Reasons why children of illegals SHOULD BE GIVEN PAPERWORK

The media have continued to harp on the fact that the "Dream Act" would provide "amnesty" for illegals. True. However, you need to remember that many of these illegals were children when they were brought here. It is estimated that there are about 12 million illegals in this country. Think of them the next time you want some other Christian to provide meals for the poor who cannot provide for themselves, because you want to punish those "law-breaking illegals."

Do you want to be responsible for creating a permanent group of people in poverty (those grown children) just because your "their parents broke the law and should be punished" justice demands it? Yes, their parents broke the law by coming here, but is it "right" to deny the children participation in the American Dream because their parents were "wrong"? Do you think that having poor people "invade" the emergency rooms of hospitals, because they cannot afford health insurance, is the "right" way to handle our health-care crisis? Or would it be more logical to let them become tax-paying and health insurance buying residents?


Here are some more reasons why illegals SHOULD BE GIVEN PAPERWORK:

1. Giving them documentation such as permission to live (residency permit), work (green card), and pay taxes (Tax ID Number) in this country does NOT give them an automatic path to citizenship! They will not be able to vote just because they have a green card.

2. Giving them documentation does allow children to go to college at a lower cost (because they have documentation required by many states for residency tuition rates). Why is it logical to provide a K-12 education at taxpayer expense and then refuse to let them go to college along with their high school classmates? Some time in the future these young men and women could become your doctor or your children's teacher.

3. In this "down" economy, these newly documented workers would start paying their fair share of taxes on income, because they can now go and get a "real" job instead of feeding the under-ground cash economy. For you folks who do not understand why this is important, think about all the services that have been cut, and could be re-instated if the government had more tax money coming into their coffers.

4. These illegals could not only get paid a decent salary for their work, but they could also save for their inevitable retirement. Who knows, maybe, they could help revive the housing market by buying a home? The property taxes these folks would now be paying could also help provide more money for K-12 schools.

There are other reasons to pass a "Dream Act" kind of legislation, but I am sure you have had to read way too much reason already.

Should there be "penalties" for being illegal? For the children, maybe. For the parents, definitely. That is a discussion for another rant/blog.

What gives the government the right to say anything about sex?

Where in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights does it give the Federal or the State governments the right to interfere with personal decisions like sex and abortion?

Let me state up front that I believe that abortion is an excuse for immoral people to not have to accept the responsibility for their actions!

No woman in this day and age can claim that they do not know how they got pregnant, because women get pregnant the same way most of them have gotten pregnant for thousands of years; they had sex!

Now that I have cleared up that big mystery, I will let you in on another not-so-secret secret: You will NOT get pregnant if you do not have sex! For those of you who may have missed that last point, then let me rephrase it:
If you do not want to get pregnant, do not have sex!

So, now I have just eliminated the need for most of the abortions done in the world. Sure, rarely, it may be necessary to have an abortion to save the life of the mother, however, that does not excuse the majority of you who just have sex for the fun or entertainment of it with no intention of being a responsible parent.

If getting pregnant and having a child would cramp your style too much, then don't have sex!

Now, back to my original question. What gives government the right to interfere with personal decisions like sex and abortion? Is your having an abortion a threat to national security? Does it affect MY ability to seek or have happiness? Does it stand in the way of providing for the national defense? Are these not the main responsibilities of government according to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?


So, what does give them the right to say anything about sex? It probably has something to do with the fact that the laws of the United States are mostly based on the Judeo-Christian ideas of morality. I am confident that much of the government's meddling in personal affairs in the last 300 years came about because someone (aka "do-gooder") with power, or their wife, decided on purely religious grounds that society would be better served if access to sex outside of marriage (prostitution, adultery, fornication) and abortion were controlled by the government. That, however, still leaves the question of what legal reason do they have to poke their nose into the private moral affairs of individuals? Is it not true that morality is a question better left to individual citizens and their church to decide? What gives the government the right to legislate morality? They certainly have the right to enforce the laws needed for a civil society, but what gives them the right to control sex?

