In praise of Mr. Weintraub

Printer-Friendly Email this Letter Post a Comment (16)

Submitted By: Joseph W. Budzinski
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 17 2007

You can tell who's lost a debate when one party resorts to demonstrably false statements. David Weintraub's attempt in this newspaper to "shame" me last week ["Shame on Mr. Budzinski," letter to the editor, Sept. 12] is clear evidence the pro-illegal alien advocates know their hour is up. Mr. Weintraub is an intelligent man who normally would have taken the time to fact-check himself, if he were not arguing from a position of desperation. But these are not normal times, and Mr. Weintraub's clumsy struggle to claim the moral high ground is illuminating for all of us.

A river of corporate corruption courses through our nation, and for years opportunistic profiteers have been skimming from the flow. Suddenly, a patchwork of levees has begun to appear as citizens in towns, counties and states are saying, "Enough." In our area this includes Herndon, Anne Arundel, Prince William, Manassas, Loudoun, Culpeper, Spotsylvania, Chesterfield, James City, Page, Stafford -- not to mention a growing number of communities throughout the U.S. and the entire states of Georgia, Oklahoma and Arizona.

All of these jurisdictions have begun to implement measures aimed at enforcing the nation's immigration laws. Because the federal government will not do it, citizens are demanding their local public officials fulfill their responsibility to ensure the safety and security of the communities they represent.

The profiteers are terrified because these obstructions -- these inconvenient rebellions spreading across the nation -- foreshadow a new political awakening among America's lower- and middle-class citizens. The elites have good reason to be worried.

Illegal hiring is the fountainhead of this corruption. It began as a rivulet decades ago and grew after the Reagan amnesty of 1986, as more and more companies grasped the profitability of using illegal laborers. Still, throughout most of the 1990s, the federal government prosecuted and fined hundreds of businesses each year for violating the U.S. code (Title 8, section 1324) restriction on employing unauthorized workers. But the floodgates were opened under George W. Bush: In 2003, the feds fined only three companies for such violations.

As we all know, within a few years we had become a nation awash in illegal business practices. Trades and communities were transformed. To understand how and why the illegal immigration problem has evolved into such a confusing, politically charged phenomenon, we need only follow the money: Who profits from the rampant illegal employment practices?

First are the American companies using the cheap labor. The largest expense in most operating budgets is the cost of salaries, payroll taxes and benefits. Savings in these areas go right into the pockets of the owners, executives and shareholders, with minimal if any savings passed on to customers. This is all at great cost to American taxpayers who pay for public benefits to illegal aliens, workers whose services are no longer needed, and honest businesses victimized by cheating competitors hiring under the table.

A close second are public officials and wealthy citizens in the nations from which the migrant workers come. The corrupt governments and oligarchic economies may be models of inefficiency and stagnation, but the safety valve provided by U.S. companies allows these ruling classes to send their poor away, rather than increase spending on social services or face the threat of popular uprisings demanding reforms. Money sent back from the U.S. by illegal migrants provides a substantial percentage of the GDP in many of these countries.

Next in line are the plethora of U.S. organizations and individuals who profit either directly or indirectly from the growing population of unauthorized workers. Some of the entities receive thousands if not millions of dollars each year in taxpayer-funded government grants, tax breaks and other outlays to provide services to the migrants -- while retaining a
portion of these revenues to cover salaries and other "administrative" costs. Providers of health care, education and other services are paid for their work, but only in small part by the migrants themselves. Most of this cost is borne by U.S. taxpayers. Media corporations take a pro-illegal position to appeal to perceived constituencies among the profiteers.

Also benefiting from the flow of business corruption, and sometimes as deep in the stream as any, are political entities: the parties, the PACs and of course the politicians. Financial contributions help them keep their jobs. Gazing into the future, many politicians are keenly aware the migrants might eventually become voters.

Last on the list of beneficiaries are the illegal migrants themselves, who gain the most in proportion to the money they would have earned in their own countries, but who earn the least in real terms and whose compensation is offset by the sacrifice of leaving families and homelands behind.

This constellation of opportunists dipping into the same pool has resulted in some truly odd alliances. Because the situation is so new, many of those on the "profiteering" side have not fully contemplated how their advocacy squares with their principles.

