MSNBC: Making News......

where none exists.

Read this article.

Notice the headline, which states that minorities aged 13-24 still challenged by racism. Then go back and notice the 2nd to the last paragraph, which states that the most of the minority respondents felt that their race would not result in problems later in life.

Not sure if this is the AP or MSNBC, but why is it that our nation's media consistently looks for racism when the facts prove otherwise? More importantly, why didn't they surveyors go one step further, and gather economic and educational data? It is a fact that whites are wealthier and more educated than blacks and Hispanics, and as the story reported, 25% of minorities stated that removing financial worries was a key to happiness.

So perhaps the story should have focused on improving educational opportunities in minority communities as opposed to a few anectdotal comments on racism.

Getting Sloppy with the Race Card

You may remember last year when Louisiana Representative William Jefferson was caught with $90,000 in his freezer. At the time, it was widely suspected that Jefferson was involved in multiple bribery schemes, and that the cash was received as payment for Jefferson's lobbying work in Africa. In fact, an FBI informant testified to Jefferson's acceptance of a $100,000 bribe.

In response to the scandal, Nancy Pelosi admirably moved to strip Jefferson of his role on the House Ways and Means Committee. What's a black man to do when he's caught red-handed in a crime? Most black men own up to their failure and endure the consequences. Some, like Jefferson, play the race card. Said Jefferson about whether his race was a factor in Pelosi's efforts to remove him from Ways and Means: "It's not happened before. The first time it's happening, it's happening to an African-American." That's right, William, you were busted by an FBI informant, you were caught with $90,000 in cash in your freezer, and the Speaker of the House punishes you.....because you're black. According to Jefferson, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) gave him a standing ovation after he publicly claimed that race was a factor in Pelosi's move.

And I thought the race card was only played against Republicans, but I guess desperate times called for desperate measures. Amazingly, Jefferson was re-elected last year after the allegations surfaced and after 2 of Jefferson's aides plead guilty to their role in the crimes. Apparently the race/victim card still plays well in New Orleans.

I wonder what Jefferson, his fellow CBC members, and New Orleans residents think now that a 16 count indictment has been handed down for bribery, racketeering, money laundering, and obstruction of justice? Does the 94 page indictment have anything to do with Jefferson's skin color? If convicted on all counts, Jefferson faces a maximum sentence of 235 years in prison. Are those sentencing guidelines racially motivated as well?

Congratulations to Speaker Pelosi for taking the high road last year. Shame on Jefferson for not only abusing the power of his office for personal gain, but for stooping so low as to accuse Pelosi of racism.

"Friends" from South of the Border

Have you ever watched a beauty pageant on TV? Have you noticed the crowds are typically well dressed, a little boisterous, and always polite? Have you ever seen a contestant jeered and heckled? Me neither.

Let's assume Miss Iran (if there was such a thing) came to New York City to participate in a Miss Universe competition. Can you imagine any scenario in which the crowd would boo her? Of course not. Heck, Miss al-Qaeda could probably make a peaceful appearance because Americans are generally polite and smart enough to treat individuals with respect regardless of political differences.

Apparently, our "friends" from Mexico live by different standards. Miss USA, Rachel Smith, was loudly booed by the Mexican crowd during the Q&A session. Recall this is the same nation who chants "Osama" during soccer matches with the USA, and is of course the same nation who encourages millions of their poorest to illegally cross our borders.

Why Mexicans have such a disdain for Americans is anybody's guess. But prior waves of immigrants consisted of communities who loved the USA, and who sincerely wanted to start new lives in our great melting pot. Can we say the same of this current tidal wave of immigrants?

See video here.

Challenge to John Edwards!!!!!

In response to the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the national ban on partial birth abortion, all the Democrat candidates for president have issued statements condemning the decision. Apparently they are quite saddened by the fact that there will be no children enduring an "intact dilation and extraction" tomorrow. I mean, think about these idiots - abortion is already legal. This ruling only relates to the most barbaric of all abortion procedures, and these vermin protest.

In any event, John Edwards says this on his website: "I could not disagree more strongly with today's Supreme Court decision" Really, John? You could not disagree more strongly? So there is nothing in the entire world with which you disagree more? Let's try these 5 statements, John, and tell me if you agree with these statements more than you do the Supreme Court's decision.

