Torture and the United States of America

For those of you having problems reading this text, please place your cursor over the text and hold down the control key on your keyboard, (CTRL), and with the wheel of your mouse, roll the wheel towards yourself. This will increase the text size.

One has to wonder what makes us different than al Qaeda or any other terrorist group when we stoop to their methods. Just HOW much can anyone trust what a tortured person says? I, for one, wouldn't put two cents on the information, after all, torture me and I'll tell you anything you want to hear and I'll make up what I don't know just to make it stop.

bush has turned my beloved country into the bad guys we are so afraid of. I despise him and his family. Power hungry, greedy bastards! They have put this nation in the toilet. And don't give me that crap about defending our freedoms, bush has done more to erase those freedoms than any other President. If history is true it will put him down as the WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY. My disgust and contempt for the man knows no bounds. I am grateful for the knowledge of KARMA. I know he will have to pay for what he has done, as a man and as a president, even if Congress and the Senate remain the gutless wonders they are now.

There is so much evidence against bush as a war criminal and cheney too. But, being the wealthy and powerful that they are they seem to be above the laws that you and I MUST obey. Ya, some shining examples here don'tcha think? But he would have us believe he is a Christian! LMAO! Christ would NEVER have done the things these men have done.

Factsheet: Military Commissions

On November 13, 2001, President Bush issued an executive order which purported to establish military commissions to try those captured in the “War on Terror.” Under the order, the President authorized trials by military commission upon a presidential determination that there was “reason to believe” a detainee is or was an Al Qaeda member or engaged in hostilities targeting the United States. The order narrowed the scope of procedural protections for military commissions relative to the traditional courts-martial process, sharply limited the avenues for review of commission decisions, and granted discretion to “close” any portion of the proceeding and thereby exclude the accused from access to relevant evidence or the hearing itself. Furthermore, the order allowed for the admission of coerced statements or statements made by absent or undisclosed sources. Click on the link above to read the full article.

I quote Vincent Warren here,

The United States has nothing legitimate to gain from prosecuting prisoners in military commissions at Guantanamo and a great deal to lose.

What kind of a nation have we become that we would rely on torture evidence, secret trials and an untested and deeply flawed system to impose the death penalty?

Our nation must abandon the failed experiment at Guantanamo. If the administration believes Mr. Al Qahtani has committed a crime, he should be charged and tried in a lawful proceeding worthy of our country.

Sincerely,

Vincent Warren
Executive Director

Vincent Warren is the Executive Director for the Center For Constitutional Rights http://ccrjustice.org a site I highly recommend.

As for bush denying that Waterboarding is torture, isn't that like Clinton saying, "I did NOT have sex with that Woman!" Ya bush, we believe you. NOT!

You will want to see this!

YouTube - RARE BANNED BUSH SPEECH

Watch video

-

And our elected officials STILL refuse to do anything about George Walker Bush or Dick Cheney! I don't know how they sleep at night. Who says the Anti-Christ isn't alive and well and living in the White House? Our leaders are doing EVERYTHING in their power to make sure hate, fear and discontent live well with the average citizen while they live fat on the farm!

Look deep within your hearts America. Is this the way you want our beloved country to go? Do you think that by saying nothing, doing nothing, it will all just go away? Do you think that just because bush's term in office is almost over that things will change? You delude yourselves.

The IRS

Did you know the IRS was never legally ratified in Congress? That makes it an illegal tax garnered against the American Citizens. Think I'm lying? Try to find the law that supports it, I have. There isn't one. Did you know that the IRS isn't even an American Corporation? Well, it's true, it isn't. Did you know that by paying your taxes you are voluntarily giving up your 14th Amendment rights? I do now!

http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm

Common Law Copyright

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice

1. Is the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) an organization within the U.S. Department of the Treasury?

Answer: No. The IRS is not an organization within the United States Department of the Treasury. The U.S. Department of the Treasury was organized by statutes now codified in Title 31 of the United States Code, abbreviated “31 U.S.C.” The only mention of the IRS anywhere in 31 U.S.C. §§ 301‑310 is an authorization for the President to appoint an Assistant General Counsel in the U.S. Department of the Treasury to be the Chief Counsel for the IRS. See 31 U.S.C. 301(f)(2).

At footnote 23 in the case of Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281 (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court admitted that no organic Act for the IRS could be found, after they searched for such an Act all the way back to the Civil War, which ended in the year 1865 A.D. The Guarantee Clause in the U.S. Constitution guarantees the Rule of Law to all Americans (we are to be governed by Law and not by arbitrary bureaucrats). See Article IV, Section 4. Since there was no organic Act creating it, IRS is not a lawful organization.

So, you see that all the times the IRS seized property from individuals the were doing so illegally!

Former IRS Agent Joe Banister and Ron Paul On CNBC

On CNBC...Former IRS CID Agent Joseph R Banister and ...
8 min -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PvaNWrkFeQ

From Wikpedia we have the definition of the Taxing and Spending Clause:

Taxing and Spending Clause

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States of America
This article is part of the series: United States Constitution
Original text of the Constitution
Preamble Articles of the Constitution I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V ∙ VI ∙ VII
Amendments to the Constitution
Bill of Rights I ∙ II ∙ III ∙ IV ∙ V VI ∙ VII ∙ VIII ∙ IX ∙ X Subsequent Amendments XI ∙ XII ∙ XIII ∙ XIV ∙ XV XVI ∙ XVII ∙ XVIII ∙ XIX ∙ XX XXI ∙ XXII ∙ XXIII ∙ XXIV ∙ XXV XXVI ∙ XXVII

Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution, is known as the Taxing and Spending Clause. It is the clause that gives the federal government of the United States its power of taxation. Component parts of this clause are known as the General Welfare Clause and the Uniformity Clause.^[1]

Text

“

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.

”

None of this refers to Individuals and their income, it refers to corporations and states. I've searched for HOURS and hours on the web trying to find the LAW that enables the IRS to collect taxes from individuals, but I can't find it and neither can a lot of other people.

Now, I admit our Government needs to run on something, but they too often give Corporations all the breaks while breaking the backs of the working stiff. When did this become a government for the corporation and not for WE The PEOPLE? Until they change it back, I for one, refuse to support them. Here is more.......

THE POWER TO DESTROY

Tax activists refute IRS claims
Former revenue chief: 'We're confiscating property now. That's socialism.

---

Posted: August 22, 2001
1:00 am EasternBy Jon Dougherty

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

Editor's note: Brought about by the successful hunger strike of tax activist Bob Schulz, an historic meeting between the federal government and leaders of the "tax honesty movement" will take place in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 25 and 26. WorldNetDaily will be there to cover the proceedings. Leading up to this high-profile confrontation over the legality of the income tax, the following is the second in a series of reports discussing an internal document from the Internal Revenue Service's own website. The document is intended to guide the agency's employees in how to deal with what the IRS calls "frivolous tax arguments." Part 1, "IRS bashes 'frivolous tax arguments," was published in Tuesday's WorldNetDaily.

Tax experts, including one who spent a year researching whether enough states properly ratified the 16th Amendment ? which authorizes Congress to collect income taxes -- are as insistent as ever that Americans are not mandated to pay Uncle Sam a portion of what they earn every year."I've read all of the cases the IRS mentions" in its 25-page document entitled "The Truth About Frivolous Tax Arguments," said Bill Benson, author of "The Law That Never Was," a book many believe debunks the government's claim that the income tax is legal and that the IRS is a properly authorized government agency.Very simply, he says there is no actual law authorizing an income tax."They must have a law in order to have any of this [the income tax] to apply," Benson told WND. "They must have a law from its inception, and they don't have that."A former criminal investigator for the Illinois Department of Revenue for nearly a decade, Benson said he has "17,000 certified and notarized documents showing that the 16th Amendment is an absolute, complete and total fraud."

When asked where he got the documents, Benson said they came from "the 48 continental United States," gathered during his one-year research effort in 1984 aimed at verifying whether or not the income tax amendment had been properly ratified.