The decision of Roe vs. Wade should never have happened, because there should never have been any involvement in the abortion issue by the government. Even the certifying of doctors comes from the university and not the government, so you cannot blame it on those back-alley slice-and-dice shops. Yes I know that you must be certified in the state you practice in, but mostly that is just a rubber stamp of the medical college where you got your training. Soooo, WHY does a doctor, need a certificate from the state to practice medicine when they are already certified by a totally unrelated entity (the university/college)? Maybe the states have overstepped their boundaries by even demanding that state certification, although that is a discussion for another day.

In summary, I do not think the Federal or State governments have the right to interfere with personal decisions like sex and abortion. Secondly, there is no need for an abortion, except in rare situations. Instead of saying women have the right to an abortion, maybe we should go back to the original rule as stated in the ten commandments: "no sex outside of marriage!" If you get pregnant after violating that rule, then you must either raise the child yourself or give it up for adoption. However, if we follow the original Jewish rules, there would be no need for an abortion, because anyone found having sex outside of marriage would be stoned to death. For those of you who think that stoning a pregnant lady violates the laws of God, then take it up with Him, because He is the one that put that law on the tablets. If you want to appeal that idea to a higher court, then good luck!

For you ladies I have just one last question. Why did you work so hard to get the government involved in sex? First there were "red-light" districts. Then there were legal brothels like in Nevada. Then, you decided that the government really needed to get involved in everyone's personal affairs in order to force the consequences of having had sex (pregnancy), in spite of that inconvenient church law about infidelity, to go away. Are you happy now? You can now go out, be immoral tonight, and just flush the responsibility down the toilet. Heck, why wait until tonight? Why not just go out and do it at lunch time. That way you can be immoral again tonight as well!

Should the AARP name be changed to the "Association of Adulterous Retired Persons?

I got my AARP newsletter email and saw the AARP article: "How to Be a Cougar" by Pamela Redmond Satran and was surprised to see immorality not only being suggested to older people, but also being applauded and whole-heartedly commented on!

The author is not only talking about having a relationship just for sex, but is giving tips on how older women can, and should be, doing it with younger men!


I felt compelled to write the following response which was posted on the AARP site today:

Let us step back and see this article for what it really is:


Go out and be immoral, even when you are older!!!


When did it become old fashioned or just "not cool" to obey one of the 10 commandments? You know, the one about adultery/fornication aka "sleeping around"/"having sex" with someone you are not married to!?!

So, now -- according to the AARP -- the new "cool" is the same thing that parents decried in the 60's: free love and sex with no responsibility? "Don't worry about morality, it is just an old-fashioned idea anyway."

Being a cougar on the prowl for "just sex" is nothing more than the same old immorality wrapped in today's "feel good and feel free" wrapping paper that was condemmed for thousands of years by God and his church.

Did I miss the memo where the name of the AARP was changed to the "Association of Adulterous Retired Persons?"

I have nothing against an older woman looking nice, in fact some of the hottest women I know are over 60, but age does not invalidate the 10 commandments!

Based on this article, and the subsequent name change (even if I did not get the name-change memo), the question arises as to whether I am going to want to show my membership card knowing that people are going to see me as one of those people who belong to the "Association of Adulterous Retired Persons?"


This is the address for the article: http://www.aarp.org/relationships/love-sex/info-11-2010/how_to_be_a_cougar.html

Honeymooners Turned Away From Hotel For Being Too Young

This story has left me speechless, so let me just use snippets from articles about the incident. The web addresses are included so you can read the whole nauseating story yourself:

"Imagine you're an 18-year-old bride who has had to plan your entire wedding and honeymoon on your own because your groom has been away at Marine boot camp. And then you arrive at the hotel after the ceremony and find out that there's no room at the inn because you're under 21.
That's what happened to a pair of young newlyweds in California...

"I was so upset," said the bride. In the car, I just broke down. I thought, 'Here I am looking for a place to stay on my honeymoon.'" ...
"I just wanted to be in a room because I was so tired and... my husband, he was in his dress blues and I think that's what got me the most," she told a local TV station. "He was in his dress blues and he's going to put his life on the line for these people and they won't even offer us a room."

