Why we can not solve the immigration issues and have a meaningful debate?

As America is attempting to find solutions to the immigration conflict some guiding principles of fairness, logic, and process need to be put in place in order to properly frame the content of the conflict. I use the term "conflict" because the the debate has gone beyond civil and entered the realm of disparagement, hate and bigotry. The arguments are so far divided that compromise seems remote. A significant problem on both sides of the debate is the divide is caused by the lack of validity of the information being put forward thus creating the conflict. Also once the term illegals is associated with criminals and pounded into the minds of Americans over and over through the news outlets the fairness of the debate goes out the window - because criminals have no rights. Well they do and they have.


Not long ago reporting of the news was accomplished by trusted organizations on TV and in print. This changed over time to produce what we have today in the news rooms which is biased and politically motivated news commentary feeding a small portion of the public that align themselves with such broadcasts. We no longer live in a world where news reporting is accurate, true and fair starting at 6:00 PM and fed to the nation as a whole allowing each individual to determine how she or he felt about it. Today we are lead like cattle to slaughter towards pre-ordained conclusions that feed a righteousness that makes us believe we are more American for feeling this way. It is almost impossible for the average American ( 5th grade reading level) to separate the wheat from the chaff.


The Internet has, in a short time, spawned a society that may not possess the mental fitness, the time, or interest to determine what information going around the Internet is true, accurate, and fair. It is now easy, at the speed of light, to send information, many regard as news, throughout the globe. Add email where people of similar thought can reinforce their ideals with emails representing their position and circulate them as gospel. This rapidly spreads hate, bigotry, and superiority thus creating what we see now in America with over 80% of Americans not wanting to discuss any solution for reform of our immigration policy. The discussion for most of these Americans can only begin with "round them up and ship them back then put up a big wall". This high percentage of Americans against immigration leads politicians to acquiesce in to their wishes and begin shaping policy trying to make the 80% happy - surely a justified reaction by politicians hoping for re-election.

The problem with today's debate is we are on a steady diet of opinions and we virtually skip over the gathering, validating, verifying, and disseminating data phases. And when you consider where these opinions are initially formed it becomes very scary once you realize how small groups in America are shaping policy on immigration. This leads to an "anyone can say what they want" mentality with no challenge. This could then lead to information which is defined by the way one party decides to interpret the data. The information is then subject to emotion, religion, or any other matter of the heart that one deems necessary to involve to come up with varying opinions. These opinions are used to make policy. With the technology to move information at the speed of thought there are certain responsibilities that come with this new found method to disseminate information that are not enforced.

A wild wild west type of journalism, like the child predators that uses the anonymity of the Internet to entice young children, radical ideas on immigration by supremacist, hate groups, ethnic cleansers, and bigots using the same anonymity. Combine the anonymity with the speed of data dissemination and one can easily turn these absurd ideas on immigration into American mainstream thought. This approach only serves to confuse the masses and stirs radical emotion and the production of more radical content and its related behavior. As a result 70-80% of Americans are against immigration ( really against Mexicans).

The source of the problem is all this has as its root - bad data and information. Once the politicians started looking at solving the problem they immediately saw they could not solve it the way most Americans would like it solved. So they punted and did nothing. The reason they could not solve it and make Americans happy was because when presented with validated data and information on immigration issues the solutions would have been contrary to the "street talk" that began the discussion on immigration and the original shaping of the policy. This has put a lot of politicians in a quandary. The good and honest ones ( may be an oxymoron when referring to politicians) have punted and been quiet on the issue which leaves the morons and bigots to lead the political debate.

This is a confusing time in America where we fight for democracy and human rights around the world and at home we throw the baby out with the bathwater. We, as a country, oppose ethnic cleansing, but at home we encourage it when it comes to Hispanics. We fight around the world for the helpless, poor and defenseless but at home we attack them, we use abusive language, and fail to recognize immigrants are what made this country great and will continue to make it great. America needs to be honest in this discussion to come up with practical and reasonable solutions to our immigration policy.

