As most of you know by now, Speaker John Boehner’s recent hire has occasioned well-warranted criticism from opponents of the open borders agenda. You need do little more than skim the press release from her former employer to understand why the Speaker is taking on her services. However, the fact that the amnesty train is rolling towards its final destination does not mean that all hope is lost.

Investor’s Business Daily speaks for all patriotic Americans-including, presumably, followers of this website-when it declares that this seemingly bad omen should not be used as a justification for caving in regarding amnesty. We need to do everything in the time that elapses between now and the beginning of the next session of Congress to make our voices heard. To that end, we at American Rattlesnake urge you once again to Make Them Listen to those voices and force them to reject a fundamentally anti-American, anti-worker piece of corporatist/leftist statecraft.

Yet another example of Barack Obama’s unwillingness to acknowledge the separation of powers, or abide by any constraints upon his presidential authority. In this case, it’s an extension of the patently unconstitutional administrative amnesty which began over two years ago. Mark Krikorian has the details of the President’s latest evasion of the law. 

Who needs to follow the law when your presidency is too big to fail? I’m sure a former occupant of the White House would agree.

The critics are wrong. However, there are valuable lessons to be drawn from this experience.

Lesson 1.

Never trust Jennifer Rubin, who has a tenuous grasp of reality, as we’ve pointed out in the past.

Lesson 2.

Be skeptical of extravagant claims, especially if they come from open borders advocates and aren’t buttressed by empirical evidence.

Lesson 3.

The third and final lesson?

Don’t go to shills for information about one of the most critical issues of our time. Whatever legitimate critiques can be made of the Heritage Foundation, their research and analysis of immigration and welfare issues-particularly that conducted by Robert Rector-is peerless. It was responsible, in large measure, for obliterating the intellectual argument behind the last major attempt at a federal legislative amnesty. In summary, the “conservatives” who are attacking Heritage are wrong, and it will end up costing us dearly.

If you thought Hilda Solis was bad for American workers-and she was-then wait until you see who Barack Obama has tapped to replace her as the next head of the Department of Labor. Oh-so-mainstream Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, a man that-as Katrina Trinko points out-has devoted a large portion of his career to empowering illegal aliens served by organizations like Casa De Maryland, a lavishly-funded, Marxist-oriented outfit which seeks to not only forcibly impose illegal day laborers upon Maryland taxpayers, but to  eradicate immigration enforcement altogether. 

To get an idea of how fanatical this organization and its leaders are, read this WorldNetDaily report on their activities during the last major national debate over immigration reform. This is an entity whose perverse goals Thomas Perez sacrificed his time and energy to help achieve, one which advocated for the interests of illegal aliens over and above those of taxpaying, American citizens-despite the fact that he was ostensibly elected to represent his fellow citizens on the Montgomery County Council. I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to state that the upcoming debate over the Perez nomination is a battle between open borders dogmatists and the American public. Thankfully, there are still some members of the United States Senate in our corner; we’ll need them in order to thwart one of the President’s worst nominations to date. 

With the resignation of Labor Secretary Hilda Solis, it’s instructive to take a brief look over the Obama administration’s  labor policy priorities these past four years. Although the prime objectives of organized labor, such as the enactment of card check legislation, never saw the light of day during President Obama’s first term, labor unions did achieve some significant administrative victories. What’s more, the battle over labor regulations and law-both executive and legislative-was a focal point of national political discussion leading up to the 2012 presidential election.

What did not attract as much notice, unfortunately, was the systemic dismantling of immigration enforcement, especially during the last two years of Barack Obama’s first term, which arguably will have a significant impact upon the American economy in the years ahead. Even though I continue to believe that the negative consequences of mass immigration-especially of the largely unskilled sort we’ve seen since the 1965 Immigration Act-can’t be reduced to mere economic concerns, the cumulative cost of this wave includes a significant economic impact.

In addition to taxing already overburdened social welfare programs-to say nothing of the public education, criminal justice and health care distribution systems-the hundreds of thousands of low skilled immigrants we accept every year often displace the most economically insecure Americans, including some of the President’s most reliable political supporters.

Barack Obama’s immigration and labor policies seem designed to exacerbate the latter problem, a view confirmed by looking at recent job gains, which seem to have accrued solely to the benefit of immigrant workers. The tenure of Secretary Solis dovetailed nicely with this agenda, which included international agreements protecting the labor rights of illegal aliens from Latin American nations. While ensuring that workers are paid a wage rate consonant with the laws of the land is an admirable stance, one wonders why this administration did not deem it worthy of its ambition to deport these  workers, who-like their employers-are breaking the law.