1. Citizens over the age of 60 should receive no medical treatment to save on health care costs. After all, caring for them is inconvenient.
2. It should be legal to sell babies up to 2 years of age for medical research. Seriously, mother's should be allowed to make this "choice".
3. All citizens with net worths in excess of $100,000 should have all their money confiscated by the government to be allocated to the rest of the country.
4. We should eliminate our borders, and make no distinction between citizens and foreigners.
5. Islam should become the national religion, and we should submit to rule by caliphate.

So just we are all clear: John Edwards would rather agree to these 5 items than outlaw the practice of sucking the brain out of a partially born infant. It's inconceivable that anybody could even consider voting for this man for President of the United States.

Supreme Court Victory! Hillary Weeps for Women's "Rights"

In a major victory for those of us who believe unborn human beings should not be dismembered while quietly resting in the comfort of their mother's wombs, the Supreme Court upheld a national ban on partial birth abortion. Although 1,000,000+ children will still suffer brutal deaths at the hands of abortion doctors and short sighted parents every year, this is still a victory for the pro life crowd.

Most humans who aren't possessed by Satan welcome this ruling. We are now taking one step closer to exiting a very dark time, a time when it was legal to pull a baby 1/2 way out of his mother's womb only to kill it by sucking its brains out. "Intact dilation and extraction", as pro-infanticide advocates call it, will likely be looked back upon by future generations as the most violent act of a violent generation.

So what does Hillary Clinton say about the ruling? "the rights and lives of women must be taken into account. It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."

I'm literally at a loss for words to describe my contempt for this woman. She wraps herself in the cloak of the "health of the mother" exception, all the while selling her soul to appease her feminist constituents. Read her pathetic, disgusting, satanic defense of partial birth abortion here.

Of course, members of the Democrat party are nothing if not predictable. John Edwards and Barack Hussein Obama bin Illinois also wailed and gnashed their teeth in response to the Supreme Court ruling.

Queen of the Hypocrites - Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi is busy trying to frame US foreign policy in Syria this week. Working against the wishes of the Whitehouse, Pelosi is looking to make friends with Syrian president Bashar Assad. I guess Nancy's forgotton that Assad's government killed former Lebanese president Rafik Hariri, that Assad's government supports Hamas, that Assad's government supports Hezbullah, and that Assad's government is turning a blind eye towards (if not actively supporting) the support of the Iraqi insurgency.

So what's the first thing Nancy does as she tries to befriend state sponsors of terror? Put on a hijab, of course.


Nancy Pelosi in Syria

How tolerant! How politically correct! Here's a woman who ignores one of the most sacred aspects of her Roman Catholic religion by supporting abortion, yet the first thing she does when she lands in a Muslim nation is strap on a hijab. She spits on the most important teachings of Catholicism, yet blindly adheres to the most insignificant aspects of Islam. Does the fool realize that a large majority of the women in the world who wear such head garb aren't even allowed to vote?

"Diversity" Career Fair

I just received an email from Marketwatch about a career fair sponsored by The Wall Street Journal. The event is titled "Executive Diversity Career Fair", and it's purported to provide "a unique setting for job seekers from diverse backgrounds to meet with top companies seeking senior level talent.".

This is the second such invitation I've received for Wall Street Journal "diversity" career fairs, so they must be quite popular. As a white male, I suspect I'm not welcome at these events. But just to confirm, I went to the Wall Street Journal "diversity" page in their CareerJournal site. This is what is listed under "Candidates Wanted":

Executive, managerial and professional minority candidates and women, including recent graduates of M.B.A. programs; however all candidates are welcome.

Wow - LMAO. So minority and women are wanted, but I'm "welcome"? Welcome to do what? Stand by and watch the employers ignore me because of the color of my skin? To further drive home how absurd this event is, consider the fact that the event is open to approximately 70% of the nation's workforce (all women and minority males). So this isn't really a "diversity" career fair, it's simply an "anybody but white males" career fair.

Oh well, I guess I'll just have to wait until I get my invitation to the Wall Street Journal's "Executive White Guy Career Fair". Not holding my breath on that, however.

Thank You, Sam Brownback

Presidential candidate Sam Brownback recently spoke out in support of General Peter Pace, whose comments about homosexuality sparked a recent firestorm. Pace had stated that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military should remain in tact, recognizing that having practicing homosexuals working in the military would likely undermine the effectiveness of the nation's armed forces.

