Another Opinion

The 4th of July

2008-07-03T23:09:00.006-04:00

With the 4th of July upon us, I thought it would be interesting to take a historical look at our Founding Fathers. Everyone knows the “big stuff” like Washington crossing the Delaware, Paul Revere’s ride (by the way, he didn’t actually say “the British are coming”. At the time, we were still the British. He said “the troops are advancing”), the winter at Valley Forge, and especially the myths which always seem to grow up around greatness. Personally, I’ve always found the historical person much more interesting, and especially the mundane; those things which make these larger than life individuals more human, and therefore, more accessible. Since everyone seems to associate greatness with height, I thought that would be a nice place to start.

Our first president, George Washington was a towering six feet two inches (he was believed to weigh approximately 175 pounds). An impressive height for both then and now. John Adams was 5’6” and said to be stocky in his youth and became “portly” with age. If you thought Washington was tall, Thomas Jefferson was taller at six feet two and half inches with a medium built. James Madison was the shortest of all the presidents. He was five feet four inches and weighed only 100 pounds!

As for some of the other Founding Fathers, Aaron Burr was only 5’6” while Alexander Hamilton was 5’7”. Samuel Adams (yeah, the “beer guy” and Father of the American Revolution) was about 5’6”. Thomas Paine was a little taller at about 5’8”. Benjamin Franklin was closer to 5’10”. Nathan Hale was approximately 5’7” as was John Paul Jones (Father of the US Navy not the Led Zeppelin bass player and keyboardist). John Hancock was fairly tall at just under six foot along with Patrick Henry. So, all in all, apparently height played little importance with the heights these men reached.

As for their ethnic background, most of the Founding Fathers were Scots-Irish or Scots-English (damn Scottish trouble makers). Several descended from English nobility. George Washington descended on his paternal side King Edward II. On his mother’s side, Jefferson descended for King David I of Scotland, while James Madison came up short (sorry, couldn’t resist). His ancestors were mainly craftsmen and planters. As an aside, the ancestry of all the presidents to date can be limited to German, English, Irish, Scottish, Welch, Dutch, and Swiss.

The subject of religion among the Founding Fathers has been quite divisive recently as some groups argue for a “return to the Christian values” of the Founding Fathers, while others argue that no such values existed. Well, the majority of all the Founding Fathers were Episcopalian, which was the counterpart to the Church of England. Most were very well schooled in theology, but equally too, they were well versed with the writers of the Enlightenment, especially Voltaire, Spinoza, Burke, Kant, Hume, Rousseau, John Locke, and Adam Smith. It was this “Age of Reason” which was to later give birth to the modern concepts of democracy, capitalism, and the natural or innate rights of Man (which, in turn, would lead to idea of equality and inequity of slavery, univeral suffrage and anti-discrimination laws).

As a result, many of the Founding Fathers, such as Thomas Paine, Jefferson, Revere, James Monroe, Franklin, Adams, Washington became “Deists”, or what we would consider Unitarian Universalist today. Others, such as Madison, took a more “enlightened” approach to religion, though remained Episcopalian (in fact, more US presidents have been Episcopalian than any other religion). A close second, both then and now, was Presbyterian followed by Methodist. Quakers too were an important and influencial group in Colonial American politics.

When it came to earning their “daily bread”, they again showed they were a diverse lot. Before becoming president, Washington was a surveyor (some say, a rather unscrupulous one to boot. He allegedly would survey and sell the piece of property to several folks before moving on). John Adams was lawyer and schoolteacher, while his cousin Samuel Adams, was a merchant and barkeep (though unsuccessful), and finally found his niche as a writer and political provocateur. Thomas Jefferson was a planter, lawyer, inventor, writer, and architect. Madison was a lawyer and political theorist (i.e.: troublemaker). Thomas Paine was a writer and provocateur (I’m beginning to like this occupation). Paul Revere was, as everyone knows, a coppersmith. Benjamin Franklin was a writer, inventor, and publisher (to which one could add a “ladies man” as well). Hamilton was a soldier, political theorist, economist, while Patrick Henry was a lawyer and writer.

So, with this being the 4th of July and all that, what would our Founding Fathers think of the America today? Well, that would depend on who you asked. As a group, all of the Founding Fathers believed that a continuing union with England wasn’t happening (while approximately 1/3 of the population supported a break with Mother England, 1/3 of the population did not and favored England, and the remaining 1/3 was undecided. Many of those decided in favor of independence once the war was in full swing. With some 83% of the present American population disenchanted with the Federal Government and the way we’re headed as a country, I often wonder what the future holds for us).

Most of the Founding Fathers opposed the creation of political parties. It was their belief the parties would ultimately divide the nation and would become the tool of special interest groups who would, in turn, come to dominate the government and essentially force the people out of the political decision process (nah, could never happen). Out of that, the ideas of Federalism and Anti-Federalism emerged. The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, Washington, and John Adams, supported a strong federal form of government with weak states, while the Anti-Federalist, led by Jefferson, Mason, Patrick Henry and James Mason wanted strong local representation and a much weaker federal government (in fact, Henry and Mason refused to ratify the Constitution because they feared it would lead to a centralized government like England’s). Ultimately, the Civil War decided the issue in favor of the Federalists in 1865. So, Hamilton would be very pleased with the form of government we’ve evolved into while Jefferson would shake his head in sad disbelief.

On the subject of religion, most of the Founding Fathers would agree that Judeo-Christian beliefs played a central part in the formative thought of the nation; it was not the sole influence however. The great thinkers of the Enlightenment played a key role as did the great thinkers of Classical Greece and Rome. They feared a theocracy, much like the one that once held Europe in it's iron grip. Indeed, they feared the very concept of the state religion like England and most of Europe had. However, they would agree to one's right of belief, any belief or none at all, so long as it didn’t impinge on anyone else’s (you might say, one's freedom of and from religion). Thus on school prayer, they would have supported a moment of silence to do as you pleased. On the display of religious items on public property, they wouldn’t care so long as every religion had the same right. The display of the Ten Commandments would have been a given since it was part of the foundation of our concept of equality and justice.

There would have been no question about the right to bear arms. It was a key element in their minds to a maintaining a free people because it afforded the people the ability to defend themselves not just from crooks and invaders, but from the government as well. They knew that an unarmed people were an enslaved people. They would have unquestioningly believed in securing our borders and would have been dumbfounded at the idea we were even considering a dual language. We were to be one people out of many (see your dollar bill---E Pluribus Unum), and that meant one nation with one language.

On gay rights and gay marriage, the majority of the Founding Fathers would have supported the right of adults to engage in a mutually acceptable relationship. They would not, however, have supported the concept of gay marriage which in their eyes was for the procreation of life and the stability brought about by a husband, wife and family unit as the cornerstone of civilization. Elective abortion would have been seen as an affront to their understanding of the sanctity of life. Abortion to save the life of the mother would have been another matter.

The death penalty was in effect in Colonial America, and remained so. Actions have consequences just as freedom has responsibilities. They would have opposed our so-called “nation building” efforts as well as our invasion of Iraq. It was their belief that they were starting anew. They wanted no part of the “entanglements” of Europe. However, unprovoked attacks on America or Americans should be responded to quickly and mercilessly. Most would have supported protecting American jobs above all. They would have been appalled at our dependence on foreign oil and foreign investments to prop up our economy. Independence meant not just political and religious independence, but national economic independence as well.

Lastly, taxes. I suspect our Founding Fathers would flip their collective powdered wigs at our tax structure and how citizens are “nickeled and dimed” to death. The main reason for our revolt from Mother England was taxes; a lesson our politicians today have forgotten. And we’re taxed not just by government, but by corporations as well in the forms of service charges, late fees, user fees, handling fees, and other charges they don’t even bother to tell us about (our garbage bill just went up
$5.00. It seems that not only do we have to pay for pick up and disposal, we now have to pay for their gas too! Gee, silly me. I thought their cost of business was included in the bill to begin with).

Our Founding Fathers hoped we would become a nation of independent minded people living in mutual respect and economic cooperation. They envisioned a country free from government restrictions and dependence; free from excessive taxation. What we’ve become is a nation adrift in crushing national debt with jobs being exported in the name of profit while those same companies continue to get taxpayer financed tax breaks. We’re a country addicted to foreign countries financing our domestic debt and energy dependence like a crack junkie is to dope. We’ve been sold by special interests groups into a corporate servitude with the blessing of government. Enslavement takes many forms. This alone would make them wonder what became of our will to be free. As the great Roman statesman Cicero once said, “The cure for democracy is more democracy, not less”.

Here’s another interesting article from Peter Navarro. Peter wrote a terrific and timely book entitled “The Coming China Wars”. I thought you might enjoy this article as much as I did.

FBI Confidential
By Peter Navarro, author of The Coming China Wars

According to a leaked secret FBI document, Chinese counterfeiters have sold close to $75 million of fake Cisco Systems routers to the U.S. military. While this revelation has been largely ignored by the mainstream media, it raises troubling questions about both the integrity of U.S. defense cyber networks and the possible motives of a foreign government with a long rap sheet for military espionage and cyber hacking.

Routers are specialized computers that provide the virtual “pipes” to move millions of information packets through the world wide web, and it’s no accident that China is counterfeiting Cisco designs. Cisco not only holds about 80% of the world’s router market. It also outsources a significant share of its router production to China. Of course, once an American company outsources to China, the likelihood that its technology will be stolen and then reproduced for sale into world markets is extraordinarily high.