Let's review the bedfellows: corporate executives in construction, meat packing, and many other industries; the U.S. Chamber of Commerce; plutocrats and wealthy individuals such as Carlos Slim of Mexico (the richest man in the world); socialist leaders Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez; Catholic Charities; AFL-CIO; National Education Association; La Raza; George W. Bush; George Soros; Ted Kennedy; the Wall Street Journal; the New York Times; International A.N.S.W.E.R.; Democratic National Committee; Republican National Committee; Democratic activists like David Weintraub -- you get the idea.

It's a surreal situation, a funhouse world, where a term like "compassion" is employed constantly, but never in reference to law-abiding American citizens who pay taxes and play by the rules; where those who want to enforce the law are called "anti-immigrant," while illegal alien advocates try to help people cut in line ahead of those who are attempting to enter the U.S. legally; where so-called liberals bemoan a lack of funding for education, while supporting the expenditure of government funds on illegal aliens to the detriment of American schoolchildren.

Americans, legal immigrants and authorized U.S. workers do not live in this fantasy world. These are the people that Help Save Loudoun, the organization I belong to, represents. Help Save Loudoun is a local citizens' group, currently with about 70 members, focused on providing education and advocacy
for the citizens and public officials of Loudoun County. Our goal is to promote honest business practices and end the corruption that has fostered the illegal migration crisis. More information is available at www.helpsaveloudoun.com

For years, U.S. citizens who dared to complain about illegal immigration have been quickly silenced by accusations of "racism" and "xenophobia" from the pro-illegal crowd, and by public officials who were also cowed by such epithets. Here in Loudoun County, the residents of Sterling Park were at the leading edge. Their complaints to the Zoning Administration Department and Sheriff's Office about overcrowding and lawbreaking often seemed to fall on deaf ears.

But then something changed, which I will characterize as a "tipping point" being passed -- and I suggest this is what has happened in the United States as a whole during the past few years: The sheer number of illegal aliens has now impacted most of our communities. Most citizens have now been affected personally, and only an elite minority can still view illegal immigration as a macroeconomic phenomenon.

Help Save Loudoun represents the local manifestation of a mass movement of legal U.S. residents standing up to take back their nation one community at a time. During the national debate over the "comprehensive immigration reform" bill defeated in the U.S. Senate earlier this year, national polls showed that 80 percent of the American people now favor an "enforcement first" approach to illegal immigration. Groups like Help Save Loudoun are sprouting up and local governments are acting to close the loopholes that have allowed illegal employment practices to thrive.

Regarding Mr. Weintraub's accusations against myself and Loudoun Sheriff candidate Greg Ahlemann, I have provided the Loudoun Times-Mirror factual evidence including documentation, quotes and audio recordings which demonstrate that Mr. Weintraub's claims are entirely false. All of this evidence has been posted at the NOVA TownHall Blog in the entry titled "Exposing the Weintraubs' Lies."

But I do not blame Mr. Weintraub for his confusion about the illegal migration conundrum, and I truly thank him for making it public, because it is a crazy situation.

Joseph W. Budzinski

Sterling

Too quote a Guinness commercial ; Brilliant !
A perfect example of dynamic analysis in action. Mr. Budzinski has taken the subject matter and through honest analysis provided a flawless illustration as too how we got here, who got us here, and what we as citizens can do to reverse course.
Americans now realize real solutions are needed before our communities crack under the economic strain of the status quo.

Americans have had enough and are beginning to push back. We are taking an active role in the formulation of public policy.Politicans and Local officials no longer have the luxury of blaming the entirety of this mess on the federal government. There are local solutions available to us. It is our job to force those in positions of power to use them.

It is our love of our comunities and nation as a whole that provides the motivation for us to act. Anyone suggesting motivations other than that are doing so after having just lost the battle of ideas.

Attacking anothers motivations in lieu of attcking the problem at hand is usually the first sign that intellectual desperation has set in.

gstone

www.HelpSaveLoudoun

Posted by gstone

Report Offensive Content

My goodness, Joe.

I would never have thought that you would be so deeply stung by my criticism.