But even activists within the "tax-honesty movement" grasp the reality of the mission they seek to accomplish: namely, to force an admission from the federal government that their arguments are correct. For Uncle Sam to admit his mistake could open the government up to unfair taxation recovery lawsuits that would make even the landmark tobacco litigation lawsuit settled for hundreds of billions of dollars pale in comparison.

"I have made it a personal stand not to argue the code with people. As far as I'm concerned, that is nothing more than willfully walking into quicksand," said Devvy Kidd, another noted tax activist. "You can't win the argument."

In the IRS document cited by Benson, there are lots of references to court cases and IRS code. But the problem, as WND's "TalkNetDaily" radio host and staff writer Geoff Metcalf points out, is getting the federal government to cite the legal chapter and verse of the law that requires mandatory payment of income taxes.

"I have often noted that if in fact we are compelled by law to pay income tax and the 16th Amendment was in fact properly and legally ratified (and it wasn't), then the government should be able to conclude their response in less than five minutes by merely stating, stanza and verse, where the law is, and how it applies: 'See here? Page such and such, paragraph such and such, subparagraph such and such. Now shut up and go home,'" said Metcalf.

One of the most compelling arguments of income tax opponents is the claim that the 16th Amendment was never even properly ratified, although understandably the IRS refutes that.

"This argument is based on the premise that all federal income tax laws are unconstitutional because the Sixteenth Amendment was not officially ratified, or because the State of Ohio was not properly a state at the time of ratification," says the IRS document. "This argument survived over time because proponents mistakenly believe that the courts have refused to address this issue."

However, the IRS says the amendment was properly ratified by "forty states, including Ohio, and issued by proclamation in 1913. Shortly thereafter, two other states also ratified the [A]mendment."

"There were enough states ? even without Ohio to complete" the required three-fourths of the states to ratify the amendment, said the IRS document. "Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the income tax laws enacted subsequent" to the ratification of the amendment.

In his research, however, Benson found that only four states ratified the amendment "without changing the wording." He maintains that, constitutionally, states cannot change words or punctuation when voting to accept or reject a constitutional amendment.

"The only thing the states can do is accept or reject the wording (of an amendment) as is," Benson told WND. "The legislatures of each state cannot change any of it. Otherwise, we'd have 48 different versions of the law."

"What is stated [in the IRS document] is a bald-faced lie," Kidd said.

"Since it was never ratified and we can prove it wasn?t, then apportionment is still in effect and again, everything else is moot," she said. The government's "progressive, unapportioned tax is, and always has been, unlawful."

Rather than dicker over IRS codes, legal impressions and court cases, Kidd and other "tax-honesty" proponents believe the key to discovering the legality of income tax lies in proving these contentions:

• That the IRS is not an authorized agency of the government and has no authority to conduct business;
• That the government's jurisdiction is not valid;
• The fraudulent ratification of the 16th Amendment unlawfully wiped out the apportionment clause of the Constitution;
• That an individual is, without question, forced to involuntarily surrender his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination by filing any income tax form under penalty of perjury.Another area of concern, Kidd says, is that the courts themselves can't even decide, in a universal manner, what constitutes an income tax or what the income tax really is -- direct or excise."That's a fact and it creates what is known as a problem [IRS] document," she said.Even former IRS commissioners have questioned the legitimacy of the very agency they serve."We're confiscating property now. That's socialism. It's written into the Communist Manifesto. Maybe we ought to see that every person who gets a tax return receives a copy of the Communist Manifesto with it so he can see what's happening to him," lamented T. Coleman Andrews, the Democratic commissioner of the IRS during the first 33 months of the Republican administration of President Dwight Eisenhower.But the one fact dogging nearly every tax honesty advocate is this: Regardless of the actual legitimacy of their arguments, the courts, Congress and most of the American public don't see it their way.The IRS can point to dozens of rules, regulations and court cases -- many decided by the U.S. Supreme Court -- backing the agency's position that it has a right to tax all of the income earned by American workers.Also, even critics of the agency acknowledge that it must collect the amount of money Congress approves in the federal budget every year. And once passed, Congress expects the Treasury Department to fill the nation's coffers.

  Finally, most states have agreements with the IRS to provide the agency with information. Under these agreements, individual states and the IRS notify each other about taxpayers that failed to file returns. The only state that does not have such an agreement is Nevada.

  Nevertheless, tax activists say the September meeting in Washington, D.C., will once and for all provide them with an opportunity to address their concerns face-to-face with government and, hopefully, IRS representatives.

  "We intend to prove our points at the hearings next month," Kidd said.

  Related offers:

  "The law that never was," a 2-volume set explaining how the 16th Amendment was never ratified, by Bill Benson.

YouTube - Ex IRS agent tells it like it is

"Ooh, she's an EX-IRS agent! She MUST know what she's talking about"

Watch video - 10 min -

Internal Revenue Service Whistleblowers

People who have actually read the tax regulations tend to get very upset, but you'll never hear about them marching upon Washington by watching ABC, CNN or Fox News channel. Photos: Todd Johnson 2004 http://www.givemeliberty.org

Because reading tax regulations is a function of an IRS job, many IRS employees tend to know something the rest of us don't. However, relatively few of them will tell you about it. Brave are those who do, those who actually follow the written tax rules, to live by the truth. When they blow the whistle on our government's own fraud, they risk everything, even giving it all up, to tell you the truth.

Girls, Boys, Sex and Sterilization

I think the Government minister Dawn Primarolo as reported in the Daily Mail, aught to be drawn and quartered for even thinking this! Her idea, which follows, places all the blame on teenage girls instead of where it belongs, on boys! After all, a girl can't get pregnant by herself! And it is a scientific fact that boys think about sex on the average of twice a minute. Putting pressure on their girlfriends to have sex with them is known to evey female who has ever grown up as a heterosexual. So for this Government minister to say what she has, blatantly disregards the natural state of things and places all the blame WHERE IT DOESN'T BELONG!

If she really wants to stop teenage pregnancy and sexual relations, she should make it mandatory to place all males over the age of 8 in chastity devices. This would eliminate the problem absolutely. Then, we should educate these boys on respect, for themselves, for women, for family, and for disease, which having sexual relations indiscriminately causes. It would also stop rapes in their tracks. Ya, that's the ticket!
Here is the article:

Why we should sterilise teenage girls ... temporarily at least
By FAY WELDON - 15th February 2008

Young mums: 'Not having a baby takes intelligence and planning' (Picture posed by model)

Young mums: 'Not having a baby takes intelligence and planning.' Last week, an intriguing proposition was mooted by Government minister Dawn Primarolo.

Teenage girls, she said, could be steered towards what is described as "long-term contraception".

This is now possible thanks to the development of contraceptive jabs and implants which can last up to five years.

In other words, there is a way of effectively sterilizing girls for a lengthy period of time.

At what age? Well, doesn't 12 until 17 sound rather sensible?

This would have the advantage of bringing down the teenage pregnancy rate, so high in this country it makes us a disgrace among the nations - the worst offenders in Europe.

The abortion rate would fall sharply. And silly young girls could get on with the education that is meant to produce serious, responsible taxpayers, not benefit recipients.

Now, many people will see this modest proposal as little short of horrific - nothing less than state interference in our reproductive lives.

But think about it: it might not be such a bad idea.

We are moving into a science fiction age in which life itself can be created in a test tube, and it seems that, before long, perfect babies could be bred at will, largely free of hereditary disease and illness.

So, in my view, there is little point any more in feeling shock-horror at the idea of mass sterilization.

Neither do I believe it will encourage "promiscuity" because girls will feel they have nothing to fear in sleeping around. In truth, they seem to be doing that already. I'm afraid we are now in a time when sex is mere recreational pleasure to thousands of young women.

The trouble is that pregnancy no longer holds the fear for teenagers it once did. The social stigma has gone.

Indeed, for many, it seems, a child has actually become a kind of perverse badge of honor.

Obviously, there are millions of sensible young girls, but for many, having a baby seems to be the logical, and even desirable, result of their teenage flings.

It it wasn't, they'd stir themselves to do something to prevent themselves getting pregnant, like taking the morning-after pill.