In fact, China is the counterfeit capital of the world. It accounts for two thirds of all the world’s pirated and counterfeited goods and fully 80% of all counterfeit goods seized at U.S. borders. The long list of purloined products includes everything from auto parts, baby food, and cigarettes to prescription drugs like Viagra and Lipitor and high tech equipment like routers and switches.

In each case, Chinese counterfeit products pose significant health and safety risks. For example, fake Viagra jazzed with strychnine or “Lipitor” with no active ingredients can both cause heart attacks. Counterfeit brake pads made from inferior materials can lead to deadly crashes. Cigarettes laced with cadmium and lead make one of the most efficient killers in the world even more deadly.

In this particular case, one obvious danger with America’s national cyber defense system being run through fake inferior routers is system failure at critical junctures. However, the more subtle – and far more disturbing – problem identified by the FBI is this:

At least some of China’s fake routers may be specially designed to provide Chinese hackers with undetectable “back doors” into the highest echelons of classified information throughout the defense department bureaucracy. That this possibility is closer to science fact than science fiction is bolstered by the work of scientists from the University of Illinois who recently demonstrated how it is possible to alter a computer chip to provide such undetectable access.

This specter of a virtual Chinese Trojan Horse deep in the bowels of the Pentagon raises an even bigger question, likewise posed by the FBI report: Are China’s sales of fake Internet equipment to America’s defense industry driven purely by the profit-seeking of rogue Chinese entrepreneurs? Alternatively, are these sales the result of state-sponsored cyber-terrorism specifically designed to penetrate U.S. defenses – and perhaps disable those defenses in time of conflict?

In support of the profit motive, there is this salient fact: According to FBI data, a typical router made by Cisco costs about $1400 to make while the inferior counterfeit can be knocked off for a little over $200. That allows for a bigger mark-up than even drug trafficking – which is why counterfeiting is such big business in China. That said, anybody who believes that China’s counterfeiters “come in peace” merely to make a quick buck needs to read some of the strategic tomes on cyber warfare generated by China’s military think tanks.

Exhibit A in the state-sponsored terrorism case is the work of Chinese Air Force Colonels Qiao Ling and Wang Xiangsui. They have written that “the first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules, with nothing forbidden.” They go on to describe a scenario in which China “buries a computer virus and hacker detachment in the opponent’s computer system … so that the civilian electricity network, traffic dispatching network, financial transactions network, telephone communications network, and mass media network are completely paralyzed.” Their overriding goal is to “cause the enemy nation to fall into social panic, street riots, and a political crisis.”

These are sobering dangers indeed, particularly in light of how easy it seems to be to dupe even America’s defense establishment into buying counterfeit goods. But what is ultimately so disturbing about all of this may well be how little attention either our government or the American people or the American media seem to want to pay to America’s growing China threat.

Peter Navarro is a business professor at the University of California-Irvine, a CNBC contributor, and author of The Coming China Wars. For more information, please visit http://www.comingchinawars.com.

Poll Results

I asked you if you could afford the cost of gas was to high. 54% of you wanted to "who can afford gas?" while 30% thought it was barely affordable. The rest of you thought that price was too high...big time. With the recent increases, I wonder where the breaking point is. Thanks for voting!

Getting Pumped at the Pump

2008-06-15T18:59:00.004-04:00

On the way to work last Wednesday, I stopped to buy gas, at what I thought was an outrageous price of $3.98 a gallon. On the way home, the price here in Louisville had jumped to $4.15 a gallon! What on earth happened between 7:30 AM and 6:00 PM? Had some refinery been blown up? Had there been some cataclysmic rupture of a pipeline, spilling millions of gallons of crude on the frozen tundra of Alaska (again)? Had some oil tanker run aground (again)? Nope, it was none of those. As it turned out, according to the local news, the price of gas was simply “adjusting” to the new barrel price of $131. Whew, and I thought it was something serious like some greedy little oil sheik or profit grubbing oil execs. It was just some harmless “self adjusting”. Kind of like the type we’re all making in our buying habits, like paying for more for cans of peas, corn, bread, steaks, fish, and even butter (I just read where people are starting to give up their pets because they no longer can afford the pet food). It seems that the pump prices where just catching up to near current pricing of oil. The price I had paid that morning was the based on the price of oil from a couple of months ago. The price on the way home was based on the cost of the same barrel a few weeks ago. According to the oil industry analyst being interviewed, the price at the pump was still “adjusting” and should settle down at around $5.00 to $5.50 a gallon. Luckily that will just be in time for summer vacations. We sure don’t want a fluctuating pump price while visiting all those national parks, resorts, and beaches do we? Then again, who can afford to go on vacation?

I guess what got my goat (which I may have to start riding to work) was what had happened the day before. The Republicans already have some serious issues to contend with, like a “to-be-named-later” official recession, devastating natural disasters affecting homes, businesses, a housing market collapse brought on by speculative lending practices, and crop failures, as well as two wars, and ongoing terrorists threats (not to mention illegal immigration, China, North Korea, exporting of jobs, a health care crisis, a collapsing airline industry, and deteriorating national infrastructure). And to make matters worse, George W Bush is still president. So, what is the dumbest thing the National GOP could do? The Senate GOP blocked a bill that would have imposed a tax on the billions of windfall profits the oil companies are raking in.

According to GOP House leaders, the windfall tax would do little to reduce the price of gas at the pump. Well, maybe it wouldn’t, but it sure would make the public feel better to know somebody was at least trying to do something to stop economic rape of the public. The Democrat sponsored bill would have added a 25% tax on “unreasonable” profits made the oil companies, who, for the first three months of this year, racked up $36 billion dollars in pure profit. Republican leaders commented that they thought the tax would “do more harm than good”. Yeah, but to whom? The people they were elected to represent or the folks who pay for their junkets? The Democrats needed 60 votes to get the bill through. The received only 51, including from seven Republicans who voted for the people, while one Democrat and the remaining Republicans voted “no” in support of the oil companies. The bill would have also rescinded tax breaks to the oil companies, which is expected to save them $17 billion dollars over the next 10 years.

In a second act of stupidity the same day, the Senate Republicans voted to block extending tax credits, which were scheduled to expire, for wind, solar, and other alternative energy development, including energy conservation and efficiency research. I don’t care what your party affiliation is, but when the people you represent are suffering emotionally and financially and you are in a position to do something about it (even if only symbolically), then you do it. Failure to do so is arrogance at best, and borders on political suicide. The failure to help voters at the pump now will---not may--- result in the voter helping the GOP out of office in November. Frankly, I hate to see it, but perhaps a little comeuppance will do the GOP leadership some good.

The Future of the Right

I came across a recent article in which presidential historians are predicting that based on past trends, the John McCain led Republicans are headed for a serious thumping this November. Given what I cited in the previous article, I started thinking about the GOP and its future. Certainly, as a national player, the Republican Party won’t fade away, though many political pundits think it could, at least for awhile, devolve into little more than a regional player (mainly in the Bible-belt South). It is also certainly true that many of the traditional Republicans in the Northeast and Central Western States have already walked away.

Historically, the Republicans were a conglomeration of several third parties. Today, there appears to be three principal groups. The prevalent group most people are familiar with are the Christian Right Republicans (sometimes called Social Conservative Republicans). They are less interested in fiscal issues or government size than they are with social ones such as abortion, same sex marriage, prayer in school, posting of the Ten Commandments, etc. They are best illustrated by George W Bush, Jerry Farwell, and Pat Robertson.

The next group is the Goldwater or Libertarian Republicans. As the name implies, they are interested in getting government out of your life as much as possible. They believe in the old adage that “the government which governs the least governs the best”. Keen on small government, low (or no) taxes, they support private initiatives over public programs. Barry Goldwater, the “father” of the modern Conservative Movement, Ronald Reagan, and Ron Paul are the three best examples.

The last group is the Progressive Republicans (sometimes called the Teddy Roosevelt or Moderate Republicans). It is this group which has historically been the most successful. They are quite at home before a corporate Board of Directors as they are in a Union Hall (in fact, they’ve often been some of Labor’s biggest supporters). Progressives believe government should be kept to a minimal if possible, but should always be used to keep and maintain a level playing field. Unlike the Christian Right or Libertarian Republicans, they believe social issues are essentially private issues. Who you love and choose to marry is a personal issue (whether or not they personally agree with it). Abortion, while it should never be used as a form of birth control, is primarily a private issue and should at least remain an option when the life or health of either the mother or child is at risk. They believe in avoiding foreign wars unless national security is at risk. They supported breaking big business rackets or trusts. They support national programs (like the creation of national parks, the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, employee protection such as OSHA and various anti-discrimination legislation, etc.) when private action alone won’t work. However, they are firm believers that there is no room for hyphenated Americans. Once a citizen, you are an American first and last. Your loyalty is to this country alone, and that means not only learning the language, but also civic participation. The group is best represented by Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and George H. Bush.

The Moderate and Libertarian Republicans having either been leaving the GOP since the Newt Gringrich led “Republican Revolution” and the rise of the Social Conservatives, or forced to sit on the sidelines. The Social Conservatives under the Reagan and Gringrich leadership could do no wrong, and it seemed the Democrats could do no right. Nevertheless, their results were at first astonishing. Following on the heels of the “Revolution” however was Bill Clinton, and despite his inability to keep his pants zipped, lead the country to the best economic growth it had ever seen. Internally, the Socially Conservative Republicans (perhaps because of their stinging loss of the presidency) began “Rino” hunting. The term “Rino” is intended to be a derogatory word meaning “Republican in Name Only” and implied that, in a phrase, “if you ain’t with us, you’re against us” (the Democrats have a similar term for ultra conservatives in their party, whom they call a “Dino”). Their idea was to work against a fellow Republican, even if it meant supporting a Democrat if that Republican wasn’t conservative enough. Such was the widening fissures in the Right’s control of the GOP and weakening of the party.