It’s not as if these individuals are unknown to federal immigration officials. After all, Solis visited illegal day laborers in this very borough in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. However, holding illegal aliens accountable for their actions seems to be inimical to the political needs of the President and his political machine, which has expanded the vast administrative amnesty that has existed for the past two years to encompass everyone he or Janet Napolitano deems to be non-threatening, including virtually everyone who can feign interest in being a student and those who’ve committed multiple misdemeanors, i.e. criminals.

Like the highly politicized distribution of economic stimulus funds, this administration’s labor and immigration policies are not designed with the interests of Americans in mind so much as the best results for itself and its political and financial benefactors. Although Hilda Solis set a pretty low bar to clear, if past is prologue don’t expect her successor to be much of an improvement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Free_Use_Castro_Image.JPG

Tonight marks the beginning of the 2012 Democratic National Convention. The nomination of Barack Obama for President by the Democratic Party is a forgone conclusion, and that this convocation is being chaired by epic failure Antonio Villagraigosa, a.k.a. Tony Villar, is a matter of public record. 

However, much less attention has been focused upon the keynote speaker during this first night of festivities, San Antonio mayor Julian Castro. Many of you will remember Castro as the more eloquent-although far from persuasive-member of the pro-mass immigration team during an Intelligence Squared U.S. debate which was chronicled on this website last year. Although others are not enamored of Mayor Castro, and his record in office wouldn’t strike most impartial observers as being of presidential timber, we should all remember who the current occupant of the White House is, and what his curriculum vitae consisted of before moving into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Regardless of your thoughts about the competency of Julian Castro, the fact remains that he is an impressive political candidate, at least if you are to gauge success based upon purely rhetorical qualities. Which, unfortunately, is increasingly the prism through which most major electoral decisions are arrived at these days.

For those of you who haven’t been following the recent attempts by illegal aliens living in the United States to obtain law licenses-an initiative endorsed by the California Bar-the Fox News debate between Ira Mehlman and a typical  representative from the bottom-feeding class will be illuminating. For those of you who are already aware of the systemic attempt by the treason lobby to warp and/or erase American law, this debate is nothing new.

Even so, we should remember that-contrary to the bleating of those whose economic interests rests in dissolving the United States as a sovereign entity-what they are doing is fundamentally immoral.

Apparently, not everyone embraces this patriotic occasion with as much fervor as the followers of this website. It should come as no surprise that the Washington Post, a publication almost without parallel in ignoring dissenting views regarding immigration, would seek to elevate Mexican chauvinism at the expense of the United States. Aside from the contemporary, post-Kennedy Democratic Party, there isn’t a single faction more committed to erasing our distinctiveness as nation than mainstream press organs. 

For the Democrats, the advantage of importing millions of foreign nationals with no particular allegiance to the precepts of American governance is obvious. The overwhelming bias of journalists, on the other hand, can be attributed to a multiplicity of factors, one of them being pure ignorance. Yet the decision by WaPo to  blatantly insult whatever patriotic citizens remain among its readership points to a much broader problem at work.

As Michael Lind has explained in the past, many journalists support unfettered immigration because it benefits them directly. It would be foolish for a reporter to question public policy which enhances his or her station-even if there exists a corresponding diminution in the quality of life of other Americans as a result of that policy-especially when their superiors exert pressure upon them to toe the party line.

Therefore, the choice to pay homage to Mexico on the day reserved for the commemoration of the adoption of our national flag, although offensive, should come as no surprise to savvy media-watchers. The decision by the editors at the Washington Post is simply a reflection of their ideological gestalt. To them, the fact that this day is intended to honor the flag of our country is irrelevant. If anything, it serves merely as an impetus to trumpet the coming of a new America that better embodies their ideological prejudices.

Let’s hope that one day their ultimate wish is fulfilled, and they don’t have to report to any déclassé Americans.

Considering the rapidly diminishing prospects of American job applicants, events such as the Put America Back To Work job fair are desperately needed. It’s curious that such an event would be hosted by someone who wants  Americans to have fewer employment opportunities, and doesn’t believe the distinction between Americans and non-Americans should even exist.    

That said, I urge all of you-even those of you who may be gainfully employed at present-to check it out if your schedule permits. If you want to (politely) inquire as to the apparent contradiction between Mr. Rivera’s views on immigration and his endorsement of a job fair intended specifically for the benefit of American citizens, so much the better. 

If only our ostensible leaders in Washington D.C. were as wise as Mr. Condell.