Friends

•July 16, 2010 • Leave a Comment

Well, apparently some of my friends on Facebook didn’t care for me presenting another side of a very emotional issue and have now “de friended” me.
It is surely tragic, especially when those of us who like to think we are “progressive” can get very “possessive” of our own views. Not much different than any of the other fundamentalist jargon from any camp. Seems that for some, the best action is to ignore, or totally shut out anything that doesn’t track with their own personal belief system. As some of you will recall, I always did my best to preface or qualify any statement I made as “just an opinion” or “just presenting the facts” and never said I necessarily agreed nor believed 100% of what was said, only wanting to offer up another point of view. Sadly, some may now veiw me as some kind of right wing, racist pig for sharing information I found to be thought provoking. If I offended anyone, I never meant to.
Am I sorry? No, not really. Nothing to be sorry about, but I am quite disappointed in my, I guess now, former “friends” I would have thought they know me better..Oh well. So much for progressive thinking.
I like to think I am very accepting , open, Liberal yo a point, put pretty practical and even pragmatic. I believe in peace. love, and acceptance, yet am not one to be a follower of anything, and surely am not afraid to express my thoughts. Otherwise, what is the point in living in a “free” society/ Thank God we’re not all Vanilla,Chocolate, or Strawberry..what a boring place this would be.
Unfortunately so much of society is under the control of other forces, both on the left and the right, and individual thinkers are sucked in to some dogmatic, I’m right you’re wrong mentality and it further divides.
Just my two cents for the day..

Advertisements

Hmm

•July 6, 2010 • Leave a Comment

Blogging eh?

Well It seems that the village is quiet now. Sometimes facts rub salt into the wounds of those attached to one way of thinking.

I like to see all sides before I form opinions. My opinions are mostly based on personal experience, about 90%, the rest I rely on sources I attempt to make sure are accurate and unbiased, So I am only the messenger, not the message.

I’m sure these posts push some buttons

•July 6, 2010 • Leave a Comment

But, I am merely trying to present some information that isn’t always popular or considered “compassionate” yet people need to under stand the meaning of compassion to begin with. It surely isn’t compassionate to allow anyone that wants to enter the US legally, or illegally, without really considering the great impact it makes un us all.

It’s not about race, or social status, it’s about the reality that this country is on the verge of collapse and yet some still feel obligated to continuing to allow the flood to continue, What will happen if, God forbid, the entire Gulf coast, as well as up the Eastern seaboard become uninhabitable? Where will all our fellow Americans go? Who will help them? will they be treated as well as illegals are? Sadly, that is doubtful Don’t believe me, do some of your own research. I’m not just ranting, this is all based on reality folks.

From CNN

•July 6, 2010 • Leave a Comment

WHY A 100,000 LIMIT ON IMMIGRATION IS REALISTIC AND NECESSARY

Currently, the United States’ population is on trend to reach the 500 million mark by 2050. Our population is not just growing- it is growing rapidly. Some states, like Florida and California are growing more rapidly than many Third World nations. This explosive growth has put immense strain on our natural resources, cities and environmental health. There are many problems associated with immense population growth, such as heavy traffic, air pollution, water and energy shortages, overcrowded schools, declines in purchasing power and quality of life, tax increases, and soil erosion. Yet the average American citizen’s birthrate is at replacement level. What many people don’t realize is that over 70% of the U.S.’s growth is due to mass- immigration generated population growth.

The problems associated with this unprecedented growth become unsolvable in the face of waves of over one million new immigrants a year.

That is why CCN believes the U.S. needs a time-out on mass-immigration perhaps more than anything else. An all-inclusive cap on legal immigration would dramatically cut down on both current immigration and future chain migration. It would give the U.S. time to stabilize the population, to address the problems created by over-stressed city infrastructures and poverty, and to shape an environmental policy to protect strained natural resources. A moratorium would lend time for new immigrants and poor citizens alike to attain greater opportunities through higher wages and better educational opportunities.

The United States now accepts over one million legal immigrants each year, which is more than all of the other industrialized nations in the world, combined. The sheer number of immigrants has simply overwhelmed our country’s ability to continue to provide for newcomers and natives alike, and in many cases has only added to America’s problems. We need to focus attention on the fact that legal immigration is three times as great as illegal immigration and accounts for 55%-75% of the multibillion dollar annual costs. The most current data show that his wave of legal immigrants is far more likely to use welfare, receive higher direct cash assistance, and use taxpayer funded social services. Our country is already burdened by underfunded schools, overcrowded prisons, persistent unemployment, increasingly violent crime, accelerating resource depletion, an ever-growing budget deficit and a rapidly decreasing quality of life. Adding over one million immigrants to our country each year only makes there problems much more difficult to solve.