With many conservatives opposing immigration they need to ask themselves what would Jesus do?

the assassination of Bhuto - misplaced terrorism

RAWALPINDI, Pakistan - Pakistan opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday in a suicide bombing that also killed at least 20 others and plunged the nuclear-armed country into chaos ahead of a general election she had hoped to win. (source MSNBC News Services)

Be clear this was not a suicide bomber but a homicide bomber. A murderer that does not deserve the mention of his name. A coward at the end. But this unfortunate event triggered a series of responses from our government. Bhuto supporters continue to riot demanding the Musharraf regime explain how this could happen with elections a little over 2 weeks away.

I am not a specialist or expert in Pakistani political events and neither does our own government seem to be. Backing a military dictator that spits in the eye of democracy and yet only receive lukewarm support only by giving his regime billions of dollars per year as a political payoff. Is he our best bet?

There is little doubt, in my mind, our government thought the frying pan (Musharraf) was better than the fire (Bhuto) and did all it could to point the finger towards terror activity rather than the Musharraf regime. El Qaida or the Taliban surely must have been involved according to our presidential hopefuls and the administration. Supporting Musharrof will only continue to drive a wedge between America and the Pakistani people.

And now we have a woman hailed as a great democratic savior where, she, herself was impeached and forced into humiliating exile. Was she any better than Musharraf? Is she the beacon of light that was bringing democratic principles to Pakistan? If this were true why is our own government, staunch defenders of democracy, siding with Musharraf? Has our government been making payments to a regime not committed to democracy? How can we justify spending billions in Iraq to build a democratic nation when the friends we side with are no more democratic than Iran or North Korea?

And now look at our political candidates for President falling all over themselves condemning terrorism and repeating that same old tune we have to "continue the fight on global terror" . Of course, at this time, less than a day after the assassination, there is no evidence that el Qaida or the Taliban had anything to do with this but yet they sing the same old refrain.

The administration would love nothing better than to blame terrorist. Why? First it takes the heat off their boy Musharraf, who commands a volatile country that he has little control over. Second, if you do not have a war on terror you have to create one. This is great news to be spun so fast that your head spinning couldn't keep up. The political war machine in bed with the industrial war complex using our tax dollars to profit. Now we can allocate more tax revenue to a more ardent fight on terror. According tothe adminsitration this event confirms that we can not be vigilant enough. More money to build more bombs to fight somebody with no country, no uniform, and no honor. Fight the war on terror before it reaches here.( Even though they have already indicated we will be hit not if but when and they have already given up on soft targets - that means you and me).

But the looming question for me is is this really about terror or just another power hungry mad man doing all he can to stay in power? Or is it simply a lack of opportunity for people, under repressive and corrupt governments, to get the basics of life. Consider Pakistan with its largest city reaching over 16 million inhabitants. Twelve million cannot find work and are in extreme poverty but yet their government is corrupt and spends on military equipment versus human needs. Bhuto, herself, was run out of the country on two occasions for corruption and bilking millions from state coffers. The second time in 1996. She ended up spending 4 years in prison. Can a former convict really be a beacon for democracy? How can we defend ourselves when we pump billions in war and not in economic opportunities for the these people? Isn't obvious given the poverty that any offer to strap on a bomb for a payment to the family can be easily justfied. If we do not impove the human condition stopping the war on terror will never be won.

This is a form of economic terrorism created by their government. Economic terrorism survives through graft, corruption, spending on the military complex versus basic needs. This prevents people from entering the economy in a meaningful way. As a result they suffer and can not make enough to survive. This in turn creates mayhem and starts bringing down the fundamental underpinnings of democracy. Democracy is hard pressed to survive without economic freedom, the creation of meaningful employment, and peace to allow you to move and flourish in your environment. This makes it easy for people like Chavez and Musharraf to take control and rule with an iron fist. It also enables anyone with promises to stir enough emotion to have major outbreaks of civil disobedience that eventually lead to the downfall of governments and democracies.

Our government hands out money to these dictators to spend on war equipment and not to help its people be creating jobs, living free from repressive authority, and living in peace. This is what democracy and economic leadership can bring but instead in these countries the powerful survive at the expense of the poor.