Of course, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were quick to chastise Pace, arguing that homosexuality is in no way immoral, and that gays should be free to publicly practice their sexuality in the military. I'd like to think that these two presidential candidates could put down the radical liberal Kool Aid for a minute, and recognize the fact that including gay soldiers who sodomize each other in combat units is a really bad idea. Seriously, setting personal "choice" and civil liberties aside, are Obama and Clinton so clueless that they think GI Joe is going to just ignore his "brothers in arms"? Do the armed forces really need these distractions?

Fortunately, Sam Brownback has the courage to say "No". Senator Brownback apparently has the common sense and moral fortitude to state the facts simply: practicing homosexuality is considered immoral by the majority of the nation.

The sad truth is that at the end of the day, liberal America will brand Brownback a "neocon", an "extremist", a "right wing intolerant Christian", etc. And Obama and Clinton will be praised for once again fighting the "good" fight to ensure homosexual activity is viewed as being no different from heterosexual activity.

CNN story here.

Anna Nicole Smith Story - RIP Please!

Our nation is at war. The '08 presidential race has begun. We have huge immigration issues to resolve. Our budget and trade deficits are at all time highs.

Yet our news providers pummel us continually with stories about the death of Anna Nicole Smith, a woman who should have been forgotten 10 years ago. In life, she was a dim witted, drug using, greedy tramp. Yes those words are harsh, and perhaps even mean spirited. But they must be considered in order to realize how perverted our national definition of "celebrity" has become.

Anna Nicole stripped her way to become a minor celebrity, married a man 60 years her senior in order to become a multi-millionaire, then shocked the nation with her spaced out ignorance on her way to becoming a reality TV star. Now in death, she's receiving national attention on par with the deaths of Princess Di and Ronald Reagan.

Here's hoping another major news story develops, so we can all begin forgetting a woman who's already received far more attention then warranted.

May Anna Nicole Smith, and the Anna Nicole Smith story, forever rest in peace.

Signs of Progress in Iraq

Muqtada al Sadr has reportedly bailed out of Iraq, and high tailed it into Iran. My sources tell me his final words to his minions were as follows:

"Allah Akbar! Death to America! And, uh, oh yeah, Death to the Zionist pigs! I've, uh, got an appointment in Tehran. I've got an overdue book to turn in to the library there - you know I hate late fees. So, anyway, uh carry on the jihad! Rejoice in your upcoming martydom. And, uh, let's see...... Death to the infidels! See ya suckers."

And fresh off the wire today, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq is apparently wounded, and his top aide is asking St. Peter where he can find his 72 virgins. I'm sure he'll have a hot time at ol' Lucifer's Hotel California.

That story here.

1 Step Closer to A Color Blind America

Believe it or not, but here we are in 2007 and the country is still trying to determine whether or not people can be discriminated against based on their skin color.

The good news is that more than 2 dozen public universities (and the Dow Jones Newspaper Fund) will begin treating all college applicants the same, regardless of the color of their skin. The bad news is that this only happened because those schools lost a court case, and it only applies to urban journalism programs, but it is a victory nonetheless.

Emily Smith, a 16 year old high school student, applied to be accepted into Virginia Commonwealth's Urban Journalism Workshop. Emily was accepted. But when the university saw her white skin 1 week later, they rejected her. Apparently, there are more than two dozen universities who reject white student's applications to similar programs based on race. Perhaps the program creators believe that white people only live in the suburbs. Or perhaps they believe whites are somehow genetically incapable of reporting "urban" journalism.

In any event, the Center for Individual Rights filed suit on behalf of Emily, and fortunately more racially sensitive heads prevailed. As part of the settlement, all the schools offering a similar program can no longer reject candidates based on the candidate's race (although none of the parties admitted any wrongdoing).

Story here.

Beware of the Klan!

According to CNN/Paula Zahn, the rise of the KKK and other "hate groups" is news worthy. The front page lead-in to tonight's show has a picture of a hooded Klansmen, accompanied by this text:

Is the Klan making a comeback? Is it exploiting anti-immigrant sentiment to further its cause? Hate, on the Rise, Out in the Open. (emphasis added)

I've lived in the South for 20+ years now, and have never met a Klansmen, nor known anybody who's known a Klansmen. And I haven't noticed any rise in "hate" either. There's no hooded guys running around Houston, and I haven't noticed a single instance of racism since 1984. But in the eyes of the media, I guess there is a compelling need to make sure the country doesn't forget that racist whitey is out there, ready to rise up and strike at any moment.