This is a nice, long letter, but none of it refutes the points I made in my letter of last week.

Those points were:

1) You claimed to this newspaper (echoing your pal Eugene Delgaudio) that La Voz is engaging in improper political activities, when in fact they are not. You were quoted as follows:

"What's more, Joseph Budzinski ... said he questioned the public money because La Voz's interim executive director, Laura Valle, has been acting like a political "activist" of late rather than the head of a nonprofit.

"It appears to me that some of what La Voz does goes beyond that of a 501(c)3 [nonprofit]," he said. "I think there are some questions to be answered about this. ... It came as a surprise to me to learn how much money they get from Loudoun..."

If you feel that you were misquoted, you should take it up with the reporter, but what appeared in the paper sure sounds to me like a deliberate misrepresentation about the activities of La Voz.

2) Despite the apoplectic predictions of your no-show pal Eugene Delgaudio, the only person at the La Voz forum held at Christ the Redeemer to violate the ground rules forbidding any mention of a political campaign was Greg Ahlemann. The recording of the forum demonstrates this.

3) Any move to require one charitable organization to ascertain residency status of clients as a condition for receiving public funding will have to apply to all such organizations. For the record, Good Shepherd Alliance receives approximately twice the county funding that La Voz receives. Would you also be surprised at "how much money they get from Loudoun," and that their volunteers don't check residency status?

There are an awful lot of words in your letter, but I don't see that they have anything to do with my points, reiterated above. Your claim that you have shown the statements in my letter to be "entirely false" is simply mystifying. It appears to me that you have demonstrated just the opposite.

I agree with you that this is a crazy situation, and the people who most need to be held to account are those immorally profiting from the exploitation of human need. With that as a starting point, we should be able to get along famously.

Posted by David

Report Offensive Content

Wrong, wrong, and wrong again.

"their local public officials fulfill their responsibility to ensure the safety and security of the communities they represent."
To start with, using Sterling Park where Help Save Loudoun has sprung up as an example, crime has gone down over the past ten years. And it has gone down rather significantly. So what do we need protection form, overcrowding? We already have zoning laws. Oh, Joseph forgot the relevant statistic that a huge majority of current zoning complaints don't even result in violations. Instead, Sterling Park residents are being harrassed by Help Save Loudoun vigilantes.

Next: "First are the American companies using the cheap labor. The largest expense in most operating budgets is the cost of salaries, payroll taxes and benefits." Most undocumented immigrants work with false documents, on payroll, and pay much more into the system than they will ever take out.

Next: "Next in line are the plethora of U.S. organizations and individuals who profit either directly or indirectly from the growing population of unauthorized workers. Some of the entities receive thousands if not millions of dollars each year in taxpayer-funded government grants, tax breaks and other outlays to provide services to the migrants -- while retaining a portion of these revenues to cover salaries and other "administrative" costs."
In other words Joseph Budzenski is saying that non-profits are profiting from illegal immigrants.

It just keeps getting weirder:

"but the safety valve provided by U.S. companies allows these ruling classes to send their poor away, rather than increase spending on social services or face the threat of popular uprisings demanding reforms."

Can I just use El Salvador as an example? When there was an uprising the US was pretty quick to lend a hand and a whole lot of arms, training and $$ in order to squash the uprising. In total the civil war in El Salvador killed 75,000 people, left 8,000 more missing and a million homeless with another million exiled.

Just stop and consider that for a moment. 75,000 dead in a Country smaller than the state of Virginia.

The war became notorious for government massacres and its Death Squad's killing of civilians, nuns and priests, such as the murder of Archbishop Óscar Romero and for massacres at El Mozote. El Salvador is STILL recovering from the devestation from that war. That is a major reason why so many Salvadorans have left the devestation of El Salvador in hopes of finding hope here, legally or illegally.

So yeah JO, nothing a little "popular uprising" can't take care of.

This is just pathetic.

Posted by prince

Report Offensive Content

Ha ha ha, David, that is some wild, weird stuff. You just repeated the exact same lines from your original article which Budzenski took apart and showed you to be a COMPLETE LIAR. He's right, you are cracking up.

I ask everybody to go over to the nova town hall blog and read the article there about "David Weintraub's Lies".