"I am ashamed and deeply saddened by the events that occurred at The Padre Hotel last (weekend)," hotel co-owner Brett Miller said in a statement. "Upon checking their identification, our staff became aware that both bride and groom were under the age of 21. Although it is our company policy not to reserve rooms to younger guests for liability reasons, ... "The owner of the hotel says that the staff was just following a long-standing hotel policy. And it's more to limit our liability when it comes to the liquor license and serving minors." ..... "An exception should have been made..... If you show up in a military uniform and a wedding gown -- sure, we'll give you a room,"

http://consumerist.com/2010/11/honeymooners-turned-away-from-hotel-for-being-too-young.html

"A spokesman for the ACLU of Southern California said there was not enough time Thursday afternoon to thoroughly research the legal aspects of the .... incident. But Legal Director Hector Villagra said in an e-mail he was puzzled by the hotel's initial response. "It is hard to understand how this young man is old enough to enlist in the military, to say he is willing to die for his country," he wrote, "yet apparently not old enough to rent a hotel room."

http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x35841525/Padre-apologetic-after-turning-away-newlyweds


So.... You can die for your country, but can't even get a room on the night of your wedding?!? This in spite of the fact that you are dressed in your wedding dress and military dress blues?!? Are people really that stupid? Could they not have at least attempted to look at their wedding certificate and his military ID to verify their story? Is there not a manager who could have been called? Are they, as employees, so stupid/afraid to think/uncaring that the rules do not even apply to a wedding night?!????? Yep, I guess so. While I never plan to go to Bakersfield, CA, you can bet that I will not be staying at that hotel!!!!! Oh, yeah, one night is gonna make up for the fact that your people screwed up the wedding night?

When, exactly, did the "Speed Limit" become the "Speed Suggestion"?

Can someone please tell me when the "Speed Limit" became the "Speed Suggestion"?

There evidently is a thing in Arizona called the "Public Rule" that says something like this:
"Since you will not get a photo radar ticket until you are doing the speed limit plus 11 miles per hour, then it is perfectly fine to do 9-10 miles per hour over the speed limit". Never mind that you are breaking the law. Sounds more like "Mob Rule". Unless the public is allowed to over-ride legislative mandate whenever it suits them, and I just missed the announcement.

I had cars speeding down my residential street because the main road near me was closed and all traffic was diverted onto my street. I finally got two motorcycle policemen assigned to my street to help solve that problem. They both just sat there while they clocked a car going 32 mph in a 25 mph zone! The car went on by and the officer put the radar gun into it's holder and proceeded to continue looking bored while doing nothing about it. I guess going 125% of the posted limit in a residential neighborhood is OK?

Maybe this can explain part of it:
I just picked up a local Christian newspaper while getting my car fixed. There was an article where several pastors and Christian counselors have heard their members state that obedience is unnecessary! I am saved by grace, and no work is needed. Maybe those are the people I am seeing doing at least 75 mph in a 55 mph zone. Or maybe the lady doing 32 in my neighborhood thought it was her right to go that fast?

Please explain to me how this kind of scrambled logic is even considered in a "civilized" country like ours?

Immigration Reform for Dummies

I have finished the first part of my Immigration Reform for Dummies web page. So far this "complex" issue of immigration reform is all of 3 pages long! Of course, I have written it in simple English, not politicianese (government-speak).

You can see it at:
Immigration Reform for Dummies

I was thinking about a fence along the southern U.S. Border with Mexico. This led me to start calculating how much that would cost. Luckily, a salesman for a razor wire company was nice enough to tell me that a lot of people are doing projects for school on this very topic. He also pointed me to the website http://www.weneedafence.com. They have a good design which they estimated to cost between four and eight billion dollars. That is roughly equivalent to four B-2 bombers or Virginia class submarines. See the picture at http://www.weneedafence.com/the_solution.

This is a quote from the weneedafence.com website to put that cost into perspective”:
A barrier is an essential component of any effort to secure our borders; additional manpower alone cannot do the job.

Simply adding more border agents won't work unless there is one every hundred yards or so along the entire border. That would require between 150,000 and 200,000 agents and support personnel, rather than the 11,000 at present, and an annual budget of five to ten billion dollars.

So, for the one time cost of hiring additional agents for a single year, we could build this fence!