But they don't. Because the benefits of doing nothing to stop it are obvious.

Suddenly, they can give birth to someone who will offer unconditional love in a bleak, busy, money-grubbing world.

The council will offer a free home away from nagging parents. They will have independence, sexual freedom and no more humiliating exams to try to pass - because, more than likely, their education will fall by the wayside.

Nowadays, ask some girls why they want a baby so badly and they will say vaguely: "Oh, I want to fulfill myself."

Once, they would have confidently said of the father: "I love him. And I want a bit of me, a bit of him, to go on for all eternity."

It's not like that any more. Love is seen as little more than a neurotic dependency to the young.

The fear of pregnancy used to stop girls having sex. To be pregnant and unmarried was a major life disaster (as it is still in some of our ethnic communities.)

You were disgraced, soiled goods: the child was removed, no one would marry you.

I had a great aunt locked up for life in an asylum from the age of 20 until she died. She had been declared a "moral imbecile" because she had a baby out of wedlock.

My mother tried to rescue her - but to no avail. The rest of the family was against it. After 30 years, she was so institutionalized, anyway, that she didn't want to leave.

This condemnation of the sexually imprudent was not meant to be unkind. People were poor, babies without fathers suffered and there was no way women could earn money if they had a child.

It was a moral issue but the stigma was born out of necessity: a desperate attempt to stop girls from doing what came naturally until a father and a home could be provided.

But for all that, unwelcome babies went on being born - the human impulse to procreate being what it is.

How to have sex without getting pregnant was in those days a real mystery. Now we know everything there is to know about preventing babies, yet still girls take risks.

Understanding how the body works and what happens next seem to make no difference.

Currently, our teenage pregnancy rate is twice as high as in Germany, three times as high as in France and six times as high as in the Netherlands.

Is this because, in this country, getting pregnant while still at school has become a status symbol for the girls, as ASBOs have for the boys?

In spite of all the efforts of the Government's Teenage Pregnancy Unit, and millions of pounds spent on initiatives to persuade girls that having babies young is a bad, bad thing, the rates stay sky-high.

In 2005, there were 39,804 conceptions by under-18s in England - a rate of 41.3 per thousand.

The trouble for those who would tackle the pregnancy problem is that the very act of warning against pregnancy can be unproductive.

A certain proportion of teenagers like to defy fate - and the more you warn them not to smoke, drink, have sex, stay up late, join gangs, the more they will.

Defying authority, not doing what you're told, is, for many, part of growing up - the search for your own identity, a necessary preparation for leaving the nest. Persuasion doesn't work. The instinct to rebel goes too deep.

Boys have always wanted to have sex and notch up "scores" on the bedpost.

The trouble now is that the girls - who once wanted just to be loved by someone, anyone - are under intense peer pressure, don't want to be outdone or be seen to be 'square', and so behave like the boys.

So much for gender equality in the classroom!

It seems that many of today's girls just like being pregnant, and emotionally and physically - not just practically - have more to gain than lose if they are. Sex education hasn't helped, and may indeed have harmed.

Freud's view of the psycho-sexual development of the child has been ignored. His opinion was that you interfere with the "latency" phase of ages nine to 12 at your peril, for fear of stopping further development.

In Freud's theory, the latency phase is when a child unconsciously denies the facts of life until he or she is ready to face them. If unpalatable facts are forced down the child's throat it's traumatizing, and progression to sexual maturity is halted.

In other words, if you start teaching the birds and the bees too early, all that the nine, ten or 11-year-olds will do is want to experiment with what they have been taught before they have the emotional capability to deal with the fallout.

The Government says it has tried everything to stop pregnancy rates rising - from school matrons to a blizzard of sex education, to free condoms and morning-after pills.

But it's not working. That's why I think sterilizing girls for a few years isn't such a bad idea after all - and, when you think about it, it's a tempting solution for the State, too.

Once you stop your under-20s having babies, there's no end to the social improvements you could make.

If girls go on to college instead of minding babies, fewer children overall will be born. The more educated a girl, the fewer babies she is likely to have - education and fertility rates being in inverse proportion.

The maternity services, now so very over-stretched, would be better able to cope. Young mothers would not have the priority they now do when it comes to housing, and accommodation would be set free for those unfortunates clamouring on the waiting lists.

Education would benefit, too. Classrooms would be less plagued by fatherless lads whose ambition it is to cause nothing but trouble.

I suppose there are other ways we could try to tackle the problem. We could make it a lot less convenient for girls to get into trouble - and one obvious way is to overhaul the benefits system.

When it comes to receiving welfare, girls of 16 are treated as adults (though legally they can't vote or drink), and their parents have no legal obligation to house or support them.

If they won't or can't, then the State must. Putting that age up by a year or two might work wonders.

Then again, the recent law that allows a mother to claim benefits only until her child is six could be repealed because at present it can only encourage her to have another baby in order to keep on claiming benefits. And who wouldn't?

"Getting a job" sounds good - but what kind of local minimum wage job is the unfortunate mother likely to get anyway?

Theory and practice are so different. Another issue is that though many young girls "love babies", they dislike the children they grow up to be. Rearing a child is a lot more difficult than "having a baby".

Watch young mothers slap their troublesome offspring in the supermarket and see what I mean. Because you wanted a baby does not mean you wanted a child - with its separate, possibly difficult personality.

So the children of teenage mothers can suffer, too.

Not having babies takes intelligence, planning, prudence and boring appointments with doctors. The morning-after pill helps, but still means an inquisition from your friendly (or not-so-friendly) neighborhood pharmacist.

So what do we do? Deprive potential children of life by sterilizing a few hundred thousand girls society has decided are "too young" to breed, regardless of their biological capabilities?

Go for the quality of child they might produce in their 20s or 30s, rather than the quantity they could create if they start at 14? That, let's face it, is what's up for discussion.

There is, I admit, a dreadful gender unfairness in the suggestion that teenage girls should be sterilized. Shouldn't boys under 17 have their tubes tied, too? It takes two to make a baby.

What's sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. Perhaps the Government should start thinking about how that would work.

I wonder what birthday cards for 18-year-olds will look like in future? "I've got the key of the door, never been able to breed before!"

Since science has now devised a way of stopping girls getting pregnant without damaging their longterm reproductive health, the idea of enforcing sterility on girls under 17 seems to me a least worst option.

•Fay Weldon's novel The Spa Decameron is published by Quercus, and her non-fiction book What Makes Women Happy by Harper Perennial, both £7.99.

The comments from women on the article appalled me too! Either these women did not have daughters, or their daughters were over the age of consent, happily married and it no longer mattered. Maybe they were just too ugly? Whatever the case my be, should someone try to sterilize MY daughter he'd be met with a gun pointed exactly where he wouldn't want to even think of it being. I absolutely refuse to believe that males are still making women the scape-goats for their sexual predations.

Just exactly how far down into the medievil times are we willing to go? Just how much control of our lives, sexuality, etc. are we willing to let the Government have? Not me, not this lifetime. The rest of you may find nothing wrong with this idea, but I will fight it to the death!

I guess the oxymoron still holds true about Government Intelligence!

I Love Lou Dobbs Part II

It seems there is a plot afoot to make sure that illegal aliens are not only allowed into this country, but encouraged to be here. Take for example the city of New Haven Connecticut. Now here is a bleeding heart sympathizer city who breaks the laws of the United States of America by granting IDs to illegal aliens. Isn't that just too sweet? This would make it virtually impossible for even law enforcement to decide if someone was and illegal or not. Those living around the area should protest long and loudly to get this practice STOPPED! Illegals do not and should not have the right to any form of United States identification EVER! Stupid assholes! From Lou Dobbs I give you this gem!

DOBBS: The city of New Haven, Connecticut, tonight is facing challenges to its policy that grants illegal aliens identification cards. New Haven was in fact the first city in the nation to grant identification cards to illegal aliens. Now, some other cities have decided to follow New Haven's example and there are consequences.

Bill Tucker reports from New Haven.