Lastly was the election of George W. Bush. Starting off as the butt of every late night comedy routine, Bush emerged as the dynamic leader of a stricken nation following the cowardly 9/11 attacks. And for awhile, he was. However, Bush (and many would say Rove, Cheney, and Rumsfeld) led the nation into a military and economic quagmire that we may be decades in extricating ourselves from. Now we are faced with a so-called Republican moderate in Senator John McCain and a unproved Junior Senator from Illinois by the name of Barack Obama for President.

The Chinese philosopher and military strategist, Sun Tzu once said “know your enemy and know yourself and you will find victory”. To which I reply, know your enemy’s philosophy and know your own, and you will find victory. The Republicans want to take America back to a time of Ronald Reagan. The Democrats want to take America forward to a “time of Hope”. Americans have seen the past. We know the promises it held. But we know where those same promises have also led us. I think Americans will choose a future which holds out a promise of hope over a past which has led no where.

As for the Republicans, perhaps it’s time to return to the future and again embrace the values which made it so successful like personal responsibility, an entrepreneurial spirit, and a sense of social moderation.

I alluded earlier to the failure of government to maintain our infrastructure. Regular contributor “Moderate Man” has a few words on the subject himself. See what you think.

America’s Infrastructure Needs an Overhaul

America’s infrastructure needs an overhaul from top to bottom. It desperately needs leadership from the executive office. Someone with vision and determination. It also needs funding and tax reform to make it work for centuries to come. Our country started over two centuries ago with no infrastructure and a smaller population. My, look at what we have grown into! Not only has our land mass expanded, but so has our technology and population. We have 8,420,000 total road miles (2,308,602 are urban and 6,111,987 are rural), of which 87,944 miles are interstate and of those, only 46.5% are listed in good condition, according to the Department of Transportation. The county has 169,346 miles of oil pipelines and 1,437,500 miles of natural gas pipelines. America has 157,000 miles of high voltage transmission power lines with 10,000 power plants. Usually there are disruptions in service in the summer months. There are networks consisting of 120,000 miles of major railroads.

Meanwhile, the country’s publicly funded rail, Amtrak, has only 505 stations in 46 states on 22,000 route miles. It only owns 3% or 730 route miles. America has over 25,000 miles of commercially navigable waterways and over 19,900 airports. This vast system also includes over 500 major urban public transit operators and more than 300 ports on the coasts, Great Lakes, and inland waterways with 26,000 total miles of navigable channels. According to the Department of Transportation, 72,520 of America’s bridges (599,766 total bridges in America) are listed as structurally deficient and 79,804 are listed as functionally obsolete. That will make you feel safe the next time you cross a bridge. America has 79,000 total dams blocking 600,000 miles of rivers (about 17% of all rivers in America). Dams don’t last forever. Experts indicate there are one TRILLION dollars needed in water and sewer projects around the country. Think about that the next time you brush your teeth. Transportation contributes 11 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product, amounting to approximately one trillion. Transportation accounts for 19 percent of spending by the average household in America-as much as food and health care combined-and second only to spending on housing. Although it might be more due to the recent fuel increase costs.

The U.S. transportation system carries over 4.7 trillion passenger miles of travel and 3.7 trillion ton miles of domestic freight generated by about 270 million people, 6.7 million business establishments, and 88,000 units of government. Rail and maritime transportation each account for over 11 percent of the tonnage carried. America’s transportation system each year carried 2.7 trillion miles of travel by cars and trucks, more than 9 billion trips on public transit, more than 640 million passengers boarding’s on airplanes, 21 million trips on Amtrak, and nearly 700 million rail freight train miles. Our country in short, uses the infrastructure very heavily. It needs maintenance and replacement in sections. We don’t need to be rebuilding other country’s infrastructure. Fix our own first! The solution is simple, but not easy. Infrastructure should be revenue dedicated and untouchable for other federal agency expenditures. The same for national defense and social security. There should be a tax at the point of profit for these 3 items and a fourth for the rest of the federal government expenses. This doesn’t include any state or city taxes that could be added. Take care of America first!

Moderate Man

Poll Results

With gas prices rising, I asked if oil companies should be nationalized. 40% of you said “no” and the free market should dictate prices. 35% of you thought oil companies needed stronger governmental regulation, while 15% thought oil companies should be nationalized.

Aztlan Anyone?

2008-06-06T18:03:00.008-04:00

I’m willing to bet most of you have never heard of “Aztlan” and know even less about the Chicano or Aztlan Movement. As most everyone knows, Hispanics are now the largest minority in the United States; comprising approximately 15% of the total population (which is expected to rise to 29% by 2050). This dramatic increase in numbers has made the Hispanic population a potential power player in American politics at all levels. This may explain the foot dragging of those in Washington to quietly impede the building a fence along our Southern border, or provide adequate funding of border security. It may also explain why there is private distain by those inside Washington’s beltway to any efforts to establish English as our national language while allowing Spanish to become the de facto “co-language” much as French is in Canada. This brings me to question regarding Aztlan.

Aztlan was the mythical home of the Nahua people, the original inhabitants of Southwest America and ancestors of today’s Latin American populations. The Aztlan or Chicano Movement, which began in the late 1960’s, is aimed at nothing less than the “reconquista” or “reconquest” of land lost during the Westward expansion, beginning in the 1840’s and creation of a Spanish speaking “Republica del Norte” or Republic of the North. Included in this “reconquest” are Arizona, New Mexico, California, Colorado, and Texas, along with the Mexican States of Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas.

So, who supports the creation of this new Hispanic State? Well funded groups like the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Council of La Raza (“the race”), Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, and the National Immigration Forum just to name a few (http://www.mayorno.com/WhoIsMecha.html , http://www.diversityalliance.org/docs/Chang-aztlan.html, and http://www.atzlan.net/).

While there is no doubt that those who support the creation of Aztlan are quite serious in efforts, there are just as many Hispanics who oppose the idea. These are primarily Hispanics who have come to America legally, and established themselves within their respective communities throughout America. In short, they’ve assimilated into the tapestry of America just as countless immigrants have done over the centuries. If we allow our government officials to continue along the same path of ignoring the issues of illegal immigrations, unsecured borders (including prosecuting our border agents for doing their jobs), and protecting our national heritage by adopting English as our official language, we play into the hands of those who seek to destroy America. Nothing less than a strong secure America bound by a common language and shared culture will do in my opinion.

I’m not a big fan of talk radio, and I rarely listen to Rush Limbaugh. But that does not diminish my concern when a federal agency tries to impede someone’s right of free speech, as guaranteed to each of us under the Bill of Rights. The following article was sent to me by Jim Boulet of English First, an organization I support, and whose aim is to make English our official national language. You will also find a link to a petition asking that the FCC reverse campaign to ban radio talk shows like Limbaugh, Beck, Ingraham and others from public airwaves.

FCC Rule to Drive Rush Limbaugh off the Radio

Do you want the government to drive Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Dr. James Dobson and other conservatives off your radio dial? This month, the FCC will end its review of a "Notice of Proposed Rule making" which, if ultimately adopted, would impose a back-door version of the discredited "Fairness Doctrine" upon America's airwaves.

Our opponents determination to take Rush and the others off the air demonstrates the critical importance of talk radio .Rush and the others allow us to know what is going on in Congress in time to do something about it. Had the FCC's stealth "Fairness Doctrine" been in place in 2006, amnesty for illegal aliens would have passed easily.

The FCC's stealth Fairness Doctrine regulations seek "to ensure that broadcasters serve their communities, especially traditionally underserved audiences," such as non-English speakers, whether or not these people actually exist.

The FCC's proposed regulations also contain a new requirement that all "licensees should convene and consult with permanent advisory boards." These advisory boards "should include representatives of all segments of the community."

Such a requirement would empower self-appointed "community leaders," such as representatives of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) or the Center for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), to discourage commercial radio stations from airing discussions of controversial matters such as the costs of illegal immigration or the meaning of jihad.

Fans of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Dr.James Dobson and other syndicated radio talk shows need to stand up against these proposed FCC regulation or watch our favorite hosts taken off the air in the name of encouraging "cultural diversity."

English First has established a web site, http://www.keeprushontheair.com,
containing the relevant FCC documents and a citizen's petition to the FCC
that I hope you will sign. If you have already signed our petition (over 1,000 Americans have done so), please ask your friends and neighbors to sign our petition as well. Thank you for your time and for doing your part. Your comments or complaints are welcome. E-mail them to me at jbouletATenglishfirst.org (replace AT with @).

You can donate to support the work of English First at https://www5.clearlight.com/english/join.htm.

Jim Boulet, Jr.
Executive Director
English First
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102,
Springfield, VA 22151
(703) 321-8818 (voice)
http://www.englishfirst.org (web)

Poll Results

I asked you if enough was being done to stop illegal immigration. Your response came through loud and clear! 86% of you said you wanted stopped now. 10% of didn’t think it was an important issue, and the remaining 4% thought we were already doing enough. Now, only if our so-called “leaders: in Washington would listen to us.

