of ALIPAC is he constantly tries to convince the know nothings in American society that that the world is ending because millions of illegals will be voting in the mid terms.

Even Steven Camorata, director of research for the nativist Center for Immigration Studies, admitted to the Republic that very few illegal immigrants actually attempt to vote for the obvious reason: They don’t want to tip off authorities to the fact that they are here and undocumented.

Prop 200 also required proof of citizenship when applying for non-federally mandated programs. But the impact of that provision was minimal. Illegal immigrants were already prohibited from receiving most public assistance by the 1996 welfare reform signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

Indeed, the nativist Federation for American Immigration Reform itself notes the following on its Web site:

“llegal immigrants are barred from the following federal public benefits: grants, contracts, loans, licenses, retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, post secondary education, food assistance, and unemployment benefits. States are barred from providing state or locally funded benefits to illegal immigrants unless a state law is enacted granting such authority.”

ALIPAC proudly associates itself with another section of the nativist Tanton network, NUMBERSUSA.

Lemmons goes on to explain the expected outrage by the right wing loons, and no doubt with ALIPAC in mind.

Only the part of Prop 200 pertaining to showing “documentary proof of citizenship” was struck down. Folks are still required to show ID at the polls. The suggestion by some right-wing blogs that the court has opened the gate to massive voter fraud is complete hooey.

Right-wingers don’t want eligible Latinos to register to vote. That’s because they’ve spent so much of their time of late alienating Latinos by spewing nativist rhetoric. They want this state to continue to be dominated by a white, reactionary elite.

Racist laws such Prop 200 and SB 1070 help them maintain their political hegemony by keeping the brown folk at bay. For the moment, that is. For the moment.

And that is exactly what is happening now as the ALICRAPPERS are calling for charges of treason against former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner who was part of this righteous decision.

Guest Voz - Latina Lista: Texas newspapers' immigration poll brings out the worst of the "American people" -- or does it?

Guest Voz: Latina Lista
Texas newspapers' immigration poll brings out the worst of the "American people" -- or does it?
Four major newspapers in Texas -- The Dallas Morning News, The Houston Chronicle, The Austin American-Statesman and The San Antonio Express-News -- decided to conduct a statewide poll on how Texans feel about illegal immigration. Since it's an issue that according to the national GOP the "American people" want resolved through punitive legislation and increased border security, it's only reasonable to find out if Texans are every bit as paranoid and reckless with their assumptions of Latinos as some Arizona residents.

The poll showed that regarding a similar Arizona law: there were clear breaks between Republicans (78 percent favoring it) and Democrats (71 percent opposing it), and Hispanics (76 percent opposing) and whites (68 percent favoring).

Yet, what surprised political analysts reviewing the poll was that the margins among the answers were so narrow. Clearly, there just isn't the same kind of manic responses that the issue elicits in other states. And there shouldn't be given the history of Mexicans with Texas before Texas was even part of the nation. But there is a concentrated effort among some people to push the issue as a divisive issue between Latinos and others. How do we know? It's all in the comments.

When local Arizona newspapers ran stories about SB 1070 in Arizona, comments ran for pages and pages online. There were insulting, dehumanizing and lacked reason.

There were three comments on the story of the immigration poll on Monday (today) in The Dallas Morning News, even though six were listed in the numerical count. One can only surmise that three were taken off for being questionable in tone.

The three remaining spoke about "concerns" that aren't voiced that often in Texas. In fact, one commenter wasn't even from Texas. All three tried to instill fear of Latinos in their comments, from saying "la raza" was trying to take over Texas" to this: We have had to endure watching our state be run over by illegals who eat better and drive better cars than us on our dollar. But thank goodness America has woken up...My fellow Americans do not believe what the liberal media would like you to believe. You can depend on Fox news giving you just about the most accurate and fair unbiased news you can get. Come November every politician that is in favor of illegal immigration will be voted out. Hide and watch.

Not sure where this person sees undocumented immigrants eat better or drive better cars than him -- could he be confusing Latino citizens with undocumented immigrants? Or just watching too much of FOX news? Regardless, the calibre of comments that try to evoke resentment, fear and anger underscore just who is driving the illegal immigration debate -- I would bet it's not most "American people."