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Nine months ago, New Haven, Connecticut, begun issuing identification cards to any resident who lacked documentation. It's a program that creates official identification for illegal aliens. The city defends its program, saying the purpose is to create identification for all residents. That illegal aliens are likely included because they don't ask anyone's legal status.

The mayor declines our request for an interview, but as of April 25, the city has issued more than 5,500 identity cards. But while the mayor isn't talking, his critics are. Homeland Security Chief Michael Chertoff told a Yale Law School audience that quote, "I don't think having identifications to enable people to live illegally is a good thing. It's inconsistent with the law as we have it."

That mayor is a chicken shit if ever there was one. Imagine putting up this policy and then being too afraid to stand by and defend it. RECALL TIME!!! I wonder how the people in New Haven feel about this? Or are they all illegals now? Is the population of the town mostly Hispanic? It would be interesting to find out. However, barring that, here is the info on the mayor of that special city. Any other city attempting to do this will find their name plastered here in the SHAME ON YOU category! Where is your patriotism to your own country?

Oh, and I thought it appropriate to get a good look at this asshole!

Isn't he just precious??? NOT! While I couldn't find a direct line to the mayor of this wonderful city, I did find an interesting link. Click here to listen to him defend his ID program:People like this need to be OUT off office and Americans need to lead the way. This is the ONLY patriotic thing to do.

Those critical of the program could not agree more and point out the security vulnerabilities the card creates.

NEIL BERRO, COAL. FOR SECURE DRIVER'S LICENSE: At a time when the Department of Motor Vehicles all over the country are strengthening licensing standards precisely to emphasize lawful presence requirements. This type of card creates yet another potential loophole.

Exactly! Who the hell is this mayor and whoever else trying to kid? This will NOT be tolerated in the United States of American and anyone trying to facilitate illegals in this country will be GONE! Your days are numbered mayor!

JESSICA VAUGHAN, CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES: They actually facilitate criminal activity by enabling people to set up a new identity or to hide their criminal past or to hide their immigration status. There are all sorts of ramifications of the cards that really trump any other benefit that you can think of that they might have.

THANK YOU! We are not going to tolerate this sort of behavior in ANY U.S. city. One way or another, these illegals WILL be caught and hauled away.

TUCKER: Opponents of the I.D. card go to court later this month with the Freedom of Information request to force the release of the names of all the people over the age of 18 who have been issued an I.D. card.

TUCKER: Now, Lou, as you mentioned, New Haven was the first city to begin issuing identification to illegal aliens. But since then, San Francisco has approved a similar plan. They are due to begin implementing it soon. There has been some discussion in New York, but frankly, Lou, the discussions in New York seem to have died.

DOBBS: Well, it is great that New Haven is doing this. Just out of curiosity, why?

DOBBS: Well I got to say I love the music there, that's great.

TUCKER: Well Lou, I have to tell you, very few people showed up. There's very few left, but they're making up for that with a lot of volume right now. The reason they're doing it Lou is they're saying they have a lot of people in this town that don't have identification and they feel compelled to provide it identification for them...

They feel compelled??? I've never seen anything like this on the Rule of Law Day. Here we are celebrating our LAWS and these people bend over backwards to break those laws. Well I'll give them a break, right out of office. Time to start to campaign People of New Haven and get yourself a NEW MAYOR. Make sure any other sympathizers are also out of office. You can do this! And LA? Your Day is coming...

DOBBS: Will they be able to vote?

TUCKER: No, they won't be able to vote, but they're not checking the I.D.s either, Lou, and that's a problem a lot of people have is if you show up and give them whatever you've got, you get identification. There's no checking it.

This is proof positive that these people know, and are facilitating, the ability of these illegals to vote. This will not be tolerated in this Country! You mayor de stafano are the asshole of all time!

DOBBS: So they can vote.

TUCKER: No, no, they cannot vote. It's a city identification card. It entitles them to some city services like the library and the pool and some other city social services, but it does not allow them to vote.

DOBBS: All right. We're going to take your word for it.

Sure, and if you believe that I have some beach-front property for you here in AZ! These lying sacks of shit won't get away with it. And I hope that Judge makes sure of it.

Bill Tucker, thank you very much in New Haven, Connecticut.

And we want to update you on a story we reported to you last night. Congressman Anthony Weiner and Congressman Steven LaTourette created a Congressional Caucus, a middle class caucus and the first one ever and as of last night's broadcast a total of six Congressmen had signed on to the Caucus.

We are happy to report to you tonight that 16 more members of Congress signed on after our segment aired. And if you would like to know who is joining this Caucus on the middle class and see whether your congressman is a member yet, please logon to loudobbs.com or loudobbsradio.com as well.

YEA! And now if we can just get them all on the same page as far as illegals are concerned, life will start to improve in these United States!

DOBBS:And pro-illegal alien groups protesting the rule of law on the 50th anniversary of America's National Law Day. It's Law Day, folks. Tell those people. It's Law Day. One of the leaders of the protests and demonstrations joins me here next.

And a new report suggesting this economic slowdown is causing hardship in Mexico. We'll have that special report and tell you how the candidates are sort of spinning that little piece of information. Stay with us.

DOBBS: Turnout across the country has been very light at rallies sponsored by open borders, pro-amnesty, special interest groups on this National Law Day.

John Trasvina is the president and general counsel of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, MALDEF. He joins us tonight from Chicago.

John, good to have you with us on the broadcast.

JOHN TRASVINA, PRES., MALDEF: Good evening, Lou.

DOBBS: Are you disappointed by the turnout?

TRASVINA: No. Not at all. No, this is a day when the immigrants come out -- out from of the shadows from their regular work really keeping this country moving forward on a number of different areas. They're in the most dangerous and difficult jobs. But today they're out proudly standing up, doing what is very American, which is peaceful protest, peaceful assembly, asking Congress to change the laws, overdue change in the immigration laws.

These are NOT Americans you moron! They don't have rights, they don't get a say and they DON'T get to have what AMERICANS get!!! If figures that the mental capabilities of the fools who are for open borders and amnesty can't figure out the simplest of ideas. No, they just want to push their agenda, even if it is AGAINST ALL AMERICAN LAWS! Where do they get these guys? Were they dropped on their heads when they were born? When talking ILLEGALS here we are not talking about Citizens! Here's an award for Stupidity! You sound, mr. trasvian, like the idiot you are!

DOBBS: Well, you say that. And perhaps many of the people you represent say that. But about -- it looks like a sizable majority of 300 million Americans say no, we're not going to do the amnesty thing. We think the law that came out as the McCain-Kennedy legislation three years ago that has been rejected twice in Congress and in most recently by the Senate just isn't the right legislation. So how...

TRASVINA: Well, once again...

DOBBS: So how...

TRASVINA: Once again you're incorrect once again. The majority of the people support these types of programs.

BULLSHIT! You don't speak for me or for anyone else against this legislation and we will make our voices heard! We are still the majority or the legislation WOULD have passed. Don't kid yourself boy!

DOBBS: John, John, please do me a favor.

TRASVINA: They support legalization, they support comprehensive immigration reform.

DOBBS: Yes, well, the Congressional Budget Office demonstrated very clearly -- the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office demonstrated clearly that comprehensive immigration reform legislation, which you supported last year, as did a lot of other people, would have only dealt with 25 percent of the illegal immigration problem.

Secondly, it would have been, point of fact, been exorbitantly expensive and would have taken up just about three-fourths of the visas of -- for the families of those who are in this country illegally who would have been given amnesty. So those are difficult, difficult hurdles for even the most fanatical enthusiasts for comprehensive immigration reform to overcome.

Why can't --

TRASVINA: Well, you know, that's one area where you and I agree, the system isn't working.

DOBBS: Right.

TRASVINA: It's not working for the American people, it's not working for the immigrants, it's not working for the nation's economy.

DOBBS: Right.

TRASVINA: It needs to be fixed. That's why people are out today...

DOBBS: Right.

TRASVINA: ...to seek those kind of fixes.

DOBBS: But also seeking to -- have the U.S. immigration laws that are infrequently, but certainly with increasing frequency, being enforced by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Don't you think it's a little bold to demand that laws are not -- be not enforced?