Immigrants Pledge

While many immigrants can not stay here nor can they leave here kind of stuck in a political limbo riddled with government inaction. As our government and nation wrestle with the immigration issue I advise immigrants to make a pledge so Americans can see that the majority are hard working, GOD-loving, and family value based people.

With all the mud slinging going on in this debate most Americans do not know what to beleive. Do they pay taxes? Do they want to learn English? Are they the reason for overcrowding of our schools? Should we also blame them for our health-care crisis? And the list goes on. Are these valid gripes or just diversionary tactics used by our government and interest groups to sway our focus away from the real pressing issues of the day.

Shifting blame also seems to be an agenda item for those that feed the media distribution network. I believe immigrants, regardless of documentation, want the same things all people, inlcuding Americans want which include safe neighborhoods, able employment, good schools, freedom to worship, freedom to work hard, and freedom to love. To that end I am propsoing an Immigrant's Pledge to be given by immigrants to the American People as a symbol of his/her respect for this country and the desire to make a better place for all that are here and coming.

Immigrants Pledge

As a visitor and awaiting the road map to legal status I remain an immigrant in this great country. While I am here I pledge the following:

1. Pay any and all taxes due respective governments as any citizen is required.
2. Make any and all efforts to assimilate into the US culture while maintaining my individual and ethnic identity
3. Obey and honor all laws in effect
4. I pledge I am not wanted by law enforcement or am I a refugee of the law in any other country
5. Do all I can to quickly and effectively learn the English language
6. Willing, and if, able to serve in the armed forces of this great country and inspire my children to do in kind
7. Make every effort possible my children go to school, stay in school, and learn in school to have the best possible chance to be a productive member of society.
8. Work as hard as I can to achieve the dream many Americans have before them and now I
9. Believe in one Almighty GOD
10. Make America proud of me with its legacy on immigration

Signed ______________________ Date ___________________

Wetback versus the "N" word

Welcome to racist Americans in main stream politics. Georgia has to be one of the dumbest states in the country when it comes to electing its politicians or they are getting exactly what they ask for: dumb ass white ignorant racist that can't pick on blacks anymore move to Hispanics so they can continue the generational bigotry handed down with each Budweiser. If the state were a person the racism and ignorance it wreaks would demand a thorough washing of its mouth.

Unfortunately Georgia is headed by a governor that can only deal with illegal Hispanics only if they serve our country in the middle east and come back dead. Only then will he use this scene for a photo op and press conference and quickly promote them to citizen post mortem. How tacky is that? Then on deck they have Senator Chip Rogers teaming up with an avowed racist as a political consultant to help fast track legislation so Georgia can put up signs around the border "Immigrants not welcome, especially if they are Latino".

These guys are bad enough and certainly dumb enough but the clean up hitter just stepped out of the dugout and here is what this God fearing American had to say about his neighbors from the South: "It's going to get worse as the criminals move in from Atlanta and based on what I see, the wetbacks from down south, we're going to have more and more all the time," Head said.

82-year-old County Commissioner William Head said this at a meeting in Carroll County. If this wasn't enough he told Channel 2 he has no intentions of making an apology. He said, "They are illegal immigrants, they are wetbacks. I'm sure they don't like that terminology, I really don't care. I owe no one an apology. I stand by what I said."

First consider he was probably educated in Georgia which means he did not receive one and secondly, the education he did receive was handed down from his "daddy" - like son was probably also a racist. He has no idea he offended every Hispanic in the country and what makes matters worse is that the Black community in Atlanta, home of civil rights, took no offense to the word and did not mention it as a slur to human beings everywhere. I suppose in the US the only word that is considered repulsive is the "N" word. I do not use it out of respect but I wonder if the respect Blacks want is even paid back in kind.