The 545

2008-05-24T23:01:00.002-04:00

A friend of mine recently sent me a very interesting article. It was allegedly written by a reporter named “Charlie Reese”. Frankly, I don’t know if this person is real or not, and I try to stay away from articles like these when writing my blog. However, something about this article rings true, and it’s a topic that would diffidently interest me—government’s inability to solve our nation’s problem. The title of the story is “The 545”. Read it for yourself. I think you’ll agree that regime change begins at home.

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.

Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does. You and I don't control monetary policy, The Federal Reserve Bank does. One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank. I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority.

They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall.

No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.

Who is the Speaker of the House? She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to. It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.

I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.

When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Marines are in Iraq, it's because they want them in Iraq. If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way. There are no insoluble government problems. Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people and they alone, are responsible. They and they alone, have the power.

They and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charlie Reese is a former columnist of the Orlando Sentinel newspaper.

One more comment from BT: Charlie Reese is correct. These 545 people have created many of the problems this country faces. However, it is also true that we, the citizens of this country, reelect approximately 90% of the 545 every election. Therefore, we bear a great deal of the responsibility for the mess we have created.

(I should point out as well that under the old Soviet system, the Communist Politburo had a higher rate of turnover that the US Congress---Editor)

China’s Lethal Mix of Earthquakes, Corruption, and Greed By Peter Navarro, author of THE COMING CHINA WARS: Where They Will Be Fought and How They Will Be Won.

Imagine that your government forced you to have only one child – under penalty of sterilization, beatings, and/or stiff fines. Imagine further that your one child is crushed to death during an earthquake because that same government allowed your child’s school to be built with shoddy building materials and in violation of numerous building codes.

For many grieving mothers and fathers in China, this stark imagining has become the harshest of realities. In fact, the real tragedy of the recent China earthquake is that a significant number of the deaths and injuries were not the result of a merciless Mother Nature but rather a lethal combination of government corruption and entrepreneurial greed.

The quake in question hit Sichuan province on May 12th and registered a highly destructive 7.9 on the Richter scale. While the official death toll has already risen to more than 20,000, when all of the bodies are eventually counted, that toll will likely exceed 50,000. The grim reality is that many of the dead and injured perished in poorly constructed schools and homes and other buildings that had no absolutely chance of withstanding the earthquake’s deadly force.

The problem of shoddy building materials is endemic in China, and it is a particularly severe problem with cement and steel. It’s not that the Chinese don’t know how to properly make these materials. Rather, inferior cement and steel creep into the construction process because as a common characteristic of the Chinese business culture and lax regulatory environment, entrepreneurs regularly skimp on product quality as a way of boosting profits.

A similar problem exists with ultra-lax building code enforcement. At least on paper, China has a set of building codes almost as tough as those of the United States or Japan. In practice, however, the central government’s codes are rarely enforced at the local level – particularly outside the confines of major cities like Beijing and Shanghai and particularly in poorer provinces such as Sichuan.
This problem of local autonomy goes far back into China’s history and its imperial times and is reflected in the ancient Chinese proverb “the mountains are high and the emperor is far away.” It is a problem that plagues China on everything from environmental protection and worker health and safety to the construction process.
On top of this, China’s extremely weak legal system makes it virtually impossible for victims to seek any proper redress. Not only are the laws unclear, but the judiciary is often pro-developer. Moreover, as a by-product of the repressive nature of the Chinese regime, would-be claimants are subject to beatings. The result is precisely the kind of shoddy construction that has claimed so many lives in the recent quake.

Given China’s incredibly dark earthquake history, there is absolutely no excuse for the government to allow any of this. In fact, in 1976, China suffered an earthquake that resulted in the highest number of quake-related casualties in the last four centuries. This earthquake occurred in the Tangshen area of China and damage reached as far as Beijing. While official statistics place the number of dead at 255,000, the actual number is more likely to be well above 600,000.

The only close competitor in modern times is the deadly Sumatra earthquake of 2004 which killed 228,000 – but many of those died not from the quake but the ensuing tsunami. And it must be noted that the only other quake topping 200,000 in casualites was also in China – the deadly 1920 Gansu earthquake. That’s why there is absolutely no excuse for government officials to condone the type of fly-by-night development process that exists.

There are important lessons in these frank observations for both a repressive Chinese government in desperate need of reform and a world increasingly reliant on Chinese manufacturers who are far too willing to cut corners on safety. Chinese government officials must come to understand that the brutal suppression of free speech and the lack of legal protection for Chinese citizens provide the ideal breeding ground for corruption and greed. At the same time, consumers in the West have yet another data point to illustrate the deadly hazards of relying on Chinese manufacturers to provide us with everything from car parts, food, and toys to pharmaceuticals and, yes, building materials.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. Peter Navarro is the author of THE COMING CHINA WARS: Where They Will Be Fought and How They Will Be Won.He is a business professor at California-Irvine and wrote the bestselling investment book If It’s Raining in Brazil, Buy Starbucks, and The Well-Timed Strategy: Managing the Business Cycle for Competitive Advantage. His work has appeared in Business Week, Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Harvard Business Review. A gifted public speaker, he has appeared on Bloomberg, CNN, CNBC, NPR, and all three major network news shows and has also testified before Congress at the U.S. – China Economic and Security Review Commission’s hearing on the U.S. – China relationship.

For more information, please visit http://www.comingchinawars.com.

Book Review: Pennsylvania Avenue: Profiles in Backroom Politics.

Washington is about power and access to power. We're simultaneously attracted and repulsed by the audacity of those plying their trade in quiet darken anterooms. Authors John Harwood and Gerald Seib, in their book, "Pennsylvania Avenue: Profiles in Backroom Power", shined a spot light on those who work and play in the shadows of Washington politics. Through great background research and first hand interviews with key players such as Karl Rove, Ed Rogers, Ken Duberstein, this is an excellent book for those wanting to know how deals are made, and how the wheels of power are greased". If you want a glimpse into how the game is played, this book is for you.

Genealogy DNA Research

A lot people these days like to do genealogy (I’m one of them), and the latest twist is doing DNA research. I’d like to recommend one such company by the name of DNA Heritage (http://www.dnaheritage.com). They offer a very affordable test and excellent results with great follow up. Check out their site and give it a try.

Funeral for a Friend

On Wednesday, May 21, 2008, a co-worked and good friend of mine by the name of Robert Ludwig died of a massive heart attack. Rob was only 56 years old. Rob was something of a curmudgeon-in-training and would have probably scoffed at this article. You rarely saw Rob without a cup of coffee in one hand and cigarette in the other. Rob was a hard core conservative who was sick and tired of what he called the “religious right controlling my Republican Party” and thought the Democrats were little better than Socialists. Rob felt that both parties have abridged the Constitution and he wanted his country back…now. He had no love for McCain but loathed the idea of an Obama Presidency. I always thought Rob would be more at home as a Libertarian.

Rob treated everyone the way he meet them. He believed in hard work, honesty and fair play. He had a great and slightly warped sense of humor which probably one of the reasons we got along so well. Rob was also a self taught computer geek. Many of the updates you see on this blog were as a result of his efforts. Rob also had one heck of talent for which I could only admire and quietly envy. He could sing and play guitar like a pro. You may remember that several months ago I listed a link to spoof he wrote called “My Hezbollah” (you can still check it out at: http://myhezbollah.com/). What a talent.

Rob was one of those few people you come across in a lifetime. Once you’ve meet them you’ll never forget them. Rest well my ole friend and thanks for everything.

Illegal Immigration: The Facts

2008-05-10T21:47:00.009-04:00

Let’s look at some facts concerning illegal immigration in this country. According to the American Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR), 18% of illegal immigrants fall below the poverty compared to 11% of native born Americans, and they are twice as likely to try to obtain some form of taxpayer based assistance. Did you realized that between $11 billion and $22 billion dollars is spent by state governments annually to provide aid to immigrants? That’s our hard earned tax money NOT at work, at least for us. Approximately $2 billion a year is spent on WIC, food stamps, school lunches and the like. $2.5 billion is spent on Medicaid for illegals, while $17 billion is spent on “anchor babies”; that is, babies born in the States to mothers here illegally. Thus the child is automatically a US citizen, and “mom” gets to stay here, in large part at your expense, as the caretaker.

The Center for Immigration Studies in Washington DC estimates 1.1 million illegal children attend taxpayer funded schools. Not surprisingly, the majority don’t speak English. So, guess who gets to pay for the in-class translator? Yelp, you and I do. According to the California Department of Education, the cost of educating its three million children of illegal parents will cost their taxpayers $38 billion dollars. In Colorado, which has an estimated 200,000 illegal aliens, the cost to its taxpayers is $140.6 million dollars according to the Colorado Department of Education. Even in Georgia, it’s costing their citizens $230 million dollars to educate the children of illegal aliens. FAIR estimated that residents of Kentucky (which has a hard enough time educating its own students) spent $51.6 million dollars just in 2004 to educate the children of illegal residents and that number keeps increasing. The PEW Hispanic Center estimated that in 2005, there was between 30,000 and 60,000 illegal immigrants living in Kentucky (http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_researche5a6).

Let’s talk a little about crime. Statistically, illegal aliens have a crime rate more than double White non-illegal residents. Currently, the US has the highest population behind bars than any other industrialized nation. Of that, 30% are illegal aliens. $3 million dollars a day is spent to incarcerate illegals in US jails—that’s per day folks complete with three squares and free medical care. Dr. Deborah Schurman-Kauflin at the Violent Crimes Institute (www.drdsk.com), located in Atlanta Georgia, wrote in 2006 that she conducted a year long in-depth study of 1500 sex crimes committed between January 1999 and April 2006. Her conclusion was that Americans face a serious threat from sex predators crossing the border.