He showed the guy is lying, just flat out lying, and here David cuts and pastes the same original things to create a refutation?! Talk about lazy.

Lazy, and crazy. But in a good way. You are the kind of guy every person would like to see on the other side of the debating podium.

Hey prince, you seem to thing you are such an Expert but you also seem to be on drugs. Your line about the crime rate going down in Sterling is one that Steve Simpson tried to use and it got him clobbered at the Convention by an unknown. Yes we do have a zoning department, and thanks for reminding about the type of briefing we receive from someone who knows absolutely nothing about how it works. It's good to remember there are people like you still out there.

Posted by hensley

Report Offensive Content

I did not report Mr. Hensley's comments as offensive - they are, but would respectfully ask people to refrain from personal attacks.

Posted by JonathanWeintraub

Report Offensive Content

Hensley, maybe you didn't read very carefully. If you look at the so-called "evidence" that Joe has posted, it simply confirms what I said in my original letter:

*Joe Budzinski accused La Voz of improper political activities as a 501(c)(3) (see quote from this newspaper in my comment above);

*Greg Ahlemann introduced himself as a candidate at a forum where the church had specified that no campaigns were to be mentioned.

That's all there is to it.

The facts are readily available and simple to grasp, so I don't understand why Joe thinks he can get away with accusing me of lying. It seems a little silly.

Maybe it's a social experiment to see whether people will actually look up the truth, vs. accepting Joe's tirade at face value.

Posted by David

Report Offensive Content

Hensly, go to loudounforce.org and check out this blog : Sterling Park Crime Rate Drops More Than 60% from 2006 to 2006
http://loudounforce.org/
They have some pretty concrete stats.

According to many Republicans present at the Convention what got Simpson clobbered were all of the Delagates that Jay Alhemann brought in.

Posted by prince

Report Offensive Content

"According to many Republicans present at the Convention what got Simpson clobbered were all of the Delagates that Jay Alhemann brought in."

So this means that more delegates turned out to support Ahlemann than Simpson ? Isn't this what customarily happens at a convention ? I've never been to one, but I am told this is the way it works.

What about Simpson's pledge to support the victor ? You are telling me that a man untrue to his own word is desirable as our Sheriff ?

Greg Ahlemann introducing himself as a candidate is just that, an introduction. The attendees wanted to know who he was, and what his significance was to them. He told them, it's a very long stretch to paint this as campaigning.

Posted by dan_va

Report Offensive Content

Let me just step in and clarify somthing. The letter that we recieved from the legal advisor of the Catholic Diocese said the following in regard to political candidates that might be present at the meeting:

"In addition, La Voz itself, and its speakers, must refrain from any mention whatsoever of the upcoming election, or the candidacy of either the Supervisors or their opponents. Take care to ensure that no political campaigning takes place at the event (including distribution of campaign literature), that no candidate is recognized publicly as a candidate for public office, and that a nonpartisan atmosphere is maintained at all times.

If an unexpected situation arises – for example, if a candidate in attendance spontaneously attempts to identify himself to the crowd as a candidate or otherwise engages in political activity – you should immediately intervene and advise the candidate, in a polite manner, that your event is non-political and that such activity is neither permitted nor appropriate."

We were under a lot of pressure to control the event. That is why we went to great pains in advertising the meeting and announcing at the beginning to state that no one was to mention any candidacies. In fact, Father Howard technically should have steeped in much sooner to prevent Alhemann from speaking further, given that once he announced himself as a candidate everything else he said could easily be construed as being campaigning, particulary when using the kind of careful anaylsis that Joseph Budzinski applies to everything he seems to be against.

Posted by B_Laura_Valle

Report Offensive Content

"..it's a very long stretch to paint this as campaigning."

And yet that is what the church had announced as the rule. Go figure.

There have also been numerous reports of unsavory things said by some of those delegates at the convention. That's not Mr. Ahlemann's fault, and he has distanced himself from some of those remarks. Still, those are the people who desperately want him to be our Sheriff, and that understandably raises concerns.

Posted by David

Report Offensive Content

David:
Lets be perfectly honest about the Convention. By the way I was one of those many delegates.