In all seriousness, it's understandable that CNN has to find something of interest about which to report. Certainly if the KKK is "on the rise", then this story is newsworthy. But does anybody really believe the KKK numbers more than perhaps a couple hundred backwoods fools? Is it in any way productive to devote one hour of CNN programming to publicize an insignificant hate group?

More importantly, notice how CNN links "anti-immigrant" sentiment to the KKK. Seriously, who is anti-immigrant? I'm strongly in favor of enforcing our immigration laws, but that does not make me anti-immigrant. It seems clear that CNN is out to fire up some good old fashioned racial tensions, and connect white America's racist history to a supposed hatred of Hispanic immigrants.

Hopefully the actual program (which airs tonight) provides a balanced perspective on the matter, but given the lead-in I'm not too optimistic.


Paula Zahn schedule as of Feb 6

How Radical is a "Radical" Muslim?

Ever since September 11th, 2001, we've all been assured that the men who preach jihad against the west and who aim to spread sharia law throughout the world are a small minority within Islam. After all, there can't be that many people who actually advocate the death penalty for converts from Islam, or amputations for theft, can there? These "radical" Muslims comprise perhaps 2% of the Muslim world, or so we've been told.

But take a look at this recent poll of UK resident Muslims , who are supposedly more moderate than their Middle East brothers in faith. Some of the "highlights":

37% of Muslims between the ages of 16-24 want to live under sharia law.

19% of Muslims aged 55 and above believe those who leave Islam should be killed. 36% of those between the ages of 16-24 share this belief.

Perhaps these numbers are distorted because Muslims feel like outcasts in Britain. Maybe UK based Muslims believe they've been oppressed by the government, so their opinions are distorted. Think again. 84% of the Muslims polled stated that they have been treated fairly by the UK government, which leads us to conclude that the aforementioned sentiments on sharia law and death for converts are the genuine beliefs for a large number of Muslims.

So when can we stop pretending that the ideas put forth by Hezbulloh, Al Qaeda, the Mahdi Army, and the dozens of other terrorist organizations are limited to extremist Muslims? Or at the very least, can we change the definition of "extremist" to mean "roughly 33%"?

On a related note, I'd love to see a similar poll taken among US based Muslims. I can't believe the numbers would be comparable, but then again I never would have guessed the extent to which UK based Muslims share radical views.

Story here.

Not-So-Happy Anniversary

Today is the 34th anniversary of the US Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, legalizing abortion in the United States.

Since that ruling, more than 40,000,000 unborn American children have been killed, in the name of what the National Organization of Women calls "choice".

American women can now procure abortions in the 7th month, in the name of what liberals call "progress".

On this day, let's reflect on the atrocity of abortion. Contemplate for a moment the horror of partial birth abortion. Consider the fact that a developing baby's heart begins to beat in the 4th - 6th week of development. Mothers don't learn that they're pregnant until at least the 3rd weak. So how many beating hearts have been stopped in the name of Roe v. Wade?

Finally, reflect on these images:

It's Always Open Season on This Life Form

Human after 14 weeks of development.


Federally Protected - Multimillion $$ Projects Stop if One Dies

Some fish from Tennessee (Snail Darter).

If you haven't come to realize that something is very wrong with our culture, that turns a blind eye towards the ongoing carnage inflicted by the abortion industry, awake from your slumber.

White Men Need Not Apply

Ahh, the wonderful "diversity" career fair. Why don't they just come out and accurately describe these events: "We are looking for employees. White men need not apply."

http://www.careerjournal.com/diversity/

2 Years in Prison + Hanging = Sufficient Suffering?

According to an Op Ed piece from a Kurdish writer, the recent execution of Saddam Hussein deprived Kurds of an opportunity to put Hussein on trial for crimes against Kurdish citizens of Iraq. The article provides an interesting perspective on the trial, and the plight of Kurds in Iraq. More importantly, the writer makes a great case for the argument that Hussein was tried for the wrong crime.