TRASVINA: Of course not. The movement for against segregation laws back in the '60s, the same kind of demonstrations. You would deny those people back in the '60s, black, white, Asian, Latinos, together fighting -- coming out and marching, you would deny those people the right to peaceably assembly? I don't think so. On this particular issue, the nation's needs to be heard. The nation's needs need to be heard.

OH PAALEASE! DO NOT EVEN SAY THIS IS THE SAME THING AS WHAT WE DID BACK IN THE 60S. THIS IS NOTHING LIKE THAT. TO EVEN THINK YOU CAN COMPARE APPLES TO ORANGES AND GET THE SAME FRUIT IS RIDICULOUS!

DOBBS: All we're hearing from...

TRASVINA: The current system isn't working.

DOBBS: Right. All we're hearing from -- we've heard very clearly as has the U.S. Senate and these presidential candidates, by the way, that the majority of Americans are opposed to a blanket amnesty and will not stand for it.

TRASVINA: Well, the Tancredo part of the party didn't win.

DOBBS: Oh please, please.

TRASVINA: Tancredo did win. Duncan Hunter didn't win. The three remaining candidates Senators Clinton, Senator Obama and Senator McCain, have supported comprehensive immigration reform, as do the majority of the American people, Lou.

DON'T FORGET THERE IS A FOURTH CANDIDATE: RON PAUL. HE WON'T BETRAY AMERICANS. VOTE RON PAUL! GET YOUR STATE TO PUT HIM ON THE BALLOT THIS FALL, HE DOESN'T STAND FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS OR AMNESTY!

DOBBS: Actually, they don't, the majority, that is, of the American people. But let's get to the real issue. Why is it that corporate America on the right, if you will, and on the left, social (INAUDIBLE) centrist activist groups, you know, various left-wing groups have met on the issue of exploiting illegal labor in this country, want a free pass on it, and refuse and resist to secure our borders when at a time when the principal victims of the -- the principal source, of course, of methamphetamines, heroin, cocaine, and marijuana is Mexico, yet the very people who purport to represent the -- some of the ethnic peoples in this country who are being most devastated by addiction and by those drugs, are refusing to secure the border?

Don't -- do you think that's irresponsible?

TRASVINA: Well, your side of the debate is allowing the United States to do nothing on these issues.

DOBBS: No, no, actually, John, that is not...

DOBBS: I said secure the border. You haven't got the guts to say the same thing.

TRASVINA: Absolutely.

DOBBS: You secure the border -- look, I'll join with you and we'll work out -- we can sit here and talk about immigration law. But you're playing your gamings.

TRASVINA: MALDEF is an organization of lawyers. We believe in the law. And...

DOBBS: Then why don't you enforce it instead of call for its lack of enforcement?

TRASVINA: Part of - legalization, part of enforcement is legalization. It's an overall picture. So it's enforcing the law. Of course, we absolutely support it.

No it isn't. How did a man purportedly so smart, smart enough to become a lawyer, get to be so dumb? One has nothing to do with the other. You enforce existing LAWS and maybe you work within the system to change those laws. But you DO NOT advocate breaking existing laws to accommodate illegals! That is idiotic!

DOBBS: Do you want to legalize marijuana, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamines? Because that's what -- those drugs are killing people in the very ethnic group that you purport to represent.

TRASVINA: Look, Lou, you can get on different subjects all you want. On the issue of immigration...

Oh, of course let's NOT talk about important issues. By all MEANS, let's ignore this fact all together. Pander, Pander, Pander. Do these guys ever listen to themselves? I mean really. Logic dictates these are the SAME issues or part of those issues, but let's NOT talk about that!!! Give me a break here!

DOBBS: I'm not -- it's all about the border, it's all about securing this border, it's all about enforcing our laws.

TRASVINA: No. A lot of people come in, don't even come across the border, and they come in legally and overstay their visas. So it's not -- don't focus on the border.

DOBBS: Oh don't focus on the border?

TRASVINA: You can behind it all you want.

DOBBS: Is it that inconvenient to you?

TRASVINA: No. it's not...

DOBBS: You're the one hiding here.

TRASVINA: We're talking...

DOBBS: You're obfuscating.

In case ANYONE doesn't know what OBFUSCATE MEANS: From Marrion-Webster Dictionary online we get this:

obfuscate
One entry found.

obfuscate

Main Entry:
ob·fus·cate Listen to the pronunciation of obfuscate
Pronunciation:
\ˈäb-fə-ˌskāt; äb-ˈfəs-ˌkāt, əb-\
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
ob·fus·cat·ed; ob·fus·cat·ing
Etymology:
Late Latin obfuscatus, past participle of obfuscare, from Latin ob- in the way + fuscus dark brown — more at ob-, dusk
Date:
1577

transitive verb1 a: darken b: to make obscure 2: confuse intransitive verb: to be evasive, unclear, or confusing

This is most definitely what the man is doing. Not wanting to answer direct questions about real issues. Just like a lawyer... Don't confuse me with the facts!

TRASVINA: Lou, we're talking about addressing comprehensive immigration. The nation's needs. You had earlier on about...

DOBBS: The nation's needs?

TRASVINA: Yes.

DOBBS: The nation's needs.

TRASVINA: The American heritage of the nation of welcoming immigrations. Immigrants improving themselves and...

And this nation will continue to welcome Immigrants, LEGAL IMMIGRANTS, not ILLEGALS! There is a big difference in the two and just because some deceitful lawyer words things a certain way that it SOUNDS GOOD, doesn't make it true or truthful! Even those of Hispanic origins that are here LEGALLY say illegals are NOT THE SAME AS THEY ARE AND NEVER WILL BE. WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TRYING TO KID?

DOBBS: John, John...

TRASVINA: ...and improving the nation.

DOBBS: Let me ask you a question.

TRASVINA: Today's immigrants are no different than the immigrants of the past.

DOBBS: OK.

TRASVINA: Whether they're Pennsylvania Dutch, the Italian...

DOBBS: I'll tell you what, I'm going to ask you a question, you ask me a question. A fair deal? And we'll give an answer.

TRASVINA: It's your show. Go ahead.

DOBBS: Well, no. I'm asking if you would agree. We're friends. Don't kid anybody here. You and I have gotten along very well.

TRASVINA: Well, we get along very well, but that's about it, Lou. Go ahead.

DOBBS: OK. So let's -- are you willing to do that? I'll ask you a question, you ask me one.

TRASVINA: Yes, go ahead, Lou.

DOBBS: All right. Let me ask you this, if, in point of fact, we could secure the borders, would you be willing to secure those borders and ports, and then begin the process of reforming our laws or would you resist that idea absolutely?

TRASVINA: The two go hand in hand. Legalization is helping us secure the nation.

DOBBS: You and I both...

TRASVINA: So you have an artificial distinction between what you're saying enforce the laws and other -- everything else is reform. It's all reform. The system needs to be reformed, whether it's the border security, or whether it is the entry-exit system, or the legalization, or the long waits for family leave...

DOBBS: We could have had -- we would be on the issue right now. We could be undergoing a very vigorous reform of our immigration laws had your organization and others not resisted securing that border.

TRASVINA: Absolutely not. You're just incorrect, Lou. The people who want to debate on the bill want to move forward.

DOBBS: You get your question.

TRASVINA: I don't have a question for you, Lou. But what I want to say...

DOBBS: Sure.

TRASVINA: ...is that we could have had comprehensive immigration reform because most of the American people want the overall perspective of comprehensive immigration reform. Not just one part of it, not another part of it. Every time Congress has done just one piece, it's failed. It has to do both. It has to address the legal immigration and illegal.

You go right ahead and keep telling yourself that, maybe one day you will believe it. The rest of us, the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, LEGAL AMERICANS WILL NOT STAND FOR AMNESTY. No way. We won't have it and you will be fighting a losing battle the rest of your life on that one. The more these people get in our faces, the more determined we are they won't get SHIT!

DOBBS: It's has last (INAUDIBLE). John -- it has to do what?

TRASVINA: It must address both legal immigration and illegal immigration together.