I am not going to address the humanitarian, “poor people just trying to get ahead” issues, but I will quote these figures from the United States Border Patrol website:

According to U.S. government sources, nearly 99% of all people arrested entering our country illegally are citizens of Mexico.

According to several U.S. Congressmen, more than 4,000 people die each year at the hands of illegal aliens living within the United States. They also report that if the number of people killed by illegal aliens operating motor vehicles on our roadways is added, the number exceeds 8,000 dead per year. My wife and daughter were both hit while riding their bicycles (last Thursday and Friday). Both drivers appeared to be hispanic. Am I profiling? Maybe. Is there a connection? Maybe.

So, why are we not billing Mexico for the expense of this barrier? Do we really need their products so badly that we are worried about upsetting them? This barrier would be on our side of the border, so they should have nothing to say about it. After all, we are just cleaning up the mess they have made in their own country because of the greed, the stupidity, and the lack of concern from the Mexican government for the Mexican people.

While I like the barrier planned by weneedafence.com, I think that the cameras should be augmented with gun shot sensors as well. According to a sales person at ShotSpotter (April 26, 2010), a ball park figure for one of their systems is 200-300k per square mile. According to the USBP website, the southern border is 2,000 miles long. Thus, the cost for these gun-shot sensors would only be $400,000,000. This would allow us to pin-point gun shots to within 20 feet of their origin! I am sure that with a length of 2,000 miles, there could be some sort of discount negotiated, so the cost should be much less than that.

The cameras would allow agents at a safe distance and location to view any intrusions and respond accordingly. The agents would be helped by open source software that can detect motion in an area protected by a camera. Many pages describe free webcam software for motion detection. See:
http://www.video-surveillance-guide.com/webcam-motion-detection-software.htm,
http://lifehacker.com/5233052/motion-detection-is-an-effective-dead-simple-security-camera-app
http://www.gotchanow.com and others.

This software in conjunction with a decent camera could provide the detection of intruders with no agent involvement! When an intrusion is detected, then the software would notify the control center of the location, so that one or two agents could handle the entire border. Of course, squads would need to be positioned so that a decent response time is provided. The same camera(s) could automatically be set to follow the intruders and give directional information.

Maybe they could even turn on electric fence power to slow down the intruders until agents arrive. Motion detection would be set from inside the DMZ to 5 feet from southern border fence in order to pick up intruders attempting to cut into fence. If the southern fence is 10 feet from the border, then any movement within that area would be a violation of U.S. Territory and subject to scrutiny. Signs would be posted in Spanish to inform people about that unfenced section of border property, and the criminal act of trespassing. The information from the cameras and gun shot sensors, in connection with armed drones, automated machine guns, and wild animals (such as coyotes and bears would quickly eliminate anyone in the zone), could protect the area inside the fence.

Yes, this same arrangement could be used to keep U.S. Citizens in the country as well, but Mexico would not be my first choice for a place to escape to if needed.

Crazy or Not? You decide!

How do you think the family of the rancher shot last week would vote on this?

Protests by illegal immigrants????

Will someone please explain to me why illegal immigrants think they have a right to protest the new immigration law just passed by Arizona?

Unless I am wrong, the fact that they are in this country without permission ("illegal") means that they violated the laws of America by, at the very least, crossing the border (trespassing onto American soil), and staying here.

Here are a few questions relating to this issue:

1) Why do we call them "illegal immigrants" or "undocumented aliens"? If they have chosen to break the laws of this land, are they not committing a crime by just being here? So, wouldn't it just be more accurate to call them "criminals"?

2) What gives them the "right" to protest passage of a bill that gives the state of Arizona law enforcement personnel permission to question whether they are in this country legally or not? I thought that those rights were only granted to citizens of this country.

3) There is concern that this bill will increase the fear within the Hispanic community. The only reason to be afraid is if you are in the country illegally! If you are a legal and law-abiding resident of this state and country, then you do not have to be worried about being deported! If you are here illegally or your documents have expired, then yes, you are correct in being worried.

4) I heard the other day that politicians are concerned about the power of the growing Hispanic population. What "power" do they have? Are they an American citizen with the right to vote? If not, then who cares what their opinion is! The facts are clear. If you are not in this country legally, and you do not like the conditions in this country, then go back home!