Dr. Schurman-Kauflin reported that based on a population of 12,000,000 illegal residents, in which young males make up the largest portion of the population, the proportion of sex offenders was higher than that of the general population as a whole. To break the numbers down into understandable terms, it means that an estimated 93 sex offenders and 12 serial sex offenders cross our border every day. The 1500 offenders in this study had 5999 victims; that’s an average of 4 victims each. 53% of these were child molestations; 24% were rapes; 41% were sexual homicides and serial murders. Of the child molestations, 47% were Hispanic, while 36% were White. Asians, Blacks, and other nationalities made up the remaining 8%, 6%, and 3% respectively (I bet you've at least thought about checking on your kids at this point).

Of the rape cases, an amazing 64% knew their attackers. Hispanic and White victims made up 34% while Black women and other nationalities made up the balance. And these weren’t simply rapes (which is bad enough). 70% of the victims were beaten, and weapons were usually used. The average age of the victim was 23 years old. 3% of the rapists were categorized as serial rapists. Each serial rapist averaged 5 victims each. 6% of those raped and murdered were also mutilated according to the study. The most common method of murder was bludgeoning. The next most common method was stabbing. Both White and Black women were most often the victims of rape and murder (Whites had a higher percentage). Their average age was 42 years old and apparently socioeconomic class was a factor, the majority were in affluent areas. You can read more of Dr. Schurman-Kauflin’s study by visiting her site at
http://www.drdsk.com/articles.html#Illegals.

While “hard” figures are difficult to come by, an estimated 4 to 10 million people entered the US illegally along our Southern Border (you remember our Southern Border don’t you? It’s the one we were promised would have a fence along it with adequate security personal. The same one that folks in Washington keep failing to fund). According to the National Policy Institute, it would cost upwards of $230 billion to deport the illegals we already have in this country (gee, would be nice to have that fence wouldn’t it?). Here’s an interesting little fact; did you know that illegals send approximately $45 billion dollars back to their native country? Wow, that sure would go along way to offset the money they’re costing us. Shame our government can’t freeze those funds.

None of the three contenders for President have offered any serious avenue for change. So what do we do? Well, for one thing, the President doesn’t make the laws. That’s the job of Congress. For now, we need to make sure we elect responsible leaders to Congress (yeah, I snickered when I read that out loud too) who will get off their backsides and address the illegal immigration issue while we still can. Email them; write them; call them at every opportunity and badger them to start protecting America and Americans. Secondly, demand that companies have an “English Only” policy. No more “Press 1” for anything. Write or emails companies and demand “English Only” on their product labels. Report crime and form block watches and neighborhood associations. Insist that your children are exposed to a broad spectrum of cutural and language classes in school and not be resrticted to Spanish only language classes (as is the case in Kentucky public schools---frankly, they’d be better off learning Chinese). Lastly, don’t stop fighting for what’s right…ever.

Rush Limbaugh and Illegal Immigration

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHPm_TEQ0PA&feature=related

Pay close attention to the last part of the video.

We have another article by our very own “Moderate Man”. Take a look at what he has to say:

Politicians Promoting Themselves

I don’t have any problem with politicians promoting themselves, regardless of party. In fact there can be unexpected benefits that come from the experience. What we can learn from the issue is their character, values, morals, priorities, behavior, beliefs, etc. Yes, it could be corny or it could be confrontational. It is a good way for the voters to learn about the elected official, beyond the election canned agenda and information. Let me first say, there are many good politicians who follow the rules and laws. But I do have a problem with elected officials who use public money to promote themselves. Money that should have been used for the tasks that they were elected to. I have always believed that if you do a good job, people will remember that better than any other method. Many politicians promote themselves using public money. So many that the public seems numb and apathetic about it. These examples are but a few that come to mind. The past governors (you name either party) of Kentucky traveling around the state passing out ceremonial large checks for budget items. They should have just put the check in the mail. How about a United States President who has a letter mailed to inform recipients of a future tax rebate to its citizens.

Many politicians travel to events supporting lower and upper ticket candidates and especially around election time. Some try to mix in elected business travel to make it appear they happened to be in the area. Some try to stiff the taxpayer with the bill for travel till a public outcry makes it an issue. Some lower ticket candidates try to attend events for popular upper ticket candidates. They mug for cameras, try to get interviews, pass out their campaign materials, etc. They may try to pass the travel cost on to the public, by driving in a public supplied car, helicopter, etc. hoping they don’t get caught and coming up with a lame excuse to attend in it. One method of self promotion that is practiced by our Jefferson County Clerk. Every few years as required by law, she returns surplus budget money back to Louisville Metro Government in a December city council meeting with another one of those large ceremonial checks for 2-3 million dollars. It makes her seem like a trusty financial steward of taxpayer money. However, her office is given 6 to7 hundred thousand dollars in each yearly city budget. The council should eliminate this and let her operate on her fees and her surplus. The city money can be used for other Louisville Metro Government needs in these trying times. Just mail in the check.

Poll Results

Our last poll asked if public meetings should be mandated by government. 100% of you said “yes”. I couldn’t agree more. They work for us, not the other way around.

Louisville’s Metro Government and Public Input

2008-04-26T20:28:00.004-04:00

A few weeks ago I received an email from Metro Councilman Doug Hawkins (R-25) announcing an urgent meeting at the Metro Government Center on Dixie Highway, in the Southwest part of the county. The subject of the meeting was the placement an ordnance storage facility on the levee wall which was responsible for the water supply to the residents in this part of the county, thus, could prove disastrous if something horrific should happen.

The meeting was well attended by some 75 seriously irate residents. The meeting was kicked off by Mr. Hawkins expressing his concern not only about the safety of the facility, given its close location to several resident neighborhoods, the local water supply, and several local schools. Hawkins claimed the 8x16x8 metal and wood unit could be used to store hand grenades, ammunition, and unexploded biological or chemical ordnances, not to mention shells, blasting caps, and so forth.

The local Metro Police were on hand to refute any inaccurate statements and alleviate any confusion about what would and won’t be stored there. And in that job, they were outstanding. However, their “matter-of-fact” answers about the technical specifications of the facility did little to defuse the crowd, whose main interest was why the Southend was chosen, and whether any other location was ever considered. The spokesman for the Metro Police explained (with incredible patience I should add) that when Mayor Jerry Abramson sold the Southfields Training Facility in the eastern part of the county (to generate funds for his downtown projects), provisions for the two state-of-art storage locations weren’t made. The existing ordinance storage was shifted to the Algonquin site; described as a “leaky” metal container located near Louisville’s West End. The police could not address issues such as the affect the unit would have on neighboring property values, although it was generally conceded that adjacent property values could be adversely affected. They did assure those in attendance that the unit was well protected and all safeguards to insure public safety were in place.

But what I found to be the most damning comment was that Mayor Abramson had sole authority to put this unit anywhere he wanted without consideration to the Metro Council, the police or fire departments, or any other Metro agencies, and certainly not to residents. Although residents were “assured” that the ordinance disposal unit would not present any danger, no one present representing the Metro Government could explain why there wasn’t a public hearing or, if the unit didn’t pose any danger as suggested, why the Mayor didn’t put it three blocks from his resident at the Crescent Hill Levee as a show of confidence. The meeting wrapped up with the announcement that the following Tuesday would be a “Mayor’s Night Out” as the Fairdale High School. Here, I thought, would an opportunity to ask the man himself.

“Mayor’s Night Out” was conceived as an opportunity for residents to meeting with various departments within Metro Government; ask questions and get answers to nearly anything on their minds. Well, I was there, along with 100 other residents. Everyone was in their seats waiting for the meeting to begin. After Mayor Abramson made his usual customary introductions, two ladies asked the Mayor about the ordnance storage unit and why it was being located in the Southend along with every other project the City doesn’t want. What came next was totally unexpected.

The Mayor immediately held up his hand and announced that he wasn’t going to answer any questions regarding the unit. He made the decision to put it at the Southend site and that was that. There would be no questions or discussion. He would not address the matter further. The matter, as far as he was concerned, was closed. With that, the majority of those in attendance meekly walked out.

Now perhaps it’s just me, but I thought the Mayor worked for us, and as such, had the duty and obligation to answer any question put to him by the residents of Jefferson County. Apparently I was mistaken. It has been Mayor Abramson’s increasingly autocratic attitude which is earning him outright contempt in parts of county, and even among those who work for Metro Government. Here is a Democratic mayor who has as much use for unions as a dog has for ticks. He has kept some unions on hold for three years now without as much as a cost of living increase. He has repeatedly tried to rein every agency he could find. There will be no independence of thought under his regime. Is it any wonder he is openly referred to “the King”, “Mayor-for-Life”, or “His Excellency”? Bossism is alive and well in Louisville Kentucky (for those keeping track, Abramson served three terms as Louisville Mayor, then after aggressively pushing for a City-County government merger, was elected the first Metro Mayor. He is now on this second term in that position. The residents in the county are still waiting on city services promised by the merger).

What I don’t understand however, is why unions, who rarely support him, and the numerous community groups and activists (especially those in the county) don’t band together to get rid of this home grown “Boss Tweed”. With the first Saturday in May fast approaching and the running of the famous Kentucky Derby, wouldn’t that be a terrific time to stage a protest; with the world’s media right there? Wouldn’t that force the Mayor to address issues like stale contracts; the lack of government services for county; the different taxing districts between city and county residents; and arbitrary decisions without public input? Perhaps the time has come to put aside differences and focus on government reform right here in the River City—Louisville Kentucky.