Mr. Head should be removed from his position. Mr. Head should not have a public forum to teach our future leaders that ignorance and stupidity are qualifications for Georgia politicians. The people of Georgia should be embarrassed and horrified but they are not. The Hispanics of Georgia need to take note of this and stop allowing people to be mistreated and start expressing their anger and mis-trust of a government hell bent on using any method to re-install the new Jim Crow laws of yesteryear - Jose Crow. Being an "illegal" does not justify or make it right for another human to use cheap and abusive language particularly from community leaders. Wow what about asking him to speak to your kids at school.

The Black political machine can take out a sitting chairman in the US senate but they won't lift a finger to help defend basically poor, hard working, God-loving people.

These poor people literally get "taxed with no representation" and it is only cowards that go after defenseless people looking for hard work. The tax revenues are never separated in two piles one for legals and one for illegals so they can send this illegal money back from where it came from. No, they simply let it go into the one for "legals" coffers and spend it to attack and denigrate a whole group of people. This guy probably doesn't have a clue that a part of his paycheck comes from these "illegals".

The only good news is that taking pot shots at people that do not speak English works both ways. In one way it makes them an easy target because they can not defend themselves. In another way they did not understand what he said because they do not speak English but more importantly they were probably watching Telemundo and not channel 2.

Other words probably OK for Georgia leaders to put in practice are Kite, Jewboy, slope, chink, and dago. This way when they finish driving out all the Hispanics out of Georgia they can start on these. Then they can come full circle and start all over again with Blacks. This is what our boys are fighting for.

Head's fellow commissioner Randy Simpkins said he felt it was unfortunate Head made the comment but Head has been on the commission for 7 years and in that time he has never known him to be racist. Well Mr. Simpkins now you know!

Is this really a gun control issue?

Ten people died in two shooting rampages on opposite sides of the United States on Monday night.

An 18-year-old carrying a shotgun, a handgun and ammunition opened fire on shoppers in a mall in Salt Lake City, the state capital of Utah.

There was no apparent explanation for the shooting spree, which killed five people and wounded four before police shot the teenager dead

In Philadelphia a gunman burst into a business meeting and killed three men and critically injured a fourth in what appeared to be a dispute over money.
He left two other men bound with duct tape but unharmed. Reports said the gunman killed himself after trading shots with police.

source: Ed Pilkington in New York Wednesday February 14, 2007 The Guardian


Some of the worst shooting incidents inside US schools and universities in recent years:

August 1966: Charles Whitman is one of the most notorious names among America’s mass killers. In August 1966 he climbed a 27-storey tower at the University of Texas in Austin and shot passersby on the campus below before being killed by police. Fifteen people were killed, including his mother and wife, whom he had shot the night before. An autopsy found he had been suffering from a brain tumour.
October 1997: A 16-year-old boy stabs his mother, then shoots dead two students at a school in Mississippi, injuring several others.

December 1997: A 14-year-old boy kills three students in Kentucky.

March 1998: At Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Arkansas, two boys aged 13 and 11 set off the fire alarm and killed four students and a teacher as they left the school.

April 1998: A 14-year-old shoots dead a teacher and wounds two students in Pennsylvania.

May 1998: A 15-year-old shoots dead two students in a school cafeteria in Oregon.

June1998: Two adults are hurt in a shooting by a teenage student at a Virginia high school.

April 1999: Two heavily armed teenage students, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, rampage through their school in Littleton, Colorado, killing 12 students and a teacher, as well as wounding 24 others, before committing suicide

May 1999: A student injures six pupils in a shoot-out in Georgia.

November 1999:A 13-year-old girl is shot dead by a classmate in New Mexico.

February 2000: A six-year-old girl is shot dead by a classmate in Michigan


March 2001: A pupil opens fire at a school in California, killing two students.

January 2002: A student who had been dismissed from the Appalachian School of Law in

Grundy, Virginia, kills the dean, a professor and a student, and wounds three others.

April 2003: A teenager shoots dead the head-teacher at a Pennsylvania school, then kills himself.

May 2004: Four people are injured in a shooting at a school in Maryland.

March 2005: Jeffrey Weise, a 16-year-old high school student guns down five students, a
teacher and a security guard at Red Lake High School in northern Minnesota before killing himself. He also killed his grandfather and his grandfather’s girlfriend elsewhere on the Chippewa Indian reservation.