5) Why is their trespassing on American soil any different than if the United States were to send a few million troops into Mexico to stay without permission? Isn't that the definition of an invasion? If the Mexican government allows these people to cross the U.S. border illegally, aren't they aiding in this invasion? So, why do we not just invade the northern provinces of Mexico, put our army forces there and get rid of all the cartels, criminals, and others invading the U.S. and killing ranchers? To make the solution permanent, we could create a DMZ just like the one in Korea. This DMZ would extend 300 yards from the fence. We could populate that area with wild animals to help defend the border. We would also install gun shot detectors to determine when someone is shooting at the animals. Automatic machine guns placed 300 yards from the fence, would triangulate the position of the gun shot and automatically kill the person firing the gun. An armed drone would then be dispatched to kill anyone else found in the area.



Crazy or not? You decide.

Jaime Escalante, of "Stand and Deliver" film fame, died Tuesday March 30, 2010 from cancer at age 79. You may remember that Escalante's students passed the Advanced Placement Calculus AP exam. The odds were that there would not be even one student at that school taking and passing AP Calculus, perhaps the hardest course in American secondary education.

Garfield High School offered the worst possible conditions for learning: 85 percent of the students were low income, most of the parents were grade-school dropouts, faculty morale was bad, expectations were low.

So, what was Escalnate's secret? Here is what Jay Mathews, the Los Angeles bureau chief for The Washington Post from 1982 to 1987, wrote about what he saw:

"It took me several years to understand how Garfield's AP teachers, and the many educators who have had similar results in other high-poverty schools, pulled all this off. They weren't skimming. It wasn't a magic trick of test results. They simply had high expectations for every student. They arranged extra time for study -- such as Escalante's rule that if you were struggling, you had to return to his classroom after the final bell and spend three hours doing homework, plus take some Saturday and summer classes, too. They created a team spirit, teachers and students working together to beat the big exam. Escalante celebrated "ganas," a Spanish word that he said meant the urge to succeed. He was so convinced of the power of teaching that he lied to keep students with him. He said school rules forbade dropping his class. He told the parents of absent students that if he did not see their children in his classroom the next day, he would call the immigration authorities to check on their status." -- Exerted from Jay Mathews blog dated April 4, 2010.

Was it all because of Escalante and his wonderful, gifted teaching style? Maybe in the beginning, but I think that the 1) high expectations for every student, 2) extra time for study, 3) doing homework for three hours after school, 4) Saturday and summer classes, and 5) a team spirit, with teachers and students working together to beat the big exam. Can you believe that he actually expected them to work? Not just work for a few minutes to "complete the assignment", but to work for hours!

I have read recently that some parents and educators think that mandatory homework is tantamount to a sin. They seem to think that no practice nor review of the material is needed to fully comprehend and be able to use the information presented in classes. I wish that we had more "sinful" teachers like Escalante who assigned difficult homework and parents who supported those teachers in their efforts to teach. Parents who think, for whatever illogical reason, that their child does not need to do homework need to remember what it was like when they were in school.

The idea that it takes hard work for most of us to learn something is the basic concept of this website. Learning takes work, and only a few gifted people can skip the steps of study, practice, and yes, memorize needed to be successful in school. No amount of magic wand waving will change this, and only when parents realize that yes, their child must do some work, will they stop blaming the teachers.

Complete information at:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/class-struggle/2010/04/unlike_many_escalante_believed.html#more

I am opposed to using ANY American taxpayer money for water stations in the desert

This blog is in response to a request for comments (from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) on the placement of watering stations for illegal immigrants on the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona.

I am opposed to using ANY American taxpayer money for water stations in the desert. This includes pay for border patrol personnel to over-see installation, maintenance, and garbage clean up in the area. I see no problem with the border patrol providing officers to work with humanitarian groups in their efforts, as long as the salaries for those officers are fully paid for by the humanitarian groups.