DOBBS: All right.

TRASVINA: It didn't do that the last time.

DOBBS: Oh I agree with you on that actually.

John, thank you very much. John Trasvina...

TRASVINA: Thank you, Lou.

DOBBS: ...on this our National Law Day. We appreciate your being with us.

Still ahead, our country's economic crisis being felt across our border. We'll have that report in a great deal more. Stay with us.

DOBBS: This country is struggling. Our economy making it harder for Latino immigrants including illegal aliens to send back money to their relatives. According to a new survey, only half of the Latino immigrants living in this country are now sending money back regularly. That's down 73 percent just two years ago.

That's where the transcript ended. Sorry to say but I would have enjoyed the rest of it. So, from my views and Lou Dobbs, there you have the show. It was awesome and one of the reasons I love CNN's Lou Dobbs so much. Lou Dobbs does try to be fair with his guests even if they don't think so. I find that most of them have a problem with the questions he asks of them. Too bad. If you aren't prepared to answer the hard questions, stay off the Lou Dobbs show.

Lawyers lie and they love to take money from fools. I think this is a foolish endeavor. But hey, it is these fools money right? Let them spend it however they want to. And while this attorney can say the majority of Americans want amnesty for illegals, it doesn't make it true.

I also have to wonder about the victims of crime from illegal aliens. How hard must this be on them to see those in our country trying to give amnesty to these law breakers??? What a travesty to even consider this sort of legislation.

HELL NO MAKE THEM GO! HELL NO MAKE THEM GO! HELL NO MAKE THEM GO!

I Love Lou Dobbs!

Oh, not in the freaky, stalker type way, but in the way he presents things, in the everyday stories he brings to life and lively discussion. Yup, I love Lou Dobbs. In the face of media bias and one news fits all, Lou Dobbs stands head and shoulders above the rest. In fact, I think he is the ONLY one who has consistently stood up for the working class since I can remember. Oh, don't get me wrong, others like Jack Cafferty do too, they know what is wrong with this world, but Lou Dobbs does it every night, 5 days a week. I really miss that show when the weekend rolls around...

Having said all that, yesterday was an amazing news cast. Believe it or not, May 1, is Law Day. That's the day we celebrate our Laws and the value they bring to our lives. How ironic then that the Hispanic community would choose that day to demonstrate for illegal immigration rights!

According to The American Bar Association Law day means:

Fifty years ago President Eisenhower proclaimed the first Law Day a "day of national dedication to the principle of government under law." The ABA invites you to celebrate this enduring principle during the 50th anniversary of Law Day.

Law Day 2008 will explore the meaning of the rule of law, fostering public understanding of the rule of law through discussion of its role in a free society.

I'm 50 years old and only just looked up the meaning for Law Day. So, on the year I was born this was put into effect. Kinda kewl! And all this time I thought the First of May meant something else. ~grin~

What does all this have to do with Lou Dobbs? Good question... I'm so glad you asked! You see, all day yesterday were demonstrations around the country and those speaking were pandering to the Hispanic community and Illegal Immigrants! I'm so not impressed. Wonder how much money the Hispanics funnel into Congress??? Well, you know me, I had to find out...

According to Joel Russell from Hispanic Business Magazine:

Hispanic political action committees (PACs) contributed over $1.8 million to candidates in the 2003-04 election cycle (see table, "Hispanic PAC Spending"), nearly triple the total from the 2000 presidential election, according to data from the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Still, Hispanic PAC activity represents only a trickle of money in comparison to the Hispanic voting population.

Well, that's a pretty penny! Wonder how many pockets THAT went into hmmmm? But that is old news and I wanted TODAY'S News... And of that voting community, how many are illegals with stolen or forged identities? And yes I will say it. You know it is happening, even if they haven't been caught YET. Maybe they never will be, or maybe they already have and someone is looking the other way... Wouldn't be the first time. Especially in Sanctuary Cities...

I went looking, but this article wasn't really about campaign contributions so I just left it and came back to what this was actually about which was what was happening around the country yesterday. I've said it before, I want to know:

WHY ILLEGALS ARE IN THIS COUNTRY DEMANDING RIGHTS WHEN THEY SHOULD GO HOME TO THEIR COUNTRY AND DEMAND THEIR RIGHTS THERE IS BEYOND ME! You want rights? GO HOME to your native countries!

If someone can explain that one to me I'd be ever so happy. Because if they want rights, they should go HOME and claim their rights there, not come into MY COUNTRY and demand we change OUR LAWS TO SUIT THEM! (climbing off my soap box now)

So, back to Lou Dobbs who had an amazing show yesterday.

LOU DOBBS, HOST: Thank you, Wolf.
Tonight pro amnesty and left wing groups ignoring national law day -- it is National Law Day in this country. They ignore the fundamental values of the nation and demand an end to the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. We'll have complete coverage of this travesty.

Also communities across the nation suffering devastating consequences from our illegal immigration crisis, but the mayor of New Haven, Connecticut is pandering to socioethnic special interest groups. He's making his city a safe haven for illegal aliens. Did I mention this is National Law Day? We'll have that report.

Oh, I couldn't wait for him to get past the candidate stuff. Is there anyone else besides me who sick to death of listening to all this campaigning crap? It is like the bush administration, can't wait for that to be over too! But he surprised me last night and there wasn't any campaign stuff on first thing. I almost missed the good stuff!

ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT: news, debate, and opinion for Thursday, May 1. Live from New York, Lou Dobbs.

DOBBS: Good evening, everybody and happy Law Day.

This is National Law Day, Law Day USA, 2008, proclaimed National Law Day first by President Dwight David Eisenhower. Thousands on this pro-law day, thousands of pro-illegal alien activists and their supporters instead joined up with left wing groups and held protests and demonstrations across the nation.

But those protests were much smaller than in previous years, considerably smaller. And the demonstrators were demanding that the federal government immediately stop arresting illegal aliens and they demanded that amnesty be given to 12 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country.

Now ironically these protests coming on the same that day that this nation by law celebrates National Law Day, honoring our rule of law. We have coast-to-coast coverage tonight of the marches, the protests and the impact, if any, on the presidential campaign.

We begin with Jim Acosta in New York City -- Jim.

JIM ACOSTA, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, hundreds of protesters rallied here in New York, thousands marched in the streets and other big cities across the country to demonstrate against immigration raids and deportations. But the turnout was nowhere near the hundreds of thousands of people these rallies drew two years ago. And so far in places like Chicago no reports of major unrest, such as what unfolded at a demonstration in Los Angeles last year.

Organizers launched these marches two years ago they say as a way to put pressure on the government to respect the rights they say of the undocumented, but some in this movement worry that that message is being lost out here in these events that are unfolding today. We talked to one immigration advocate who says he didn't take part in today's demonstrations because other groups, anti war groups and anti globalization groups have glommed (ph) onto these rallies, muddying the message.

ACOSTA: And this was a conscious decision not to come?

EDWARD JUAREZ: Absolutely. This was a conscious decision not to come, not to participate precisely because of the fact of the organizations that are involved in these kinds of events they really do not project who are the (ILLEGAL JustMyTruth) immigrants of today.

ACOSTA: And immigration groups that we talked to today say this year is different. Demonstrations, mass demonstrations may have worked in 2006, but some Latino and immigration rights groups are hoping for this year instead Lou, is a march to the ballot box this fall.

DOBBS: Well they can't very well march to the ballot box if they're not citizens, can they?

ACOSTA: Well you know the folks who are citizens, who do express some sympathy towards the undocumented they're in fact planning on going to the ballot box this fall and actually we've seen those numbers increase...

What? Like they haven't been voting in the past? Or are they planning on having illegals vote??? See, I don't trust anyone. I'm glad certain cities are demanding Identification from voters...

DOBBS: Surely I mean I may, Jim, they would be going to vote anyway, would they not as citizens?

ACOSTA: They are. Yes.

DOBBS: Good.

ACOSTA: Many other groups that represent Hispanics in this country; obviously they have a different point of view than you do, but...

DOBBS: Whoa, whoa, whoa...