Given that the projected net cost to taxpayers of legal immigration alone will be $932 billion over the next ten years, at an average of $70 billion a year, a moratorium on immigration in excess of 100,000 per year is essential to cut the budget deficit. There is widespread agreement that reducing federal deficits and balancing the budget are crucial steps in ensuring the future economic well-being of the United States. America is now the world’s greatest debtor nation. If immigration levels remain at the same or greater rate, most of these multibillion dollar costs would continue to be borne by taxpayers.

While setting levels of legal immigration, enforcing immigration law, and controlling U.S. borders are at the discretion of the federal government, state and local taxpayers end up paying the majority of the costs. For instance, in 1996 legal immigration alone cost Floridians $6 billion, up 77% from 1992. Legal immigration cost Texans $7 billion, New Yorkers $14 billion and Californians an amazing $28 billion. These are the compounded costs of Public Schools, Bilingual Education, Medicaid, AFDC, Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, Housing Assistance, Criminal Justice, as well as job loss by Americans and other programs, for a total cost to American taxpayers of $136 billion dollars. These costs will continue to rise as long as immigrations remains at these levels. A five-year immigration moratorium would temporarily curb these costs and give state governments time to work with the federal government to establish a more responsible long-term immigration policy.

American workers suffer $133 billion in wage losses resulting mainly from immigrant competition. Blacks and other minorities, including other recent immigrants, are historically the most adversely impacted by current high levels of immigration. Beyond the millions of workers who have been displaced by immigrants, countless other Americans are bing affected by declines in working conditions and depressed wages due to immigrant competition in the labor market. Unfortunately, the enormous numbers of low-wage, low-skill immigrants are displacing many American workers, with a disproportionately negative effect on America’s native-born Blacks. It has been estimated that 2.35 million American workers were displaced from their jobs as a direct result of immigration in 1993 alone, with these displaced workers requiring public assistance at a cost of $11.92 billion.

A five-year moratorium is politically realistic. Poll after poll suggests that an increasing number of U.S. citizens of all ethnic backgrounds want to see substantial reductions in immigration. For example, in November, 1994 a Times/Mirror Center Poll indicated that 82% of Americans think that the United States should restrict immigration. A September, 1994 CBS/New York Times poll showed that 63% of those surveyed favor reduction in legal immigration, with political affiliation as follows: Republicans 66%, Democrats 60%, and independents 64%. The 1992 Latino National Political Survey, the largest poll of Latinos in the United States, indicated that more than 7 out of 10 Latinos felt there were too many immigrants.

The proposed reduction from 1,200,000 to 100,000 legal immigrants per year is not an arbitrary number. Further reduction of legal immigration into the United States below 100,000 would be undesirable because 100,000 represents a reasonable balance between reducing cost and honoring our humanitarian concerns. We would not want to further delay immigration of spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens, nor would we want to stop accepting at least some refugees and priority workers each year. Although the 100,000 limit is a number solidly grounded in the urgent reality of our current situation, some might consider it too “idealistic” to support in the face of tough opposition. But, the admission of any number of immigrants in excess of 100,000 poses additional severe, and demonstrably unacceptable burdens on American taxpayers, minorities, and the poor, homeless, and unemployed as indicated elsewhere in this document. A higher than 100,000 limit would also result in increased pressure to continue the momentum of chain migration, which results in ever-increasing numbers of immigrants. Since immigration is a discretionary policy, the burden of proof is on those advocating more than 100,000 immigrants per year for five years to justify their position.

Americans should not feel obligated to reunify all the world’s families who separated at their own volition. With the possible exception of certain immigrants with a genuine fear for their own safety, families could also be reunified if they returned to their country of origin or attempted to settle in a third country. An additional option during separation could also include visits on temporary visas. Given the gravity of America’s budgetary, social, resource, and other problems, preference for the limited number of newcomers we can sustainably accept each year should go to the spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens. It simply does not follow that because someone chooses to leave their country of origin (thus voluntarily splintering their family) to come to the United States (among their several destination options) that the United States is obligated to accept all of those who desire to come here and eventually often admit and support many of their additional family members.