Our occasional guest writer, “Moderate Man”, has decided to wade in on this issue too:

The Southend has been bypassed like a road around a progressive town. We have a mayor who didn't deliver on a retail shopping center like Kohl's at the old Bacons Shopping Center in Shively. A long time regional Christmas event called the Iroquois Winterfest at Iroquois Park was killed and the lights and figurines were taken and absorbed into the mayor’s event, called Light Up Louisville in front of his office downtown. The old 3rd District LPD command center was turned into a training center after the mayor signed off on the sale of the Southfields training center. They were moved into the Central Park 4th District, leaving a delayed response time for those in the 15th council, as they were farther away from their southern beats, including Iroquois Homes housing project. Community Development Block Grants to fix up residential housing in the north half of the 15th council, have been hijacked for downtown housing thus allowing a greater South End rental market with tenants who lack pride in ownership. The mayor tried to have Christopher 2X place a memorial in the Wyandotte Park renovation to honor abused children who were killed. Why wasn't it placed in Jefferson Park with all the other memorials, instead of at a Police training building? Guess the mayor didn't want to look at it out of his office window, as south end residents will now get to drive by it daily on Taylor Blvd. Iroquois Homes is being demolished over a 5 year period and the Abramson administration has no plans currently what will replace it. This includes the Dumeyer Community Center. Where are the kids in this area to play? Two pools, Hazelwood and Wyandotte have been closed and no pool replacement is called for by the administration for the South End. When will someone stand up for the Southend other than the Mayor's puppet council people?

Dark Clouds on the Horizon

The New York Times recently published a chilling set of statistics. According to the April 4, 2008 article, Americans of nearly every demographic are sick and tired of being sick and tired with government and the economy. 81% of those polled said they believe that “things have pretty seriously gotten off the wrong track”. That’s up from 69% just last year, and 35% from 2003. 78% of respondents said the country was worse off than it was five years ago (I’m reminded of then presidential candidate Ronald Reagan asking voters if they were better off now than four years ago, referring to his opponent, President Jimmy Carter). The article went on to point out that there is now a national consensus that we are facing serious problems (duh). Also of interest was that the article pointed out that public opinion usually hits lows only in the months and years after an economic downturn, not at the beginning of one. That's a very bad sign folks.

The public holds both political parties to blame for the current economic and political malaise. 58% of the respondents said they would support an increase in taxes on households making more than $250,000 to pay for tax cuts or support programs aiding the working poor (Napoleon once quipped that the only use for religion was to keep the poor from murdering the rich). However, no breaks would be tolerated for businesses. 43% said they would support a larger federal government that provided more services, which is the highest number since the poll began in
1991. Interestingly, however, 43% said they would support a smaller government that provided fewer services. Basically, people are looking for an out anywhere they can find it.

Historically, its numbers like these which have often produced great social upheavals, and even revolutions. With raising gas and oil prices, a pending health crisis, a recession, an increasing public division on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, global climate change, and now the possibility of food shortages, whoever is elected president in November will have their work cut out for them. There will be absolutely no room for mistakes or “on-the-job” training. The next president is going to have to hit the ground running hard. They will have to have all their players in place and ready to put to their plans in action starting from Day One. And what’s more, they had better tell their lobbyists friends to sit the next four years out. This has to be a populist term. Failure to do so, may bring America to the brink…or worse

Poll Results

Our last poll asked you whether or not you thought we there was a global crisis coming. 70% of you thought so. That’s good enough for me!

The Coming Storm

2008-04-13T12:21:00.003-04:00

Gas at $4.00 dollars a gallon by the beginning of summer in most parts of the country, and at or near $5.00 in places like California, Hawaii, or even in Chicago or New York City. Outrageous? You bet it is, but read on. Oil companies continue to post record profits. In 2007, the three biggest oil producers posted $806 billion dollars in revenue. Exxon made $404.6 billion dollars in revenue. Of that, $40.6 billion was pure profit. Chevron had revenues of $214 billion in revenue, of which just under $19 billion was profit. Bringing up the rear was ConocoPhillips which raked in $187.4 billion in revenue, with $11.9 billion in profits. At the same time, these same oil companies get some $18 billion dollars in tax breaks and public tax money. For Free Marketers, that’s wonderful. For consumers, it’s a disaster.

Then there is global warming. Now whether or not you believe global warming or climate change is man made or simply a natural occurring phenomenon doesn’t matter. The fact is that something is happening, and it’s affecting our weather, and thus our food supply, and coupled with the raising costs of fuel, that’s a recipe for disaster on a global scale. Let’s take a look at some examples.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, some 250 million Africans could be without adequate drinking water by 2020. That’s just 12 years away, and doesn’t even take in consideration the rapidly growing populations of India and China which numbers in the tens of billions already (for that matter, not even Mexico or South America). The prices of basic food staples have increased worldwide 80% since 2005. In March of this year alone, rice, one of the most basic staples, hit a 19 year high while wheat, the other big staple, rose to a 28 year high. The UN Food Bank, which is responsible for food monitoring and distribution, estimates a food shortfall of $500 million dollars to meet current demands. That’s needed to supplement both existing needs and an estimated 70 million additional people in 80 countries.

So why the sudden shortages? Simple. Oil prices. While oil prices continue to shoot up and their stockholders, corporate executives, and speculators rake in obscene profits, people go hungry. Farm acreage formally devoted to producing crops like rice and wheat are now being converted to corn. In 2005, President George Bush signed into law the Energy Policy Act which increased the amount of corn based biofuels (ethanol) available to be added to gasoline in an effort to reduce harmful green house gas emissions thought to be responsible, in part, for global warming. It also, more subtly, was a way to “water down” gas in order to extend the supply as world oil supplies dwindle amid increasing global demand, especially China. Kind of like what folks did during the Great Depression by adding extra bread crumbs to make a meatloaf last longer. Speaking of meat, the price of meat continues to rise because there is less corn available for livestock feed, which is now being diverted for human consumption.

The result was a decrease in wheat and rice production by ¼ acre. This relatively small reduction in acreage saw wheat and rice prices skyrocket, which cascaded across the board as we filled our weekly grocery carts. Meanwhile, corn prices jumped from $2.00 a bushel in 2005 when the policy was signed to $6.00 a bushel so far this year. Again, why? The answer is, once more, the spiraling demand for cheap fuel and now, for food stuffs. Egypt for example, which has long subsidized wheat prices, and the second largest recipient of US aid behind Israel, is facing bread riots because the price of wheat has risen so high that the Egyptian government is having trouble affording it. Some 20% of Egypt’s 76 million people live at or below the poverty line; Bread is the basic component of their diet. The same could be said for rice in Asia.

In my opinion, the near term indicators are that we’ll see an increasing global food crisis and a demand for cheap fuel to power economic growth. At the current time, there’s little that we can do to have both. Climate change will play an increasing factor as crop production, fresh water supplies, and basic infrastructures are challenged to or past the breaking point. There are only two scenarios as I see it. The first is to continue on our current path. This will likely result in increased shortages, unaffordable prices, and war as nations fight for natural resources in order not to create domestic economic growth, but simply to sustain current demand. If they fail, riots, crimes, and even violent revolutions are on the horizon.

The second scenario calls for global economic cooperation on a scale we’ve yet to see. It means putting aside national and ideological differences and focusing on human survival. It may mean international cooperation on an unprecedented scale to develop immediate controls on fuel production and consumption, as well as creating alternative energy sources. For places like Detroit, Stuttgart, and Nagoya, it will mean development of more fuel efficient cars. No more lobbying delays for watered down legislation. It will mean an overhaul of our transportation system, including the implementation of mass transit such as light rail, and bringing back trolleys and trams. It will mean new and more environmentally efficient homes. Given the rapid depletion of oil, it may also mean nationalization of the oil companies as a matter of national security since oil has become a strategic resource, and as such, should not be at the whims of corporate greed.

While that may help with energy shortages, it should also help with diverting acreage now under corn back to wheat and rice. Reengineering through genetic research of crops could produce greater yields on smaller plots of land; Perhaps even using less water and capable of growing in more arid areas. But wholesale education of populations is also need to educate them on more effective growing techniques. And with that, education in birth control to minimize both population growth as well as the spread of diseases such as AID despite outdated and irresponsible religious dogma against birth control. Not only is existing technology in water purification desperately needed, but so are simple tools for digging wells and improving irrigation.

Lastly and perhaps most importantly, is the vigilance of people everywhere to the excesses of corporate greed and governmental indifference. People must stand together to demand a stop to food and water being used as tools of wars; being held hostage as it were by petty thugs for weapons and money. We must demand incessantly that government control the obscene profits of oil companies and the like while they hold their hand out for tax breaks and incentives to the tune of $18 billion dollars that you and I pay for; A figure that’s expect to increase to $28 Billion dollars over the next five years. If we fail to do this, you and I may in the short run be able to avoid the coming storm, but our children and their children surely won’t. In short, “We the People” must lead now so that government will be forced to follow.

Here’s an interesting article submitted to AO which I think you’ll like.

Making Tax Day Less Painful While Reducing Deficits
By Andrew L. Yarrow
Author of Forgive Us Our Debts

Marie Antoinette is said to have asked Louis XVI’s finance minister," What are you going to do about the deficit?" To which, the good minister—not unlike many an American politician today—purportedly answered: "Nothing Madame. It is too serious."
With a national debt of $9.3 trillion and rapidly growing, federal debt is serious, and failing to balance spending with revenues portends serious long-term pain for the American people, economy, and government if nothing is done.