ACOSTA: ... what they're hoping for is that Hispanics...

DOBBS: Whoa, whoa, whoa...

ACOSTA: ... across the country will show up at the polls in big numbers.

DOBBS: Look, Jim, Jim, you said who...

ACOSTA: Yes.

DOBBS: ... represents Hispanics in this country? You said they represent...

ACOSTA: Yes, they do. They represent some of the Hispanics...

DOBBS: Some of the Hispanics...

DOBBS: Some of the Hispanics, all right. Now we're talking. Because Hispanic Americans like every other American (INAUDIBLE) organization by any stretch of the imagination.

Jim Acosta, thank you very much.

I just wanted to slap that Acosta guy. He was talking a mile a minute and there wasn't a decent discussion going on because of it. Not very intelligent of a person from CNN. I thought that he would have had more respect for Lou Dobbs, but by talking over everything, nothing came out on the transcript. Sad...

DOBBS:Those pro amnesty rallies taking place in Los Angeles tonight as well. Organizers and police say they hope there won't be a repeat of the violence at last year's protest.

As Casey Wian now reports, three separate marches converging on downtown Los Angeles at this very hour.

CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Yes, we can, marchers chant, but the May Day immigration protesters have failed to accomplish their main goals. Comprehensive changes in immigration law, an end to deportations, and a moratorium on workplace raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (YEA JustMyTruth!)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We consider that the raids are a violation of basic human rights.

Oh, now they are BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS? I DON'T THINK SO LADY! You don't get to come to my country and demand anything if you are an illegal! You don't even get a say so! This is AMERICA and only AMERICANS get a say!

WIAN: Three separate marches converged on L.A. City Hall. Two were organized mostly by Latino and other ethnic advocacy groups. The third was put together by American Apparel, an L.A. based clothing manufacturer that has lobbied for illegal alien amnesty and an end to ICE raids. It gave 4,000 employees the day off to march. Los Angeles has more illegal aliens than any other U.S. city and on the eve of the rallies the demonstrators were welcomed by local officials.

CHIEF WILLIAM BRATTON, LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPT.: We, the police, will be here to ensure that the community and its supporters can exercise their First Amendment rights in a peaceful way. So we encourage you tomorrow to come to these rallies, to come and enjoy.

MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA, LOS ANGELES: We're committed in this city to embracing every Angelino, whether they're born here or not, whether they're legal or not.

Someone needs to fire this asshole! This is AMERICA! How DARE he say this kind of shit here? I understand that there are so many illegals there that they have over-run the LEGAL population. ICE needs to move in PRONTO! Clean out those communities and make it stick. Then we'll see just how pro-illegal that mayor is!

WIAN: Last year's rally at MacArthur Park ended in a violent confrontation with Los Angeles police. Scores of officers, protesters and journalists were injured. And the LAPD has spent the past year refining its crowd control tactics. But there were smaller crowed to control this year in Los Angeles and other cities. Many reported turnout only about one-tenth the size of last year's pro amnesty marches.

WIAN: Now the latest information we have from the Los Angeles Police Department is about 8,500 marchers are participating in these three marches this year. That compares to up to 25,000 they estimated attended last year's marches. They say there haven't been no major incidents so far. Only two arrests, one for fighting and one for misdemeanor marijuana possession.

And Lou, I got to tell you that all around the perimeter of this rally are groups of Los Angeles Police Department officers, groups of sheriff's deputies standing around with nothing to do. It's a welcome change from last year, Lou.

DOBBS: Well absolutely. Now I got a little confused there. Was that Bill Bratton saying come down and have a great demonstration basically enjoy the food, enjoy the day?

WIAN: Absolutely. Both he and the mayor encouraged everybody in Los Angeles to come out and support the agenda of these folks. The mayor said that. Chief Bratton didn't. He encouraged people to come out and no matter their legal status, you know exercise their First Amendment rights, as he said.

Ummm, excuse me, but ILLEGALS don't have first amendment rights FOOLS! That mayor really needs to get replaced! How dare he give or even think of giving rights to ILLEGALS! That is NOT Constitutionally POSSIBLE!

DOBBS: Well I mean that's kind of fun there in Los Angeles. I mean you guys have got a really neat city. I mean the chief of police just -- I mean he's come a long way since he was chief of police here. I've known Chief Bratton a while and that's sort of -- frankly it looks -- every opinion expressed on this broadcast is my own, as you know, Casey.

And I'm about to express one. By the way, it's not necessarily the opinion of this network or any other organization or any person on this planet, but I hope a few people join me. I mean he looks downright kind of, just sort of accommodating, some what silly and I kind of like the tenor of it all in Los Angeles. It's sort of fits somehow, doesn't it?

WIAN: Well it does, Lou, and I go to say that the other side has been accommodating as well, at least they have changed their tactics, the pro-illegal alien amnesty crowd. You see a lot more American flags at these marches...

DOBBS: Yes.

WIAN: ... than you did last year and the year before, so they've changed as well, Lou.

DOBBS: Well and you know what, and as those groups get smaller, I think they're started to say you know straightforwardly understand the nonsense of illegal aliens and their supporters demanding rights and demanding action. Those days are over. Somebody convinced them of that in 2006.

It was pretty clearly demonstrated to the demonstrators that isn't going to work in this country. We're going to proceed rationally and I think effectively and humanely toward a resolution, but we're sure as heck not going to be putting up with demands from those who are seeking privileges. Casey, thank you very much. Let's hope it's all so reasonable and it looks like a beautiful day for a demonstration or anything else in the city of Los Angeles.

Thank you, sir.

WIAN: You're welcome, Lou.

DOBBS: And by the way, anyone there celebrating Law Day? Did Chief Bratton mention it was Law Day?

WIAN: No, he didn't. He left that out.

DOBBS: Oh, that's a shame. Did mayor villaraigosa mention it was National Law Day? (editing by JustMyTruth)

WIAN: I haven't heard a mention of Law Day in Los Angeles...

DOBBS: Oh...

WIAN: ... outside of hearing you talk on our air, Lou.

DOBBS: That's a shame. Because you know for 50 years May 1 has been Law Day in American, celebrating that we are a nation of laws. I can't imagine how that got lost in that demonstration seeking amnesty for lawbreakers. Can you?

WIAN: Well, these people want the laws to stop being enforced in many cases. They're saying we want ICE raids to stop. We want deportations to stop and we want the law changed. That's their take on it.

DOBBS: You got it. Well happy, happy Law Day, Casey Wian in Los Angeles.

Most of today's demonstrators wouldn't know that today isn't immigration day, but rather Law Day. It was President Eisenhower who first proclaimed law day in 1958, a day of national dedication to the principle of government under laws.

And let me repeat: WHY ARE ILLEGALS OR THEIR CRONIES IN THIS COUNTRY DEMANDING RIGHTS WHEN THEY SHOULD GO HOME TO THEIR COUNTRY AND DEMAND THEIR RIGHTS THERE! Because they have NO RIGHT to demand ANYTHING HERE! If you aren't American, you aren't getting any rights while I"m alive I promise you that!!! And if we find you, you are history!

Louise Schiavone has our Law Day report.

LOUISE SCHIAVONE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: May 1, immigration day? These demonstrators would have you believe that, but they've actually hijacked the date from the legal community.

WILLIAM NEUKOM, PRES., AMERICAN BAR ASSN.: Never enough people know that it's Law Day.

SCHIAVONE: Who, truth be told with the help of President Eisenhower, snatched it from among others the communists who rolled out tanks and soldiers as a show of force on International Workers Day and before that...

REP. BRIAN BILBRAY (R), CALIFORNIA: Actually traditionally it has been one of the basic pagan holidays for a celebration of spring.

SCHIAVONE: Law Day has been expropriated plenty of times.

CHIEF JUDGE ROYCE LAMBERTH, U.S. DISTRICT COURT, D.C.: Right now it's one issue. Five years from now, I don't know what the issue will be, but I doubt if it will be immigration. It will be something else. And throughout all of this, 50 years, we've always come back to the rule of law, the importance of the rule of law, the importance of an independent judiciary.