In Hussein's most notorious and brutal mass murder, thousands of Kurds were killed in a 1988 chemical weapons attack. Innocent women and children suffered agonizing deaths at the hands of Saddam Hussein and "Chemical" Ali. For whatever reason, Hussein was never tried for these crimes, but rather for another mass murder in which nearly 200 Arabs were killed in retaliation for a failed assassination attempt.

There's no doubt that Saddam Hussein should have been tried for the chemical weapons attack on Kurdish civilians. But to the average Kurd seeking justice, do the actual criminal charges really matter?

His army was defeated in a matter of days, he hid like a coward in a spider hole for months, he was convicted by a judge in the new Iraqi government, and was put to death by a band of Shiites. Seriously, how much more could you humiliate and punish a Sunni dictator? Perhaps the Kurds would have preferred Hussein was also beaten with the dirty shoes of a Jewish woman as he entered the execution chamber?

Here is the story - be advised that some disturbing photos are included.

http://www.watchingamerica.com/kurdishmedia000005.shtml

Is Christmas Back?

Much was made last year about various schools and businesses taking Christmas out of our Christmas season vernacular.

This year things seemed to have quieted down a little bit. However, in response to threats of a lawsuit last week, the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport took down their Christmas trees. Apparently a Jewish man had asked for a menorah to be displayed as well, and threatened to sue when the airport denied his request.

However, after a weekend of controversy and a flood of phone calls, the Port of Seattle put the Christmas trees back up on display yesterday. I think most would agree the Port of Seattle did the right thing by putting the trees back up, but personally I would have no problem had they simply included a menorah in their display.

In any event, the story has made national news. Christmas is back! Or so I thought. Take a look at how Janet Tu and Lornet Turnbull characterize the story, in their report which was distributed nationally. Here is the first line of the story:

"The holiday trees that went away in the middle of the night are back. "

And liberals wonder why conservatives get so frustrated with our media. The entire story is about Christmas trees, and how those Christmas trees caused a controversy, and how a Jewish man wanted a minora to be displayed with the Christmas trees. Yet these dimwits, in their misguided attempts at being politically correct, describe them as holiday trees in their first sentence!!!

If the items in question were "holiday" trees, then there wouldn't have been a controversy in the first place. How this fact is lost on Tu and Turnbull is beyond me.

Here's the story as reported in the Houston Chronicle.

Where 2 or More Are Gathered in Allah's Name....

there is terror?

Earlier this week 6 Muslim imams were removed from a US Airways flight. Apparently they were saying their evening prayers as a group on the plane, and passengers became suspicious. The 6 were removed from the plane, detained by security workers, questioned, and released.

On the surface, this is an unfortunate incident. Muslims should be able to pray in public without raising suspicion. Naturally, groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations are angry. Said Ibrahoom Hooper, spokesman for CAIR "This is a growing problem of singling out Muslims or people perceived to be Muslims at airports, and it's one that we've been addressing for some time". Gee Ibrahim, I wonder what might have happened 5 years ago to trigger this problem?

There are thousands of Muslims on the other side of the world who want to kill us and destroy our nation. The number of Muslims in the USA who want to kill us is unknown. So is our continued suspicion of Muslims (especially religious clerics) intolerance, or diligence?

To answer these questions, consider this analogy: Let's assume that France has declared war on the United States. French men around the world are actively calling for the destruction of America. The French have destroyed the Sears tower and the Empire State Building, and killed 3,000 Americans in the process. They have bombed our ships at sea, and murdered our citizens abroad. They've bombed marine barracks, and several US embassies around the world. They are calling other French men to murder Americans, they hold American flag burning rallies, and claim they will not end this war until they fly the Tricolore over the White House. Thousands of French citizens demonstrate their commitment to destroying the USA every day.

How would America respond to this declaration of war? Would French Americans be viewed as just Americans, or would their presence in the United States stir up some suspicion? Would we be justified in prohibiting French citizens from entering the United States? If you were ready to board a flight, and 6 Frenchmen sang La Marseillaise in the terminal prior to boarding, would you call security?

In this scenario, obviously we would be justified in profiling French citizens, and closely monitoring every person with a French passport. In fact, the argument could be made that the only flights on which French citizens could board would be one way flights back to Paris.