November 2005: A student in Tennessee shoots dead an assistant principal and wounds two other administrators.

September 2006: Duane Morrison, a 53-year-old drifter, takes six female high school students hostage in Bailey, Colorado, after entering Platte Canyon High School, claiming to be carrying a bomb. He sexually assaulted them and then shot one, fatally, before killing himself when police arrived.

September 2006: Two days after the Bailey killing, a 15-year-old student kills his school’s principal in western Wisconsin after telling another student “you better run".

October 2006: Charles Roberts, a 32-year-old milk truck driver takes hostages and eventually shoots 10 girls girls aged seven to 13, killing five, before shooting himself. Roberts had indicated to his wife over the phone that he had dreams about molesting children.

April 2007: A gunman kills at least 31 people in a dormitory and classroom at Virginia Tech university before being shot dead himself.


source:Timeline: US shooting sprees By Tom Leonard in New York for Telegraph.co.uk


Is this really a gun control issue or are other forces at work that no one wants to address? With the exception of a shooting on an Indian reservation, all the other killings were, overwhelming for the most part, young white males. Should we be afraid of white males?

In this country when you turn to the immigration debate invariably the discussion turns to all the crime illegals create that have no business being here. It is easy to take isolated cases and play them throughout conservative radio and whip up their listeners ( overwhelmingly white) to continue to create the illusion that illegals continue to burden our country. When the fact remains many are law abiding people ( then they argue how can they be if they are here illegal? - a broken circle to be sure). I am not sure of the public relations commotion they want to create with the news of illegals committing crimes. Is it to turn the spotlight on illegals to continue the "march of the penguins" to get them out of our country. Or is it to hide the real perpetrators of crime white males? Statistics are like a whore, once you get them down you can do anything you want with them and pencil-whip them to produce the results desired. It is very common to see crime statistics reported in percentages. It is easy to sway the asses, I mean masses to believe the statistics based on percents leads them to believe that blacks and Hispanics commit more crimes than whites, do more drugs than whites, and generally, as mud people, are just simply undesirable at any level. With most educated by the public school systems they can not do the math to calculate what the percentages quoted by government and media sources to understand the numbers behind them.

From 1976 to 2005 --
86% of white victims were killed by whites
94% of black victims were killed by blacks

Of all homicides in the US 50.9% are committed by whites and 46.9% committed by blacks. Where are the Hispanics, probably under white but insignificant to break out. With 75% white on white and 75% black on black. Only 25% cross racial lines. source Department of Justice http://ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/race.htm

The conclusion is that most people kill their own kind. But the other conclusion is that the crime issue is not a Hispanic one. The string of murders over the last 50 years committed by white males certainly sets a pattern that has to be recognized and discussed. There is some sort of meltdown in the social fabric within the white community that turns, far too often, teenagers into mass murderers. Why are we not alarmed? When is the focus of crime going to turn away from those who commit a small percentage of crimes to those that commit the bulk of them? America does not have to look towards the influx of minorities to blame for the rampant rise of crime when all it has to do is turn around and took a good look in the mirror to find those responsible for the degradation of the social fabric of America - good ole white America.

note: Most of my dear friends are white males. (Why wouldn't it be this way with over a 150,000,000 of them in the US.) Don't get me started about the onslaught of young white females raping young teenage boys in schools.

Is there more of Chavez to come?

After the December 2nd vote that denied Hugo Chavez the right to be dictator for the life you would have thought, given his propensity to be for the people, that he would have abided by the will (vote) of the people? I mean, after all, isn't that what dictators masquerading around as socialist do-do the will of the people? Even though it was a close vote 51% against versus 49% for (in sports whether you lose by one or one million it is still a loss) it was still defeated. But the ego of Chavez will not let this stand in the way of what he wants - ruthless power.

After the vote Chavez got up on national television with his army commanders in tow and conceded the vote and proceeded to tell the opposition that this defeat is "mierda". He said "mierda" three times to them telling them that he will still get what he wants this is merely a bump in the road (For those of you linguistically challenged, mierda means shit in English).