Immigration is the driving force behind U.S. population growth, presently accounting for half of total net population increase. Our population growth, which at three million per year is the highest in the developed world, is a root cause of many of the United States’ problems and presents a serious threat to our limited natural resources such as topsoil, forests, clean air and water, and healthy ecosystems. If present trends of topsoil loss continue, for example, only 0.6 acres of arable land per person will be available by 2050, whereas more than 1.2 acres per person is needed to provide a diverse diet (and 1.8 acres of arable land per person is available currently). The U.S. total fertility rate has been below replacement level since the early 1970s. If it were not for immigration, U.S. population would be stabilizing in the first half of the next century. It should be noted that respected demographers Ahlburg and Vaupel have projected that if current trends continue, the U.S. population will double in size to half a billion people by the year 2050. If Congress does nothing to reduce immigration, 90% of all U.S. population growth between 1993 and 2050 will be due to immigrants and their descendants.

Establishing an immigration moratorium is in the national interest. A moratorium would provide the breathing space necessary to develop a long-term immigration policy that truly serves the national interest by recognizing the limits to government spending, ordering spending priorities around the needs of American citizens and immigrants already living in the United States, and establishing realistic limits on the number of immigrants that the U.S. economy, society, and environment can sustain. At a time when initial efforts to reduce spending and balance the budget have already resulted in painful cuts in public services for many American citizens, the United States simply cannot afford to continue to accept almost half of the world’s immigrants.

Another perspective from the Hispanic perspective

•July 6, 2010 • Leave a Comment

I had a great talk with a friend of mine this morning.

He is lation, hispanic,chicano, what ever you want to call him. He was with another Latino. A former con.

They both agreed that the border not only needs to be secure, but that American born Latinos and Blacks are probably being hurt the most by this illegal invasion. They spoke of the dangers on the border, and the ex-con spoke of the dangers in the prisons now because of the dangerous prisioners, a huge majority of them violent gang members from El Salvador, and Mexico and how the older inmates are afraid ..They fear for their lives even more than ever.

They both agreed that those who employ illegals should face stiff fines and jail time for hiring illegals.

They also agree that enough is enough and the Obama administration is doing nothing to stem the tide and are actually harming the efforts to enforce existing laws.

When will our politicians wake up and do the will of the people?

•July 6, 2010 • Leave a Comment
A Poem Worth Reading

The Soldier


He was getting old and paunchy
And his hair was falling fast,
And he sat around the Legion,
Telling stories of the past.

Of a war that he once fought in
And the deeds that he had done,
In his exploits with his buddies;
They were heroes, every one.

And ‘tho sometimes to his neighbors
His tales became a joke,
All his buddies listened quietly
For they knew where of he spoke.

But we’ll hear his tales no longer,
For ol’ Bob has passed away,
And the world’s a little poorer
For a Soldier died today.

He won’t be mourned by many,
Just his children and his wife.
For he lived an ordinary,
Very quiet sort of life.


He held a job and raised a family,
Going quietly on his way;
And the world won’t note his passing,
‘Tho a Soldier died today.

When politicians leave this earth,
Their bodies lie in state,
While thousands note their passing,
And proclaim that they were great.


Papers tell of their life stories
From the time that they were young
But the passing of a Soldier
Goes unnoticed, and unsung.

Is the greatest contribution
To the welfare of our land,
Some jerk who breaks his promise
And cons his fellow man?

Or the ordinary fellow
Who in times of war and strife,
Goes off to serve his country
And offers up his life?

The politician’s stipend
And the style in which he lives,
Are often disproportionate,
To the service that he gives.

While the ordinary Soldier,
Who offered up his all,
Is paid off with a medal
And perhaps a pension, small.


It’s so easy to forget them,
For it is so many times
That our Bobs and Jims and Johnnys,
Went to battle, but we know,

It is not the politicians
With their compromise and ploys,
Who won for us the freedom
That our country now enjoys.


Should you find yourself in danger,
With your enemies at hand,
Would you really want some cop-out,
With his ever waffling stand?

Or would you want a Soldier–
His home, his country, his kin,
Just a common Soldier,
Who would fight until the end.

He was just a common Soldier,
And his ranks are growing thin,
But his presence should remind us
We may need his like again.


For when countries are in conflict,
We find the Soldier’s part
Is to clean up all the troubles
That the politicians start.

If we cannot do him honor
While he’s here to hear the praise,
Then at least let’s give him homage
At the ending of his days.

Perhaps just a simple headline
In the paper that might say:
“OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING,
A SOLDIER DIED TODAY.”


Pass On The Patriotism!
YOU can make a difference


Happy Birthday

•July 6, 2010 • Leave a Comment

Wishing a happy birthday to His Holiness The Dali Lama. Happy 75th!

Thanks for your loving presence.