The reality is that the religion of Islam has declared war on the United States. Sure, the argument could be made that the religion of Islam has no borders, and no government, therefore a declaration of war cannot be made. However, it's safe to say that dozens, if not hundreds, of Islamic leaders have indeed declared war. And they've recruited tens of thousands of soldiers to wage this war. They are well funded, armed, and willing to die in this "holy" war. Islamic leaders have stated that Americans should be killed wherever they are found, and that they will not give up their jihad until Sharia law is brought to the United States. Are we to pretend that this is simply rhetoric coming from a few Imams? Are we to put our heads in the sand and pretend that all Muslims standing on US soil are peaceful? As long as Muslim clerics are preaching jihad, and as long as their followers number in the tens of thousands, any amount of scrutiny of Muslims in the United States is fair game.

If Muslims are unhappy about their treatment, the answer is simple. End this jihad! Shut down the mosques that fund terrorist groups. Arrest those who declare war vs. the USA. Arrest those who preach jihad to Muslim school children. Join us in this fight against radical Islam, or accept the fact that as a Muslim you will be viewed with suspicion.

Free Ice Cream and Longer Recess!!

In what comes as little surprise, Democrats are using their new found majority status in Congress to push for an increase in the federal minimum wage, which has remained stagnant at $5.15 for nearly a decade.

To be fair, I agree that an increase is appropriate. However, Democrats have gone overboard in their proposal to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. They suggest that a family cannot live on $5.15 an hour, to which I reply "of course they can't". But the minimum wage isn't designed to be a "minimum family wage". It's a pay rate commensurate with new entrants into the job market, such as high school students and recent graduates, part time college students, etc. The general idea of our free market economy is to provide incentives for people to learn, grow, and obtain marketable skills so that they are able to earn higher wages. Any attempts to convert the minimum wage to a living wage are doomed to cause economic havoc. After all, why not just make everybody rich and make the minimum wage $500/hour?

In addition to the negative impact on inflation, an increase to the minimum wage will also put more people out of work, as marginally profitable employers choose to employ 5 people at $7.25 as opposed to 7 people at $5.15.

Although a pure free-market economist would argue that the minimum wage should actually be $0, and that employees and employers should be free to negotiate any salary, I'm not quite that hard core. So let's look at the simple economics. Inflation over the course of the past 10 years has averaged approximately 2.53% (according to this site). Adjusting for inflation, $5.15 10 years ago is equal to $6.61 today ( =5.15*(1+0.0253)^10 for the Excel challenged). So any increase up to that amount has some basis in economic reality. Anything more than that and we're talking grade school Student Council politics.

Ted Kennedy's call for a $7.25 minimum wage here.

Houston Janitorial Workers Protest

For months now, janitorial workers in Houston have taken to the streets, protesting their wages and benefits. I frequently see a group of 20 - 30 workers marching with picket signs in front of various downtown skyscrapers.

Typically there is one man in charge with a bull horn, shouting an incomprehensible mix of English and Spanish. Always eager to speak to people demonstrating in the streets, I engaged one of their front line workers a couple weeks ago. She was the person designated to hand out flyers to the public. As she held out a flyer to me, I asked "What's this all about?". The woman looked at me if I was speaking another language, and I asked again "what are y'all protesting about?". She looked at me for a few seconds, still holding the flyer in my direction, and finally said "more money!".

In a heartless neocon moment, worthy of a Bruce Hornsby song, I said "oh yeah? Well I want more money too". Spanish speaking immigrants can insist on speaking Spanish all they want, but somebody should tell them that they'll have a very hard time influencing public opinion and government policy until they can speak English.

Fast forward to yesterday, when the same group actually brought traffic to a halt at one of Houston's busiest intersections on the west side of town. They littered the intersection with garbage, and chained themselves to garbage cans. This demonstration was accompanied by the usual chants of "Si se puede" (yes we can), and a new one "Aqui estamos, y no nos vamos" which roughly translated means "Here we are, and we're not leaving".

Wow. So let's step back for a moment. We have 12,000,000 or so illegal immigrants in the United States who pay no regard to our immigration laws. Now we see evidence that they're eager to unionize, and they're willing to engage in civil disobedience to get their way when their jobs don't pay well enough. And they're becoming so beligerant that they shout to the world that they won't leave the USA.

Here's a better idea: If you don't like the conditions of your job here in the States, go back home. Until these workers learn English and/or learn a skill which the economy values at more than $6/hour, then they'll be employed at $6/hour. No amount of civil disobedience nor beligerant chanting can change this simple economic fact.