So the Chavez saga will continue. This is a sad commentary on leadereship around the world. It is clear to me that national leaders (mostly men) are driven by greed, power, and ego. It does not matter the side they are on what matters is the method in which they drive their agendas. Chavez clearly feels pwoerful only due to the fact that his country's coffers are getting full as the cost of each barrel of oil rises. Without the wealth Chavez wouldn't have any power hence no world stage. His people would see him for what he is but the graft built into the political and military infrastructure runs so vast and deep it didn't take much thinking to beleive Chavez with the money rolling in could easily buy the alligences of those that controlled the foot soldiers necessary to keep his stronghold on the people and fight back any resistance.

The fact that oil producing countries sponsor dictators, non-democratic elections, have human rights abuses, and endanger women it can be argued that anyone that uses the by-products of oil are also contributing and sponsoring these regimes. Oil profits are allowing what was once small and distant countries take command of the world stage and allowing radical politics and thought to become accepted.

As we continue to rely on foriegn oil, whether it be from the north of us, the south of us, or east of us, we will have to learn how to swallow "meirda" from these radical leaders with their new found power.

ZAPPA

14 years ago Frank Zappa died on this day. Most people have never heard of Frank Zappa or of his music. I have been a fan ( I don't like the word fan because it is short for fanatical and I am not fanatical about anything but nevertheless) of Zappa's since the early 70's when kids I grew up with would sing out loud his rhyming lyrics precursor surely to today's modern rap. No one not even today, when it came to wordsmith, came close to matching the complex music with rhyming catchy stories of Frank Zappa. Take some time out today and play a little Zappa to remember a great musician who died before his time. He was 52.



R.I.P.

FRANNK ZAPPA

1941-1993



And don't forget "do not eat the yellow snow"

Chavez loses Venezuela wins

Yesterday was a crucial day for the people of Venezuela. It has only been the last two-three days that our news media picked up on the story that Chavez was pushing for a change in the constitution that would have allowed him to rule for life. The people of Venezuela, with what appears to be with little help from the outside world, rebelled protested on the streets and screamed all the way to prison to shout down this awful display of egomania gone wild.

The popularity of Chavez in his country is simple but it may come at the expense of the future. It seems that Venezuela derives 90% of its export income from the sale of oil. 60% of the exported oil lands in the US which accounts for about 10-11% of our consumption. Does our need for his oil make us beholding to Chavez? Chavez then takes the income and drives it into social programs benefiting the populace of Venezuela and making fierce loyalists of the people he subsidizes, usually poor and low income. But what Chavez is forgetting is the capital cost to re-build a tired and aging oil infrastructure that if not attended to quickly Venezuela may find it hard to place any oil on the world markets.

Getting back to a December 2, 2007 being a historic day in Venezuela on two fronts. One was the defeat of the Chavez-for-life change to the constitution and second the first defeat for Chavez in his country. Is his control finally loosening? Congratulations to all the democratic forces in Venezuela that opposed Chavez. The fragility of democracy put to another test and won.

harboring terrorist

In the fall of 2003, Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, then president of Bolivia, ordered the deployment of soldiers to quell large protests against the export of Bolivian gas. Over several days from mid-September through mid-October, the troops fired into crowds in the city of El Alto, near La Paz, and allegedly used snipers to shoot at civilian protesters. Sixty-seven people were killed, including several children, and hundreds of others were injured. On October 17, 2003, Sánchez de Lozada and two of his ministers fled to the United States, where they remain.

(excerpt from WOLA website - see full story on WOLA.ORG

What interested me in this story was the fact that these men fled to the US where they remain. Does this bother anyone other than me? Why would our government harbor criminals? The US also allowed a convicted plane bomber from Panama into our country to allow his escape from justice. How do we as a nation justify going after Hussien ( a madman and a criminal bad doesn-t justify invasion see Dufar, Haiti, Venezuela, N. Korea, Cuba, Saudia Arabia, Iran, and more) when we do stupids things like this? What message are we sending?