Leave it to the San Francisco Chronicle to publish a one-sided article about the poor Indian call-center workers suffering “trauma” because of rude Americans ringing up. ["Outsourcing outrage: Indian call-center workers suffer abuse"]

Noida, India — While irate calls are a mainstay of customer service work in any country, many Indian call-center workers say they regularly face particular abuse from Americans, whose tantrums are sometimes racist and often inspired by anger over outsourcing.

Getting downsized can mean the loss of a car, a house, college education for the kids, along with stress that can end marriages. There is often no replacement position that pays a middle-class salary.

But the Chronicle is full of sympathy for Indians hearing a few harsh words rather than for many thousands of nearby citizens around Silicon Valley who have lost their entire livelihoods.

Furthermore, the Chron carps about Americans’ “racism” against Indians, but the nastiest epithet in the article is “rat eater.” That sounds more like a John Waters film than a racist insult.

And just how polite should a person be to Indians who are impersonating Americans?

Agents typically adopt anglicized names, undergo “accent neutralization” and U.S. cultural training, and sometimes claim to be located in the United States.

The normal politeness our moms taught us doesn’t seem appropriate in situations of such insulting falsehood.

It’s no wonder that the Chronicle’s sales are dropping like a rock, with the paper posting a 16.4 percent circulation loss for the six-month period ending Sept. 30. Insulting a chunk of your readership is not good business, even in San Francisco.

For years we in the legitimate immigration reform movement have had to endure the efforts of our enemies and a hostile media to associate us with hate and racism.

Now comes Chicago-area journalist Mike Bailey, who sets the record straight and reveals the true source of the hate and racism that permeates the immigration issue.

The latest USA Today/CNN Gallup poll was released earlier this week and the President received a 37% approval rating–the lowest since his election in 2000 and a staggering 50 points below the 87% approval he held in November 2001.

Gee…that sounds like it should mean something but once again the MSM put their talent to the task and came up empty. Ooooh, a bunch of people think Bush is doing a bad job and we have a poll that proves it so take that, Mr. President!! You better shape up or….or…wait a minute.

Good grief, Bush II could have an approval rating of .000001% that would drop to 0% if you excluded his parents and so what? Unless the Oval Office has the ability to somehow magically seal itself from Presidents with low approval ratings, the numbers just don’t matter.

Hmm…but that which seems obvious to most living creatures (and I am including algae) tends to surprise the serial journalists of the 24 hour news racket so naturally, the MSM is all about the 37%…in fact, they don’t even bother to report the rest of the results.

In the Gallup report, the President was also given an approval rating for his performance in specific areas such as education, federal spending and immigration–these are the statistics that matter, my friends.

According to poll results, this is how 1066 people rated the President on policy matters:

(Disapproval ratings )

Terrorism 49%
Overall job approval 60%
The economy 61%
The situation in Iraq 63%
Controlling federal spending 71%
Immigration 65%

The two issues with the highest disapproval rates were federal spending and immigration.

Hmm…Bush II has the lowest approval ratings of his career…65% of the people say they disapprove of his performance on immigration issues. It would seem to me that Americans are fed up with politicians who ignore the problems of illegal immigration and if Bush II was facing re-election, he would surely lose.

As it is, Bush is not facing re-election…but some politicians are.

Americans sent a pretty strong message in this poll–even if the MSM won’t report it.