Simpson lost the primary for one reason.
Sheriff Simpson has a tin ear. I would say his tin ear is so bad it is rusted shut. He ignored the issue of illegal migration. He got caught off guard and tried to recover, but it was too late. Steve, as well as some other candidates from both parties for whatever reason simply refuse or acknowledge the issue. Sheriff positioned himself on the wrong side of the most important issue at the convention and lost. This whole thing is just not that tough to figure out.

Speaking to Simpsons pledge. We need to ask Sheriff Simpson had he won the Republican nomination would he have run as a Republican and would he have expected greg Ahlemann to support him.
If yes to both, then why is running as an independent and not supporting Gregg Ahlemann.It appears Simpson has two sets of rules. One set for him and another set for the rest of us.

Steve Simpson signed a pledge and now wants us to pretend it did not happen. Further, he wants us to believe that conditions changes so drastically in such a short period of time that it forced him to run as an independent.

His position is crap and everyone knows it.

By the way, this comes from a guy has supported Sheriff Simpson in his last two races for sheriff.

Simpsons decision to run as an independent is all about Simpson and has nothing to do with Loudoun County.

I am supporting Greg Ahlemann because he is without a doubt the best man for the job. This veteran of the Sheriffs department has what it takes to lead Loudoun County law enforcement into the future.

This is one race that is just an absolute no brainer. Do us all a favor and vote Gregg Ahlemann for Sheriff.

Posted by gstone

Report Offensive Content

What does this have to do with the racist epithets that were reported?

I took the first report with a grain of salt, because the person who told me is a Simpson supporter. After hearing more reports that confirmed not only one incident where a racist term for Latino people was used, but one where an African-American man was referred to with the n-word, I can no longer be so skeptical. Again, I'm not saying that Greg endorses these views. I've talked with him and he seems to be a decent guy. It's some of his supporters that concern me.

Also, why would the Ahlemann campaign be telling voters that Mike George opposes ICE training, when his position is just the opposite? George seems to be the one candidate who actually has field experience with local immigration enforcement. If this were a no-brainer, Ahlemann wouldn't need to make such misrepresentations, would he?

Posted by David

Report Offensive Content

What racist epithets, David? Pray tell, what evidence do you have for this?

You are either making this up or repeating scurrilous rumors.

Your man Mike George told the Washington Post that he favored ICE training, but more than one trained deputy would be "overkill".

So one guy would work all year long 24 hours a day? No, of course not. Mike George has no intention of ramping up cooperation with ICE - he is trying to have it both ways. Profess interest in ICE training, but at a level to ensure the training would be ineffectual.

This is what's known as lip service. Whatever Mike's experience, it would add nothing to fix the problems in Loudoun County.

Posted by joe_b

Report Offensive Content

Joe,

Please read more carefully. I treat rumors as just that until the evidence says otherwise. In this case, I have heard the same two stories about the Republican convention from several individuals who I consider to be reputable. I did not believe or disbelieve the first person who told me, because that person was a known Simpson supporter. Since then, several other people have confirmed the story and provided other information. To Mr. Ahlemann's credit, he has disassociated himself from the revolting incident witnessed by Dean Settle. Or would you like to accuse Mr. Settle of lying also?

As for Mike George, you would like to attribute false motivations to him, but the fact remains that he is the only candidate who has field experience with local immigration enforcement. What he told the Washington Post is that he did it with one officer in Falls Church. I think he knows how to efficiently assign resources, since he created and administered the gang task force for a much larger jurisdiction.

Posted by David

Report Offensive Content

I am endlessly fascinated by the constant admonishment of "shame" by Loudoun Democrats and other local left-of-center activists.

It's a phrase often used by parents and pet owners, which offers an interesting insight into how Mr. Weintraub and other Loudoun Democrats and left-of-center activists view their fellow Loudouners. It implies a sense of self-righteousness and smug superiority on the part of the person wagging their finger.

No wonder the tongue-clucking call for "shame" is so often used by those whose political views reflect a condesecending view of others not as "enlightened" as them, thus burdening them with a duty to use the power of government to force others to be as wonderful as they.

Featured Jobs

News By You

In praise of Mr. Weintraub