The elephant in the room is entitlement spending, but it is worth considering the role of our tax system, not tax rates, in exacerbating America’s debt. Liberals and conservatives can disagree about tax rates or types of taxes, but few disagree that how the United States collects taxes could not be much more dysfunctional.

Almost no one likes taxes, despite Oliver Wendell Holmes’ injunction that they are the price for a civilized society. Moreover, almost no taxpayer, expert, or politician likes the current U.S. tax system, which is insanely complex, grossly unfair, and horribly inefficient.

There are several basic problems: 1) filing taxes wastes stunning amounts of time and money; 2) huge amounts of owed taxes go uncollected because of rampant tax cheating; 3) too many Americans pay no taxes; and 4) many tax subsidies are corporate and special-interest welfare.

Income taxes, with 900 or so IRS forms, devour 3.4 billion hours of Americans’ lives every year, or 25 hours per taxpayer. They cost the average filer $200 in out-of-pocket expenses, the U.S. economy untold billions in lost productivity, and IRS compliance costs are one-tenth to one-seventh of the amount of taxes collected. Between the costs of preparing taxes and the lost income from time that could be spent productively, or more enjoyably, paying taxes costs our country between $240 billion and $600 billion in 2005, according to the Government Accountability Office –all to raise about $2 trillion.

Secondly, as Will Rogers once said, "The income tax has made more liars out of the American people than golf has." About $300 billion in taxes owed – more than recent deficits – go uncollected, as polls have found that at least one-fifth of Americans publicly say that it’s OK to cheat on your taxes. That’s only those who admit, in essence, to being liars.

In addition, one-third of Americans pay no income taxes, up from one-fifth in the mid-20th century. While many are low-income, there are good citizenship reasons for all Americans to pay taxes, even if this is not a big revenue-raiser.

The fourth arena – called "corporate welfare" by Ralph Nader liberals and Cato Institute conservatives – involves hundreds of billions of dollars in forfeited revenues from market-distorting tax breaks to business and special interests. Maya MacGuineas of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget says that these $800 billion a year in "tax expenditures are really spending programs designed to look like tax cuts." These range from farm subsidies to the $225 billion-a-year exclusion for employer-based health care, which exempts corporations and individuals from paying taxes on the value of health insurance.

These four issues are areas where bipartisan agreement would be relatively easy. While the devil may be in the details, tax simplification is a no-brainer. We could eliminate most forms for most taxpayers; go to return-free filing, putting the onus on the government, as Grover Norquist has suggested; and/or adopt a Simplified Income Tax proposed by the Urban Institute’s Leonard Burman, with a single family credit, a refundable work credit, a 15 percent mortgage credit, no state or local tax deduction, and a built-in 401(k).

To collect owed taxes, honesty could be encouraged and we could beef up enforcement, as the audit rate falling from 2.15 percent in 1978 to 0.58 percent in 2001. The employer health-care exclusion and many agricultural and corporate subsidies are often seen as prime candidates for elimination.

Reducing long-term debt requires many other reforms—notably of entitlement spending—but we could address much easier, tax-system reforms that could win broad support across the political spectrum.

— Andrew L. Yarrow, Washington director and vice president of Public Agenda, a nonpartisan think tank, is a professor of U.S. history at American University, and the author of Forgive Us Our Debts, a book about the causes, consequences, and cures for America’s national debt, published by Yale University Press this spring. Yarrow's book Forgive us Our Debts is available from Yale University press http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300123531

Poll Results

We had a pretty good response to our poll asking you what you thought about our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. 30% said they supported the war while 40% opposed it. The remainder said they backed our involvement in Afghanistan only. Thanks for voting!

Bush's War

2008-03-26T12:46:00.007-04:00

Normally I don’t watch KET, unless it’s during their fundraising drive, which seems to be the only time they have any programs worth watching on. However, while flipping channels Tuesday night I came across a special on Frontline called “Bush’s War”. With nothing else on, I decided to watch it, and I’m glad I did. Talk about “shock and awe”. If you think we still live in a democratic Republic, this program will quickly remove that foolish thought from head. Even if the events are only partially accurate, we appear to have far more in common with Fascist Italy or Imperial Japan than the type of government our forefathers set out to create. “Bush’s War” outlines the history and planning of our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq through interviews with the players involved, from the Pentagon and CIA to the National Security Council and State Department. The program also includes actual footage of the war not shown on the evening or cable news programs (including some very graphic and disturbing scenes).

The program is raw; exposing a total lack of planning, understanding of the ethnic, religious or politics of the region. Perhaps worse of all, this program shows a complete disregard of our system of government through deceit, vanity, petty power struggles and the failure to recognize the consequences a war of this type would bring by the most senior of elected officials. There’s no other way to put it. I bet that after you’ve watched it, you’ll have a very different perspective of the war and of the Bush Administration. I know I did. The program is in two parts and about two hours long each, but well worth watching. You can check it out for yourself visiting PBS.org at the address below:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/bushswar/?campaign=pbshomefeatures_1_frontlinebrbushswar_2008-03-26

Moderate Man has new article that should interest everyone—taxes! Take a look:

A Hidden Tax

Louisville Metro Government has currently 123 parks covering more than 14,000 acres, including the 6,191 acre Jefferson Memorial Forest. The parks system is to be expanded without a voter referendum, like the library issue was. Mayor Abramson wants add 1,600 acres of a Floyds Fork flood plain into park space, (2,360 acres were acquired by the 21st Century Parks non profit), expand the area in the Jefferson Memorial Forest, add riverfront land and wharfs along the Riverwalk Trail and Levee Trail, and connect a 110 mile walking and biking path around the entire city called the Metro Loop. Currently 25 miles of the Metro Loop have been completed. Who is going to pay for the upkeep and security of these expanded parks, in mostly the non urban service district? Can you imagine just how much the maintenance of this expanded park space will cost current and future taxpayers, say for the next 200 years? This is a hidden tax! This is on and beyond the original cost to acquire the land.What happened to Mayor Abramson’s pledge of no new taxes or cuts in services due to merger? Guess its ok to have cuts in city services due to a downturn in the economy, but we won’t blame it on expanded services to the non urban service district, such as increasing limited garbage collection and street sweeping routes. This is a hidden tax! Or don’t mention garbage collection in the urban service district reduced from twice a week to once a week. This is a service cut! Let’s not talk about street sweeping reduced from four times a year to three times a year. This is a service cut! Don’t talk about the city finances that are maxed out on project bonding for years to come. Did any of those bonds cover any projects in the non urban service district? I think not.

There are other parts of the community Mr. Mayor, than the downtown. What happened to the UNITY campaign to bring all the parts of the community together? How come we still have different taxing rates in both the urban and non urban service district, years after merger passed? This has happened on your watch, for an issue you campaigned for Mr. Mayor. Use your political capitol to provide this community a unified taxing rate. Let’s talk about park security. There is only the LMPD. And they have their hands full with prioritizing felonies first. When it comes to lesser crimes, like quality of life issues in neighborhoods, they are not too enthusiastic. With the added acreage of the parks, it will require a dedicated independent parks policing force. This is a hidden tax! Louisville with a population of 701,500 will need a parks police force similar to Nashville’s Park Police. Nashville with a population of 613,856 has 113 properties with over 10,570 acres and 7 city golf courses, is very similar to Louisville Metro in terms of parks pre-expansion size. Nashville has 25 parks officers with vehicles. These Metro Parks hidden taxes are the most expensive items in the budget and the mayor did not put it to a voter referendum. The Parks Dept will need dedicated funding, similar to a taxing district, to provide the expanded services in the Mayors vision. But, let’s not ask the voters and put it on a ballot. Instead, let’s take it out of operating expenses. The voters may say no, like the library issue, in these tough times.

Moderate Man

This is an article submitted to AO for consideration. I read it. I liked it. I think you will to.

Ready for Another War between the Generations?
By Jean Johnson and Scott Bittle
Authors of Where Does the Money Go?

In primary after primary this year, journalists have remarked on the tendency of older voters to support Senator Clinton while younger voters flock to Barack Obama. On the face of it, this suggests that older and younger Americans have different ways of thinking about the country’s problems. Fair enough – the two groups are at different life stages. It’s reasonable enough that they’d be focused on different issues and concerns.

Meanwhile, the DC speechifying set is pointing out how much of the federal budget is spent on programs for older Americans compared to how little goes to benefit the young. At $586 billion in 2007, Social Security now takes up the largest slice of the federal budget. We spend more on Social Security than we spend on defense – and that’s with two wars going on. And Social Security dwarfs the $24.6 billion the federal government spent on higher education.

With 78 million boomers starting to receive benefits beginning this year, there’s no question that Social Security and Medicare costs present a major financial challenge for the country. To headline writers and the chattering classes, who often confuse conflict with genuine policy debate, this new “war between the generations” colors everything from the 2008 elections to how to tame entitlement spending.

The country went through a generation war back in the sixties and seventies, and a lot of boomers are probably surprised to find themselves painted by some as a bunch of greedy has-beens soon to be a millstone around the neck of the young. But leaving aside the feelings of the boomers themselves, we can’t help thinking that revving up a new war between the generations is such a patently bad idea. If younger people and older people begin to see each other as automatic political adversaries, it could well derail a lot productive ideas for solving our problems.