SCHIAVONE: Which is what the American Bar Association was thinking when they pushed for Law Day a half century ago.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We need to redouble our efforts to reach out to people who sort of take the law for granted.

SCHIAVONE: Not everyone is that philosophical.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Absolutely ironic that on Law Day that there are people in this country both legal and illegal who want to sort of damn the enforcement of law.

SCHIAVONE: Also ironic the fact that it's Law Day appears to have gone virtually unnoticed by lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

SCHIAVONE: Lou, President Bush acknowledged Law Day with a proclamation, affirming the nation's commitment to what he called a robust system of ordered liberty -- Lou.

DOBBS: I like that. But I really don't like the fact that this government, this administration, public schools across the country weren't celebrating Law Day. Isn't that remarkable?

SCHIAVONE: You know what? It's not just Law Day May 1, all of May is law month. And one of the things that the ABA would like to see is the reinstitution of the teaching of civics, the teaching of actual American history in classrooms so that students really get to know what the laws are.

DOBBS: Now that would move us into National Education Day, wouldn't it? It gets so confusing.

SCHIAVONE: I really am confused now.

DOBBS: We're going to straighten out one confusion. You know what? This broadcast, we're going to celebrate the entire month of May -- we're going to make that our job to honor the law as law month, the month of May. We hope you'll join us.

Louise Schiavone, thank you very much.

We called, by the way, because I got a little upset about the fact that people weren't paying attention to the fact that this is and has been for 50 years Law Day in America, which no one but this broadcast seems to want to celebrate, so we called other news networks and we asked them how they planned to cover Law Day.

Perhaps you won't be surprised to learn they were simply baffled by our question. In point of fact those other networks that returned our call didn't seem to be aware that today is Law Day. This despite the fact that President Bush as we reported actually remembered to issue a proclamation today celebrating what is the 50th anniversary of Law Day in America. Happy Law Day.

Time now for our poll. The question is: Do you believe our fellow citizens know that today is Law Day, a day of national dedication to the principle of government under law?

And by the way, it's written into our law that this is Law Day. We would love to hear from you on this.

Yes or no? You're cast your vote at loudobbs.com. We'll have the results upcoming.

And much more on today's pro amnesty protests during Law Day, including the marchers' blatant efforts to influence our presidential campaign on Law Day.

Lisa Sylvester will have our report -- Lisa.

LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, protesters marched to the Democratic and Republican headquarters in Washington, D.C. demanding amnesty. We'll tell you what happened -- Lou.

DOBBS: Look forward to it, Lisa. Thank you.

Also pro illegal alien activists refusing to acknowledge some of this country's most fundamental values. We'll have that report.

And you won't believe what one city in Connecticut is doing to undermine this nation's laws. We'll have a live report for you from New Haven, Connecticut. Stay with us. We're coming right back.

DOBBS: Today's amnesty rallies sponsored by open borders and amnesty advocate special interest groups all hoping to catch the attention of the presidential candidates among others and all three of the principle candidates, Senators Clinton, Obama and McCain they supported the so-called comprehensive immigration reform bill that was killed in Congress just last summer. Today's demonstrators on Law Day are working toward their long-term goal, which is to set the amnesty agenda for the next administration and Congress.

Lisa Sylvester has our report.

SYLVESTER: The crowd was much, much smaller than years past. Slightly more than a dozen people protested outside the headquarters of the Democratic and Republican Parties in Washington. A later rally had a couple hundred people, pushing for nothing less than amnesty.

You know what sameer dossani you and your illegal friends and family can go back to whatever country you hail from and demand your rights there! Go back to wherever you came from and see what this kind of behavior will get you. One can only hope with your blatant abuses of our good graces here in the United States of America that you realize how good you have it and back off before you get something you don't want, tougher immigration LAWS. Get out of this country you don't have any appreciation for and see just how many rights you can lay your hands on in your country of origin. But you aren't going to get what you want here. No way! And you are just pissing off Americans with getting in our faces. You keep it up boy. We'll be happy to deport your ass.

sameer dossani, DEMONSTRATOR: An end to the raids, an end to the deportations, legalization and amnesty for all.

SYLVESTER: The group sent a letter to the three presidential candidates asking them to support a pathway to citizenship for as many as 20 million illegal aliens in the United States. In fact, all three senators, John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama already support granting amnesty for some. Obama stumping for votes in North Carolina.

I told you these Candidates didn't deserve the office they were running for. Do you understand now why we can't elect these fools? Vote for Ron Paul. He has more sense than these fools ever will. HELL NO MAKE THEM GO! HELL NO MAKE THEM GO! HELL NO MAKE THEM GO!

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Let's give them a pathway so they become -- they can have some legal status. It might take 10 years, but at least then they have got some prospect, some hope. (HELL NO MAKE THEM GO, JUSTMYTRUTH)

SYLVESTER: North Carolina, next up on the primary list, has seen an explosion of (ILLEGAL) immigrant growth. It now ranks in the top five states, but one group advocating for stricter illegal immigration enforcement says the three candidates just don't get it, how filling jobs with illegal workers displaces and hurts Americans.

ROY BECK, NUMBERS USA: I believe all three of them are fundamentally blind to what it's like to be a working class person in this country, what it's like to be a roofer or a dry-waller, to work in these occupations that are flooded by foreign workers. They do not feel the pain that these workers our lower middle class workers are feeling.

SYLVESTER: All three candidates share roughly the same position on immigration, one reason they're not jumping to talk about it on the campaign trail.

SYLVESTER: Senator John McCain has said he supports border security first unlike the Democratic candidates, but McCain's fundamental position still mirrors the comprehensive immigration bill that failed in Congress last year, that included more funding for border security, building a southern border fence and a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens. Lou?

HELL NO MAKE THEM GO! HELL NO MAKE THEM GO! HELL NO MAKE THEM GO!

DOBBS: Lisa, thank you very much.

It's worth noting on this Law Day that our system of laws is a major part of what makes us the most welcoming nation for immigrants in the entire world. More than a million people from all over the world became legal permanent residents of the United States last year. Of the top three countries in the world sending us their immigrants, 14 percent of them came from Mexico.

These are legal immigrants. Seven percent from China and six percent from the Philippines. The United States also issued another almost half million visas last year to people who simply want to live here legally while working and more than six million people were granted non immigrant visas to temporarily study and to work in the United States.

Now that is not something you hear on other broadcasts, other networks and other news organizations. And you sure don't hear it from people who took to the streets today to protest against this nation's immigration policies. Look at those people and think about what they're protesting.

That the most welcoming nation in the entire world, with more legal immigrants entering the United States than the rest of the world combined is not adequate for their wishes. That's a shame. And that's a little bit of what I would call an attitude problem. Up next, New Haven, Connecticut, home to Yale University, liberal elitism and other stuff that happens at Yale. Tonight, under fire for its pro amnesty agenda, we'll talk you live to New Haven next.

And thousands taking to the streets to demonstrate against the laws of this nation, as we hear on this broadcast and we hope you celebrate today as Law Day. We'll talk about that and a lot more with three of the sharpest political analysts in the country. That's next.

The absolute ungratefulness of these people who live and work here who are LEGAL citizens and are demanding that we, the United States of America allow criminals into our country, who demand we cease enforcing our laws, laws that keep us safe and secure, they have some nerve. This will start a revolution in this country, but it won't be the one the illegals want. It won't be one for amnesty I guarantee you that! We'll make it so hot for illegals! We'll start asking those who don't speak English to show us their green cards and ANYONE who doesn't, we'll call ICE on them and they can be deported. That's just fine by me. These people are making it so the rest of Americans who don't feel as they do are getting MADDER! We're feeling a lot of anger towards these groups who think they can demand anything for criminals. Watch out, the boiling point is coming.

Now, don't mistake anger at these actions for hatred of race. THAT is not happening. But to demand we cease to enforce OUR laws is absolutely ridiculous! You are fools and worse! You are making it harder on your illegal friends and relatives and you don't even know it. I guess I have to say thank you for that!

The rest of the program will be in my next post.