These groups must also pay a HUGE fee (not $500, but $10,000/year at least) for access to the refuge, pay for all water station equipment, installation (including environmental impact studies and permits), water, garbage collection, repair of damage to the surrounding desert because of any immigrants (illegal or otherwise), or the cost of border patrol personnel who may respond to calls for help from people who get into trouble while entering this country through the desert. I also think that another large fee (based on estimated cost of repairing the impact of people on the refuge) should be charged to the humanitarian groups if they need to use vehicles to restock the water stations. That fee would cover any damage to the refuge caused by having people regularly in those areas.

The humanitarian groups must also be made to understand that the people entering this country through the desert are probably breaking several federal laws. They must realize that these "immigrants" are not law-abiding American citizens. They have chosen to violate our border laws and thumb their noses at our sovereign rules.

I was shocked to read the following language in the draft:
“Authorizing placement of stationary water sites and the associated traffic for accessing and maintaining the sites would require some use of Refuge resources, including personnel and funding.” .....“the Refuge would assume costs associated with the long term coordination and monitoring of permits issued for this proposed use. Refuge resources are limited and time expended to coordinate with humanitarian organizations regarding water sites would divert efforts from accomplishing Refuge purposes. However, administration and management of a potential permit for drinking water sites could be accomplished within the existing financial and personnel resources available to the Refuge.” pg 3

Why should American taxpayer money be used for water stations in the refuge? The people using these stations are breaking several federal laws, and they have chosen to violate our border laws and thumb their noses at our sovereign rules. As shown in the draft, they are also destroying the refuge that American citizens are paying for. Why not make the grand and glorious humanitarians pay for all the costs associated with these stations? Even better yet, provide fee payment boxes at each station, so the illegals themselves could “pay-as-they-stop”?

Convict scheduled to be executed is revived by state after taking overdose

Given today's economy and the poor state of health care in this country, this story from AP really makes NO sense whatsoever:

Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio on Monday postponed the execution of a convicted killer who managed to take an overdose of pills in his death row cell and was found unconscious just hours before he was to be driven to his execution. Lawrence Reynolds Jr., 43, who was sentenced to die ... was found unconscious around 11:30 p.m. Sunday at the Ohio State Penitentiary .... Reynolds, who was scheduled to die by lethal injection Tuesday, was showing signs of consciousness Monday at a Youngstown hospital ... The inmate took the pills despite being under a 72-hour watch - routine for inmates approaching an execution date - that includes frequent monitoring by prison guards outside the cell ... Strickland issued a seven-day reprieve and rescheduled the execution for March 16. .... He [the prisoner] had been scheduled to leave at 3 a.m. Monday for the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility in Lucasville, where the state's death chamber is located.
Retrieved March 9, 2010 from: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/03/08/20100308inmate-ODs-on-pills-before-execution08-ON.html


Let me see if I understand this....

1. A prisoner somehow gets pills in his cell and ODs on them hours before leaving for the state facility where he is to be executed.
2. Instead of just letting him die a few days early, they spend untold amounts of money to a) stabilize him, b) transport him to a public hospital, c) bring him back to conscientiousness, and then d) delay his execution for another week?

How can a prisoner on death row got enough pills to OD?
If a prisoner is to be executed, why would any measures be taken to try and revive him?
How much money was spent on personnel at the prison to treat him?
How much money was spent on personnel and transportation to get him to the hospital?
How much time and money was spent by personnel at the hospital to bring him back to consciousness?
Was there someone else who could have used the emergency care provided to this prisoner?
Who is going to pay the cost of the personnel, equipment, and supplies used to treat this prisoner?
Are the costs going to come out of the prison operation funds and the governor's office budget?

Of course, the big question is why would you treat this prisoner in the first place? He was going to be dead in two days anyway!

Why not just let him get his wish to die earlier than planned? It would save the state the money, the time, and the personnel to put on the one ring circus show of an execution. Don't get me wrong here, I fully support executing someone who has been duly condemned. I am just objecting to the waste of government money to do it in this instance. Think of all the money that the state could have saved!

Can someone please explain why the governor would postpone the execution? Does it really matter whether he is fully conscious when you kill him? He will still end up dead either way!

Oh yeah, don't waste any more state money to determine how this could happen, why it happened, who messed up, or any one of a dozen other useless things that could be examined. It happened! Don't waste any more taxpayer money, and just move on!