For one thing, the two putative “sides” in the supposed generational war actually have a lot in common, especially when it comes to their initiation into national politics. Both entered adulthood in the wake of shocking national tragedy – for one generation, the assassination of JFK (and Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy not too long after); for another, September 11. Both have had to contend with a deeply unpopular, costly, mismanaged war (feel free to insert the adjectives you prefer). This time around at least, we’ve avoided blaming the soldiers for the errors of their elders. Some members of boomer generation were stupider and crueler back in the day. Even so, can we really say that the two generations are such political opposites?

But beyond this, setting up political discussions as a war between the generations seems a bit odd. Nearly all members of both generations have someone they dearly love in the other camp. Based on the opinion research we’ve seen, most parents recoil at the idea of saddling their children with humongous Social Security and Medicare debt. Most young people don’t want to see their parents anxiously scraping by in old age and failing health.

We suppose families view these things differently, but most probably want a choice about whether 30-something junior lives upstairs or whether to renovate the garage so grandma can move in. Having to make these choices because younger workers can’t make ends meet or because widespread elderly poverty has once again spread across the land isn’t what most of us are aiming for. A wealthy country like this one can avoid these scenarios if we just stop procrastinating and start working on this problem now. And not every solution needs to be either-or. For example, controlling rising health care costs is vital for dealing with Medicare, but it’d be good for everyone.

So let’s stop the generation war hyper-ventilating. The boomers and the “next’ generation live together in the same country, and as individuals, we mostly care a lot about each other. Realistically, both groups are going to have to do a little adjusting and rethinking to reach any kind of consensus on what to do. There are a lot of ways to talk about what our options really are, but this war between the generations thing isn’t a very good one. It’s so been there, done that.
Crisis and editors of PublicAgenda.org.

Copyright © 2007 Scott Bittle and Jean Johnson

Authors
Jean Johnson and Scott Bittle are authors of Where Does the Money Go? Your Guided Tour of the Federal Budget. For more information, please visit http://www.publicagenda.org/

Poll Results:

In response to our poll, "Should English be our National Language?", the results were 90% in favor and 10% oppose. There were no votes for a dual language. So, English it is!

English Language--The Candidate's Position

2008-03-14T20:23:00.006-04:00

There are a lot of serious issues facing America these days. It like we’re coming apart at our seams. However, as in most crises, there’s safety and strength in numbers. Every time America has been threatened, we’ve pulled together, rolled up our sleeves and got busy. These days, however, the threat is a much internal as it is external. Chief among the key threats is illegal immigration as I’ve so often written about, and our unsecured borders. Despite an overwhelming majority of Americans who demand that our government put an end to open borders and stem the invasion of illegals, our so-called leaders in Washington choose to either give their usual lip service or outright ignore us; both at their political peril I should add.

Closely tied to illegal immigration is the steep decline of English being spoken immigrants. How many times have you called a service provider and was either greeted with a message in Spanish or had to “push 1 for English”? Heck, I even had one service provided in Indiana ask me to “press 2 for English”—it wasn’t even a first choice! How often have you’ve gone to a store (like Wal-Mart) at night and except for the cashier, not heard a word of English?

The failure of a nation to adopt a common language will lead to the failure of the nation. As I’ve often said, language is the thread that binds the fabric of a nation together. It allows us to develop common values and integrate our cultures into this grand melting pot that we call home. It creates strength out of diversity. However, in the name of politically correct “multiculturalism” immigrants are encouraged to “preserve” their heritage by opting out of society. The children of immigrants in many school systems across the nation aren’t even require to take their taxpayer based classes in English. Instead, taxpayers have to pay for them to have in class translators. Driver’s license tests and other public services and documents are now provided in languages other than English. How do we survive as a county and not run the risk of devolving into a balkanized nation if everyone is allowed to opt out of this most basic of requirements? The short and direct answer is we don’t.

With this in mind, and having examined in the last issue where the candidates stand on illegal immigration, I thought I’d see where they stood on English. None of the candidate’s camps would agree to answer my question “Where does your candidate stand on making English the national language of America”. So, I was left with researching their position online.

First up was Hillary Clinton (D). Her comment was the making English the national language would have “negative consequences”. She went on to state “That means in a place like New York City you can’t print ballots in any other language. That means you can’t have government pay for translators in hospitals so when somebody comes in with some sort of emergency there’s nobody there to help translate what their problem is for the doctor.” http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/immigration/entries/2007/06/04/democratic_hopefuls_reject_off.html

Next was the Junior Senator from Illinois, Barak Obama. During the New Hampshire Presidential debate in June of 2007, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked each of the candidates about making English our national language. Senator Obama’s commented with “this is the kind of question that is designed precisely to divide us. You know, you're right. Everybody is going to learn to speak English if they live in this country. The issue is not whether or not future generations of immigrants are going to learn English. The question is: How can we come up with both a legal, sensible immigration policy?” (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/03/se.01.html)

Republican Senator John McCain responded to the issue by stating, “I think the most practical value is to make English used by all Americans and all citizens, and all who come here. The only way we move up the economic ladder from the bottom rung is to know English. And I would emphasize the importance of every person who comes to this country to become a citizen and enjoy its liberties & beauty is to learn English. And I will do everything I can to help them do that." (2007 Republican primary debate on Dec 9, 2007)

It should be pointed out that both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama did not support a resolution to make English our official language while Senator McCain voted “yea”. You can see their vote, along with that of the other Senators by visiting US Senate Roll Call Votes 109 Congress—2nd Session site at: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00131

Finally, I found it interesting that, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll taken in June of 2006, Eighty-five percent of Americans believed English should be our official language (www.rasmussenreports.com). With that said, the obvious question is why are our elected officials so blatant in ignoring the will of the American People?

Parkland Hospital

Speaking of illegal immigration and language issues, a friend of mine sent me this article about Parkland Hospital in Dallas Texas. For those of you old enough to remember, Parkland is where President Kennedy was taken when he was shot. It was later where his assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was taken. I’ve check the story out on Snopes.com. It’s true. I’ve also include the address at the bottom article for Snopes.com so you can check it out too.

Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas is a fairly famous institution and for a variety of reasons:
1. John F. Kennedy died there in 1963
2. Lee Harvey Oswald died there shortly after
3. Jack Ruby-who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, died there a few years later by coincidence.

On the flip side, Parkland is also home to the second busiest maternity ward in the country with almost 16,000 new babies arriving each year. (That's almost 44 per day---every day).

A recent patient survey indicated that 70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants. That's 11,200 anchor babies born every year just in Dallas.

According to the article, the hospital spent $70.7 million delivering 15,938 babies in 2004 but managed to end up with almost $8 million dollars in surplus funding. Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million, Dallas County taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds tossed in another $9.5 million.

The average patient in Parkland 'S maternity wards is 25 years old, married and giving birth to her second child.

She is also an illegal immigrant.

By law, pregnant women cannot be denied medical care based on their immigration status or ability to pay. OK, fine. That doesn't mean they should receive better care than everyday, middle-class American citizens. But at Parkland Hospital, they do. Parkland Memorial Hospital has nine prenatal clinics. That's right- NINE.

The Dallas Morning News article followed a Hispanic woman who was a patient at one of the clinics and pregnant with her third child---her previous two were also born at Parkland. Her first two deliveries were free and the Mexican native was grateful because it would have cost $200 to have them in Mexico. This time, the hospital wants her to pay $10 per visit and $100 for the delivery but she was unsure if she could come up with the money. Not that it matters, the hospital won't turn her away. (I wonder why they even bother asking at this point.). How long has this been going on? What are the long-term affects?

Well, another subject of the article was born at Parkland in 1986 shortly after mother entered the US illegally - now she is having her own child there as well. That’s right; she's technically a US citizen.

These women receive free prenatal care including medication, nutrition, birthing classes and child care classes. They also get freebies such as car seats, bottles, diapers and formula. Most of these things are available to American citizens as well but only for low-income applicants and even then, the red tape involved is almost insurmountable.

Because these women are illegal immigrants, they do not have to provide any sort of legitimate identification - no proof of income. An American citizen would have to provide a social security number which would reveal their annual income - an illegal immigrant need only claim to be poor and the hospital must take them at their word.
Parkland Hospital offers indigent care to Dallas County residents who earn less than $40,000 per year. (They also have to prove that they did not re fuse health coverage at their current job. Yeah, the 'free' care is not so easy for Americans).

There are about 140 patients who received roughly $4 million dollars for un-reimbursed medical care. As it turns out, they did not qualify for free treatment because they resided outside of Dallas County so the hospital is going to sue them! Illegals get it all free! But U. S citizens who live outside of Dallas County get sued! How stupid is this?

As if that isn't annoying enough, the illegal immigrant patients are actually complaining about hospital staff not speaking Spanish. In this AP story, the author speaks with a woman who is upset that she had to translate comments from the hospital staff into Spanish for her husband. The doctor was trying to explain the situation to the family and the mother was forced to translate for her husband who only spoke Spanish. This was apparently a great injustice to her.

In an attempt to create a Spanish-speaking staff, Parkland Hospital is now providing incentives in the form of extra pay for applicants who speak Spanish. Additionally, medical students at the University of Texas Southwestern for which Parkland Hospital is the training facility will now have a Spanish language requirement added to their already jammed-packed curriculum. No other school in the country boasts such a ridiculous multi-semester (multi-cultural) requirement. (Sorry for the length, but this needs wide circulation particularly to our 'employees' in Congress.)
Remember that this is only ONE hospital is Dallas, Texas. There are many more hospitals across our country that also has to deal with this.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp