Saturday, June 23, 2007

Ohio mom's body found; boyfriend charged

Ohio mom's body found; boyfriend charged

By M.R. KROPKO, Associated Press Writer
11 minutes ago

CANTON, Ohio - A massive search ended in sadness Saturday when authorities announced they found a body believed to be a pregnant woman who vanished from her home a week earlier. A police officer believed to be the father of the unborn child was arrested on two counts of murder. Jessie Davis, 26, who was due to deliver a baby girl on July 3, was reported missing after her mother found Davis' 2-year-old son home alone, bedroom furniture toppled and bleach spilled on the floor.

The boy gave investigators their first clues. "Mommy was crying. Mommy broke the table. Mommy's in rug," the boy said.

Thousands of volunteers had searched for Davis over several days, while investigators continued to question Bobby Cutts Jr., 30, who is the father of Davis' son but is married to another woman.

Investigators were mum on many details of their work until they announced Cutts was taken into custody Saturday and was to be arraigned on charges of murder in the deaths of Davis and her unborn child.

The Stark County Sheriff's Department also said a woman's body was recovered in Summit County at 3:30 p.m. Authorities did not give a location but said they believed it to be Davis.

Television news footage taken from helicopters above Cuyahoga Valley National Park showed investigators riding off-road vehicles to reach an area that is heavily covered with trees and brush. It also show authorities carrying a body bag on a stretcher and loading it into a white van.

Roger Riggins, an investigator with the Summit County medical examiner's office, confirmed a body was found at the southeast edge of the park.

Tim Miller, director of Texas EquuSearch, an internationally active search group that organized the volunteer effort, said Davis' mother, Patricia Porter, and other members of her family were called together and told about the body in late afternoon.

"A lot of the community stopped their lives to looked for Jessie and that meant so much to her and the entire family that they knew they were not alone in this," he said.

Cutts has said he and his wife are separated and that she knew about the affair with Davis.

Chief Deputy Rick Perez said the case was still being investigated. He would not comment on whether there were any other suspects.

Telephone messages seeking comment were left at the office of Cutts' lawyer, Bradley Iams, and the home and office of the Rev. C.A. Richmond, who is Cutts' pastor. Iams' home number is unlisted.

Cutts has been on paid administrative leave from his job.

"There is no denying that this has resulted in giving a black eye in the opinion of the local community as well as the opinion of the rest of the nation," Canton Police Chief Dean McKimm said of Cutts' arrest.

An attorney for Davis' mother said the family had a roller coaster ride of emotions and had no comment.

"I've seen them laugh, cry, be angry — everything you can imagine," Rick Pitinii said. "They need to be together, and they need to be alone, and they need to grieve."

Talk shows influence immigration debate

Bill's Pre-comment: Even though it is old news, it is worth repeating.

Talk shows influence immigration debate

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer
Sat Jun 23, 2:35 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Immigration has supplanted Iraq as the leading issue on television and radio talk shows, complicating the prospects of a Senate bill desperately wanted by President Bush.

Conservative talk radio's impact on the immigration debate reached new heights last week, with one host effectively writing an amendment for when the Senate returns to the imperiled bill this week.

National talk show hosts have spent months denouncing the bill as providing amnesty for illegal immigrants. Some top Republicans who support the legislation have defied the broadcast pundits. Others GOP lawmakers have tried to placate them, even to the point of accepting their ideas for amendments.

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., the key conservative negotiator behind the compromise bill, told reporters Friday that California-based radio host Hugh Hewitt "had several ideas" that "we are trying to include" in amendments to be offered in an upcoming series of crucial votes.

Hewitt, a conservative who has criticized many aspects of the bill, had Kyl as a guest on Thursday and asked: "Does the bill provide for any separate treatment of aliens, illegal aliens from countries of special concern?"

Kyl replied: "It's going to, as a result of your lobbying efforts to me."

People seeking entry the U.S. from countries that the U.S. has designated as state sponsors of terrorism will get a higher level of scrutiny, Kyl said Friday.

Other Bush allies have tried more confrontational approaches to the talk hosts, sometimes with bruising results.

Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., told reporters last week, "Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem." Some hosts, he added, do not know what is in the lengthy bill.

The comments incensed conservative talk show hosts who generally had supported Lott over the years.

Lott is "upset that the American people got right into the middle of the conversation over the problem with illegal aliens and it didn't turn out all that well for the pro-amnesty forces," Atlanta-based talk show host Neal Boortz wrote on his Web site.

"If Trent Lott and his other buddies up on the Hill aren't listening to 'talk,' then what are they listening to? The answer is either their wallet or their legacy."

Radio host Rush Limbaugh asked his audience: "What are we going to do about Mississippi Senator Trent Lott?"

Lott's treatment contrasted sharply with that given to Kyl. In a column posted on his Web site, Hewitt called Kyl "perhaps the single most effective and principled conservative in the United States Senate."

The immigration bill would tighten borders and workplace enforcement, create a guest worker program and provide ways to legal status for many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S.

The legislation faces showdown votes this coming week that lawmakers on all sides agree will be close.

If the measure fails, talk radio and TV — where CNN's Lou Dobbs has been especially critical — will deserve substantial credit, academics and politicians say.

"Talk radio and talk TV are most effective when there's an immediate action pending," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson of the University of Pennsylvania, who is an authority on media and politics. "It's a classic instance of mobilization with all the pieces in place and it's sure to have an effect."

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a leading opponent of the bill, said in an interview that "talk radio has had a significant impact on this issue."

A frequent guest of Dobbs, Hewitt and other conservative hosts discussing immigration, Sessions said, "I think people have learned more from talk radio than from reading the newspapers."

As for Lott, Sessions said: "I can't imagine what Trent was thinking. Maybe his mouth was moving and his brain was in neutral."

Michael Harrison, editor of the talk show industry magazine Talkers, said immigration has replaced the Iraq war as the most discussed topic and has led many conservative hosts to show more loyalty to the anti-amnesty issue than to the Republican Party.

"I think talk radio should be credited with possibly saving the American people from George Bush's immigration bill," Harrison said, adding that he and his magazine are nonpartisan.

Some Republicans who recently announced their opposition to the bill said constituent concerns were their main reason. But they acknowledged the intensity of talk radio hostility in their states.

"Neal Boortz, he popped us pretty good," said Lindsay Mabry, a spokeswoman for Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., who shifted from qualified support to opposition to the bill in recent days. She said Chambliss consulted with Boortz on immigration even though the senator was not an on-air guest during the debate.


On the Net:

Information on the bill, S. 1348, can be found at

Update: The bill was reintroduced as S. 1639 by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

Ariz. woman's face branded with 'snitch'

Ariz. woman's face branded with 'snitch'

By AMANDA LEE MYERS, Associated Press Writer
Sat Jun 23, 6:43 AM ET

PHOENIX - A woman had the word "snitch" burned into her face with a branding iron in apparent retaliation for helping police in a domestic violence case, authorities said.

The brand singed into her flesh during a June 13 attack is 4 to 6 inches long and stretches across her left cheek from lip to earlobe, Mesa police Sgt. Chuck Trapani said Friday.

"Obviously, they were trying to send a message to her, and they were obviously trying to humiliate her," Trapani said.

Trapani declined to identify the 38-year-old woman. He said the woman had not returned calls relaying interview requests from the news media.

The woman told police she was attacked by four people, including an acquaintance whose Mesa apartment she was visiting, Trapani said. That acquaintance, Preston L. Valdez, 21, told police the woman was smoking methamphetamine with him shortly before the attack.

The woman said the three others who attacked her were hiding in the bedroom, Trapani said. She said they came out, knocked her unconscious, then cut and shaved large swaths of her hair and branded her, Trapani said. She was treated at a hospital and released.

Two of those who attacked the woman — James H. Standridge, 34, and, Jackie L. Getz, 26 — were arrested in a domestic violence case in February 2006 after the woman answered officers' questions about them. The police investigation later led to the removal of a child from the home because drug paraphernalia was found there.

Trapani said a picture of the woman shows that the word on her face had scabbed over and that "snitch" was clearly legible. He said police were searching for the branding iron.

Standridge, Getz and Kibbol A. Avila, 33, were arrested on suspicion of kidnapping, aggravated assault and unlawful imprisonment. Valdez, was arrested on suspicion of aggravated assault and unlawful imprisonment.

The four were being held Friday in the Maricopa County jail. Bond for Standridge and Getz was set at $270,000 each. Bond for Avila was set at $90,000, and no bond was set for Valdez. The suspects are scheduled back in court next week.

The Maricopa County Public Defender's Office would not confirm whether it was representing the suspects, and declined to comment on the case Friday. The Associated Press made a request through authorities to interview the four but had received no response as of Friday evening.


On the Net:

Mesa Police Department:

Friday, June 22, 2007

My Rundown Of The Illegal Alien Crisis In The U.S.A. by Joyce Kavitsky

Joyce Comments: For decades now the United States has been dealing, or rather not dealing, with a flood of illegal aliens entering our country. The statue quo is that currently people sneak cross our northern and southern borders, enter by sea, or even pack themselves in freight coming here (often seeking asylum from countries like Haiti, Cuba, China, and others) to escape life under a dictator of failed quasi-socialist or quasi-communist governments running their home country. The problem with this is that once these people cross into our land they, unlike the people who come here legally, have not been properly screened or approved medical-wise, criminally with background checks, or interviewed, and more.

Illegals are found through good samaritans like yourselves who report them to authorities and they are deported, case by case unfortunately instead of automatically. Most of these illegals have no desire to fit into American society, especially the spanish-speaking ones who limit themselves to listening in the United States to spanish language radio stations, watching spanish language television stations, and reading and primarily communicating in their native languages. Chinese illegals come here and start China Towns in various places around the country, while spanish illegals have their ghettos. They are content being outcasts in American society and most consistently contribute to the prison population then the general population. Assimilation is not a dirty word. It means that society is on the same page together for the American way and that we can communicate with each other. To be unassimilated means to be a misfit in American, or any countries, society. It is cruel to keep people preserved in their native language and culture by catering to the unassimilated by allowing languages other than English to be on American air waves, television as well as print. One obvious reason is that we all cannot share enjoyment or comprehension in the targeted programming, and two for national security reasons.

Here is a rundown of arguments about the crisis:

Bill O'Reilly's Fair Illegal Immigration Proposal

Compelling arguments against the Kennedy immigration bill:
Rewarding Illegal Aliens: Senate Bill Undermines The Rule of Law by Kris W. Kobach, D.Phil., J.D. and Matthew Spalding, Ph.D.
Immigration Bill or Foreign Welfare System? by Walt at A True Conservative View
The DREAM Act of 2007 - Jackpot for Illegal Aliens by David Nix

Operation Wetback

Unofficial Operation Wetback II?

Enforce Current Laws

Mexico's own laws on illegal immigration

Our, and the worlds, Nightmare

The answer to this crisis is not to enact already tried and failed legislation like the Kennedy amnesty bill that would exasperate the crisis by essentially leaving low-wage American workers out in the cold. This bill is basically a surrender to Mexico by giving their people welfare in their own country in a part of the bill Walt goes into here about SPP, and other various perks that American citizens and legal immigrants would NOT be eligable for concerning illegals attending American schools and business loans at the expense of law-abiding American taxpayers. As well as the most outrageous of all an encore of the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli act which granted amnesty to millions of illegals, except now the proposed legislation would do that and end the assimilation requirement for citizenship.

What this comes down is that there are desperate people illegally crossing our borders, mostly from Mexico, at the invitation of gringo and gringa renegade employers to do blue collar jobs for wages, paid under the table, that are far lower then what qualified Americans would get if the businesses were on the up and up. This is because the United States government and state governments have told employers that they must pay no less then $7.25 an hour, or whatever the mininum wage may be, so instead of gritting their teeth and following the law or trying to get it amended, these renegade employers hire non-Americans who are here illegally who will take far less. These renegade employers even go so far as to place classified ads in Mexico. The answer to this is to ABOLISH THE MININUM WAGE so that these renegade employers will have no excuse to hire illegals and will have to hire only Americans.

What MUST be done to end this crisis:
1. Abolish the mininum wage at both the federal and state levels; as well other wage regulation
2. Build a wall exactly like Israel's northern border with Syria for our southern border with Mexico since the Mexican government sanctions the illegal border crossings and is no help to us on this
3. Make English the official language of the United States and all its territories (no exceptions for Hawaii or Puerto Rico)
4. Prohibit all languages other than English from being broadcast inside the United States and its territories through the radio waves, satellite waves, television and cable, and print. Exceptions strictly should include prayer books, grade school and college foreign language lesson books, and audio lessons for travel purposes
5. Repeal a 1983 law that established Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) which gives the judicial branch authority to make rulings over the illegals
6. Continue deportations of the illegals and widespread crackdowns on renegade employers
7. Create an American version of Mexico's law on illegal aliens
8. Strengthen, or in some cases repeal, our current laws to make enforcement easier by #7

If all of this is done, the USA will have a real handle on this crisis without having to resort to amnesty, or in some cases actual automatic pardons, of millions of illegals currently here.

Updated last: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 10:30AM ET

Guy Refuses to Take Pride in Paying for the Dates

Guy Refuses to Take Pride in Paying for the Dates

By Male Call
Updated: Jun 21, 2007

Question: Should the guy pay for the date? I'm struggling with a money issue with a guy I've been dating a few months. We make similar money -- not much, but not minimum wage. We were splitting the bill when we first started dating.

After we had been dating for a while, I asked if we could treat each other to dates rather than split the bill, because it's nicer. We started doing this, and he does take me out sometimes, but not all the time. Now I'm anxious every time we go out: Is he going to pay? Isn't he?The truth is, I prefer to be taken out by the guy. I know it's antiquated, but it makes me feel wanted, taken care of, special. I don't mind paying for dinner or drinks every second or third time. Most guys seem to take it as a point of pride that they're paying ... this guy doesn't.Even after several months, and my paying every other time for nicer dinners, etc.,
he still makes it known at times that we are going Dutch
he still makes it known at times that we are going Dutch or that he's not paying for the entire evening. It brings him down in my esteem ... but I don't know if I'm being overly demanding. Is he a tightwad? Or am I ridiculously old-fashioned? -- S.A., San Jose, California

Answer: This is an endlessly fascinating topic, since it raises all sorts of questions about fairness, feminism, the shackles inherent in a patriarchal society, mathematics and, perhaps most important in the long run, monetary policy at the Fed.

Luckily, we won't go anywhere near most of those issues. What do we look like, Mother Jones? No, we prefer to keep things simple, because that's just the way we roll, and also because we have no idea what "the Fed" is, anyway. Does "Fannie Mae" live there with "Freddie Mac"? If so, who pays for dinner at "Trader Vic's"? Never mind. We don't really want to know.

A tightwad

First things first, S.A. Yes, the guy is a tightwad.
He also must have missed the first day of Guy School 101
He also must have missed the first day of Guy School 101, where he would have learned that The Guy Always Pays (at least at first).

We didn't say it's fair; it just is. For some reason, feminism was able to stamp out inequality in many areas, but this one hangs on. Why it remains and, for instance, smoking hot stewardesses have disappeared, is a mystery and, needless to say, a disappointment to us.

But most guys (though not, apparently, your Mr. McCheapo) will set aside the incongruity and go with tradition. They want to make a good impression, and they know part of that entails paying for those first few Beef Burrito Supremes, even if it means diving into the nether regions of the couch for spare change. (Tip for guys: Unscrew the top of the agitator assembly inside your washer and lift it off. You'll find at least $1.50 in quarters under there, plus maybe that Paris Hilton flash drive you thought you had misplaced.)

So yes, S.A. -- if indeed that is your real name -- your position is antiquated, and ridiculously old-fashioned. But we mean that in a good way. In your case anyway. Because you at least offer to pay some of the time. Nothing turns a guy off more than a woman who never ever offers to chip in. And, just FYI, the opposite is true as well -- a guy who hears "Honey, tonight is on me ... OK, no, not actually ON me, but I'm paying" is likely to be very appreciative of the gesture. If you know what we mean. If not, ask Freddie Mac.

Want more Male Call? You'll find it here

Male Call answers questions from men and women on etiquette, relationships, men's style and more. Write Also check out the Male Call forum at

Thursday, June 21, 2007

Mexico's Immigration Law: Let's Try It Here at Home by J. Michael Waller


Posted 05/08/2006 ET
Updated 05/08/2006 ET

Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven’t been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.

That's too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliens than the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve
our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
  • in the country legally;
  • have the means to sustain themselves economically;
  • not destined to be burdens on society;
  • of economic and social benefit to society;
  • of good character and have no criminal records; and
  • contributors to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:
  • immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
  • foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
  • foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
  • foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
  • foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
  • those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens -- and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, or
General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country's immigration policy.

It is an interesting law -- and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a
crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.

We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1] Now let's look at Mexico's main immigration law.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
  • Foreigners are admitted into Mexico "according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress." (Article 32)
  • Immigration officials must "ensure" that "immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance" and for their dependents. (Article 34)
  • Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets "the equilibrium of the national demographics," when foreigners are deemed detrimental to "economic or national interests," when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when "they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy." (Article 37)
  • The Secretary of Governance may "suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest." (Article 38)
Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
  • Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
  • A National Population Registry keeps track of "every single individual who comprises the population of the country," and verifies each individual's identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
  • A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).
Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
  • Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
  • Foreigners who sign government documents "with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses" are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
  • Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
  • Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
  • Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico -- such as working with out a permit -- can also be imprisoned.
Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
  • "A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally." (Article 123)
  • Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
  • Foreigners who "attempt against national sovereignty or security" will be deported. (Article 126)
Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
  • A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
  • Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico's immigration practices versus its American
immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government's agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.

Let's call Mexico's bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let's propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico's own law as a model.

This article was first posted at

1. "Mexico's Glass House," Center for Security Policy Occasional Paper, April 3, 2006.

The Economic, Political, and Ethical Case Against the Minimum Wage By G. Stolyarov II


Joyce Comments: One thing missing from this well-written essay arguing the abolishment of the mininum wage is that this wage gives reason or cover to renegade American employers who hire illegals in place of Americans. Dan and I were talking about this here.

Published Jun 01, 2007

You hear numerous cries these days to terminate worker abuse, to wrestle ailing souls from destitution and decay, to alleviate the suffering so widespread in third-world countries. This is a noble goal and an end worth pursuing. But are the means proper? History has shown that government intervention in the affairs of business and attempts to warp the capitalist free market system only exacerbate world poverty. Third World totalitarian dictatorships have possessed unprecedented levels of starvation, unemployment, and deprivation precisely because they attempted to regulate their financial affairs. Labor union-dominated nations of Europe are collapsing into recession due to their inability to efficiently compete with freer economic orders.

In order to permit workers the ability to be rewarded based on their merits and employers the ability to negotiate contracts with their individual staff members, it is necessary to abolish a minimum wage system that in the United States has been proven to yield precisely the opposite effects.

The United States should effectively and radically repeal and prohibit all forms of government wage regulation upon all U.S. business ventures and foreign businesses on U.S. territory.

A vast majority of the arguments opposing wage regulations concern the flawed aspects of the minimum wage itself, and its harmful effects upon businesses, employees, the poor, and local governments, as well as its immorality in violating fundamental principles of a free market economy.

Let us begin with the basics of the desired system, otherwise known as capitalism, which, as the foundation of Enlightenment and Victorian Age culture, has dramatically raised living standards for all.

Capitalism, contrary to stereotype, is more than a mere economic system. It is a political framework as well, which is founded upon the principle of rights. Rights are courses of action that any individual must be allowed to pursue in any circumstance as an act of free will. The most basic right is the right to life. The abilities to own property or manage a business are means for improving life. Should the owner of a business resolve to employ another individual in order to support his right to life while the employee obtains material benefits and support of his own right to life in return, they would, in a purely capitalist system, resolve salaries based on a mutually profitable arrangement.

If a man possesses scant experience and is willing to work for, merely as an example, $1.25 per hour, he should be permitted this opportunity in order to sustain himself somehow instead of being deprived of the liberty to labor for whomever he chooses. If the employee is unsatisfied with wages and working conditions, and the employer is unwilling to ameliorate them, the former may simply pursue another boss or occupation.

The company which neglects to furnish proper and mutually beneficial contracts with its workers will automatically lose human resources, and eventually collapse due to competition from more functional firms. The worker who neglects to work with skill, diligence, and effort, will earn smaller amounts of money than one who industriously pursues his occupation.

Capitalism is the only genuinely meritocratic order, which rewards individuals based on actions, not inherited titles, position power, "divine right", or "the will of the proletariat." This order, in which supply, demand, and consent are the determinants of decisions, where the business world acts on its best interests and not artificial standards, has demonstrated itself to be nearly devoid of unemployment and life-threatening destitution.

But what takes place when a "middle man" intervenes for the sake of "fairness"? Limits are set, freedom of will is restricted, rigid regulations are established, incompatible with reality, that inflict naught but harm on an otherwise perfectly functioning economy.

One of these notorious regulations, enacted in the United States during the socialist Franklin Roosevelt's administration, unfortunately set in stone certain effects of the Great Depression. This was the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, which first instituted a minimum wage. Policy analyst James Bovard describes the downward spiral that the economy had descended along as new minimum wage laws pummeled its workers with ever increasing strength. The unemployment figures are in the hundreds of thousands, sometimes millions. Not only is this the case, but the minimum wage has demonstrated particular damages to minority groups, such as African-Americans, and residents of inner-city neighborhoods.

Prior to the institution of a minimum wage, the unemployment levels of Caucasians were nearly identical to those of African-Americans. Both figures had increased dramatically throughout the past sixty-four years, but the rate of African-American job loss exceeded that of other groups. In addition, already materially disadvantaged communities or those with slower development paces have been crippled to stagnation by these interventions. Let us explore the reasons.

Unfortunately, in earlier American society, numerous persons possessed negative stereotypes of minority groups. When, for example, an African-American worker applied to them for an occupation, he was more likely than a Caucasian man to be granted a lower salary and a menial job. The only means for him to elevate himself was to prove his merits by accumulating experience and exerting himself with diligence.

Statistics show that almost all workers who begin at low salaries graduate to respectable wages within two years, as they become more valuable to the employer. However, since minimum wages had begun to exceed the employer's stereotype of the minority worker, or, on occasion, even a worker's capacities, the employer found it unprofitable and detrimental to even allow the man the opportunity to work! Thus, the latter remained in a state of dependence on the government for sustenance, and became yet another soul hopelessly plummeting into the abyss of welfare rolls.

A similar situation, although for different reasons, can be spotted in poorer neighborhoods, where the individuals wishing employment have not been sufficiently prepared for a minimum wage workplace by unsatisfactory government schools. Their skills are not up to the expectations, and instead of being permitted to learn by doing and sustain themselves in the meantime, they are denied the right to pursue happiness, since their labor is not worth the present hourly minimum wage of $7.25.

An occupation, however base at first, is the only key out of poverty, for a man does not remain at the most basic level perpetually. To reward one with low salaries is better than to drain the people's tax money and grant them free cash, while rendering them virtual deadweights to our society. In capitalism, low merit implies low wages, but merit is not a static quantity. It grows with the variety of the individual's knowledge. Eventually those entry-level laborers will become indispensable assets to the company and, since the company and its customers also possess a consensual and symbiotic relationship, to society at large. As we have determined, minimum wage initiatives harm minorities, low-skilled workers, and those whom they pretend to assist, the poor.

There is yet another group nearly dispersed by minimum wage laws, teenage employees. Many of these workers inhabit middle-class families with sufficient means for material prosperity, but seek something beyond mere existence: a college education. Due to the rapidly soaring costs at even public universities, most even upper-middle-class families are unable to afford their intelligent and aspiring child a respectable place. Thus, the latter must work gradually to supplement his/her parents' incomes in low-skill but crucial jobs.

An early start in the workplace presents a teenager with invaluable experience, the capacity for financial independence, and a knowledge of the workings of business. The teenagers who acquire industrious working habits early on are more likely to ascend to impressive heights of wealth and prestige in the future. Yet many of their initial skills do not by far reach the value of $7.25 an hour. Present minimum wage regulations (which the Labor Department stringently enforces and of which it seeks to create as many scapegoat violators as possible, in order to convey the impression of "doing its duty") render it illegal for such a firm as McDonalds to hire a teenage employee for $3.00 an hour, although numerous said persons would leap with joy at such an opportunity. Many highly bright individuals of an immense capacity thus become unable to afford a college education (even a family earning $150,000 annually, firmly in the top 25% of the nation in terms of wealth, is unable to pay outright for four years of college for a single child!) and become restricted by middle-class limitations, which leave one highly in want of dramatic improvement.

Another key argument concerns the negative effects of the minimum wage upon businesses. When a company is forced to inflict greater expenditures upon itself than is profitable, it is likely to bankrupt itself, lay off employees, or restrain desired spending, such as research, mechanization, and advertising. It also may withhold deserved pay raises from its more proficient employees, due the hassle of affording lofty salaries for the less qualified workers. The output of businesses will become reduced dramatically, and consumer prosperity will plummet. This is a fitting explanation for the mass destitution experienced in totalitarian regimes such as the Stalinist Soviet Union, China during the Cultural Revolution, Cuba, North Korea, Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and Sudan. In all these states, government regulations were colossal and nearly omnipotent, and minimum wages flew into the stratosphere. Yet, nobody earned those wages!

The economic problems associated with the minimum wage, witnessed in this country since the 1930s, have, however, been avoided by numerous other nations which are presently undergoing a transition from tyranny to capitalism. Their situation is similar to that of the United States in the late 1800s, which, if it had then possessed a minimum wage, would never have developed into a global superpower.

Such nations require an incentive to invest in the United States and provide employment opportunities which local companies are insufficiently developed to grant. However, absent an abolition of the minimum wage foreign companies will lack any manner of stimulus to invest in this country. Potential employees here do suffer from poverty and despair, but this is due to past wrongs inflicted upon them by regimes that were socialist in all but name, governments which drained from them their wealth and aspiration. Only their employment and the institution of a laissez-faire capitalist system will permit individual and nation alike to gradually accumulate wealth, merit, and prosperity. In pre-Chinese Hong Kong, for example, where there had been no minimum wage, unemployment was virtually non-existent.

Proponents of "humanity", remember this: capitalism works, precisely because it is humane! Abolishing wage regulations in regard to foreign companies on U.S. soil as well as home-based firms will result in a massive stimulation of global interaction and trade.
No serious economist will deny that the minimum wage is abominable in all its aspects, philosophical, economic, and political. Among other groups that suffer as a result of them are local governments, charities such as the Salvation Army, and numerous prosperous businesses systematically singled out by courts and the Labor Department as scapegoats. Like all socialist schemes, this one aims to "lessen the gap between rich and poor." But as history proves to us, this can only be managed by pressing the poor into submission and demeaning those of adequate income.

Labor unions, massive coercive behemoths claiming to support the workers they have devoured, wish to institute a select few of their employees into extremely high salaries (obviously yielding a share of their profits to the union bureaucrats) at the expense of nearly all other economic interests. Yet this is not capitalism. In a truly capitalist system, none seeks the sacrifice of others for his own gain, for such gains are but illusory, and the only genuine profit can emerge from either a mutualist symbiotic relationship, or at the least one which inflicts no harm upon others. The individual citizen should not suffer as a result of interventionist ploys to eliminate meritocracy. Thus, it is imperative to abolish all wage regulations on American soil.

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Lose the Bloat, Find the Beach!

Lose the Bloat, Find the Beach!

Posted by Joy Bauer, M.S., R.D., C.D.N.
on Mon, Jun 11, 2007, 3:07 pm PDT

Everyday bloat is downright uncomfortable! It's commonly caused by water retention or gas -- a build-up of air in the intestines and stomach that can give you the feeling of a distended abdomen.

If your condition is chronic, speak with your doctor to make sure it's not a serious GI concern such as celiac disease (gluten intolerance), Crohn's disease, or ulcerative colitis. Other less serious issues to investigate include lactose intolerance, constipation, and/or irritable bowel syndrome.

If you're certain it's everyday bloat, these 7 tips can help you feel significantly better:

1. Avoid carbonated beverages -- drink plenty of flat water instead.

2. Avoid salty foods, since excessive salt retains water.

3. Limit sugar alcohols. Sorbitol and maltitol, frequently found in sugar-free foods and sugarless gum, can exacerbate gas and discomfort in people who are super sensitive.

4. Limit gas-producing foods, specifically broccoli, brussels sprouts, cauliflower, beans and cabbage. When you do eat them, try taking Beano, an over-the-counter supplement which can help your body digest them.

5. Don't overdo the amount of fiber in your diet. Fiber is incredibly important, but too much can exacerbate bloat in people who are sensitive. Thus, be sure to increase the amount in your diet gradually and drink plenty of water to help wash it down.

6. Avoid large meals heavy in carbohydrates and fat. Instead, eat low-volume meals throughout the day (and eat every four to five hours).

7. Be sure to incorporate some type of protein with each meal and snack. Protein acts as a natural diuretic and helps your body get rid of extra water.

Some examples of low-volume meals containing protein:

- 8 ounces nonfat yogurt with one cup fresh berries

- 4 egg-white omelet with sautéed spinach and mushrooms

- 2 cups vegetable salad topped with 5 grilled shrimp

- 4 ounces turkey or ham sandwich on whole wheat bread

- One apple with small handful unsalted raw almonds

- 4 ounces turkey/lettuce rollups with one cup baby carrots

- One cup whole grain cereal with half-cup skim milk and ½ banana

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

The DREAM Act of 2007 - Jackpot for Illegal Aliens by David Nix


If you haven’t been reading the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, you should. It contains giveaways and government handouts to illegal aliens that no legal Citizen can hope to receive. Let’s look at the DREAM Act of 2007 and see what we find lurking within. It’s a DREAM for illegal aliens and the SHAFT for US Citizens!

The “short title” of Subtitle C, Title VI, S1348 is “Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act of 2007.” This section grants residency to children of illegal aliens (not born in the USA) for the purpose of receiving education benefits.

Section 623. The first step to giving special privileges to illegal aliens is the repeal of 8 USC 1623 which states that it is not lawful for a person “not lawfully present in the United States” to be eligible in any State for “any postsecondary education benefit UNLESS a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope).” 8 USC 1623 says that illegal aliens cannot get special education benefits and privileges that AMERICAN CITIZENS are not allowed IN THE SAME AMOUNT, DURATION, AND SCOPE. That is NO special treatment for illegal aliens. But 8 USC 1623 is repealed by S1348, Section 623 to allow states to grant residency to illegal aliens and give them special privileges in the way of college tuition and scholarships that US Citizens don't get. All from Citizen tax dollars. Children of illegals will get preferential treatment. Why? They're so cute! This will grow into a huge bureaucracy handing government dole to illegals, granting illegals special status, putting them in the front of the line ahead of American Citizens (wealthy and poor alike), and creating a new class of SUPER-ALIEN-RESIDENT. Where is Spiderman when you need him?

Section 624. This one is wordy, twisted, and tricky. Basically it allows the Secretary (of Illegal Immigration) to “cancel the removal of” an illegal alien from US soil and change the status of an illegal alien who entered the US as a child so that they are now lawful alien residents for the purposes of gaining college education benefits. The wording says that this PARDON is specifically for “an alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States.” It’s a good thing we’ve got a Secretary of Illegal Immigration. What would we do without him?

What’s the catch for the illegals? Well, they have to prove that they’ve been physically present in the USA for a continuous period of not less than 5 years preceding the date of the enactment of S1348 and have not yet turned 16. So illegal children from 5 years old to 16 years old (and how many millions of them do we have?) will get a FREE RIDE to college! Whoopee! Who needs a HOPE Scholarship? Just cross the border illegally.

One catch. The illegal has to be of good moral character. In my book, if a person breaks the law for somewhere between 5 and 11 years it makes them a person of poor moral character.

Look quickly. They just waved the magic wand and told illegals to bring their children because we would give them Federal Government benefits from tax dollars collected from law-abiding AMERICAN CITIZENS!

Section 625. Hold on, it's gonna be a bumpy ride! This one says that the person granted residency for education is only a “conditional” resident for a period of 6 years. Whew! The borders are safe once again. They'll go back south of the border after 6 years. They will, won't they?

This one allows the Secretary of Illegal Immigration to cancel the conditional residency if the alien is a bad boy or girl or has gone on the public dole. I expect this provision to be strictly enforced. Ha! Ha!

Wait a minute; if the conditional resident alien status is revoked by the Secretary of Illegal Immigration then the alien goes back to being an illegal alien subject to being deported. Likely story. The government bureaucrats can’t evict them now, what makes you think they will follow this law?

But we’re safe, another provision allows the illegal alien conditional resident to petition the Secretary of Illegal Immigration to return them to illegal status. Oh, yeah, that’s going to happen. “¡Oye Sr. Secretario, yo quiero ser deportado!” LOL

Section 626. It gets better. It’s called “RETROACTIVE BENEFITS.” It is a short paragraph filled with the terms “satisfied” and “requirements” and references to subparagraphs, sections and petitions. I’m not sure, but I think it means they get a “Get Out of Jail FREE” card. Jump to the front of the line and welcome to America, amigo.

Section 626. This one gives the Secretary of Illegal Immigration “exclusive jurisdiction” to determine whether an illegal alien can be released from deportation, exclusion or removal proceedings. Once the Secretary does his thing, the Attorney General has “exclusive jurisdiction.” Once the illegal is told he is being deported the Secretary takes over again with “exclusive jurisdiction.” I've explained this so you won’t be confused.

This one also allows the Secretary of Illegal Immigration to stop deportation of illegals if they are enrolled in primary or secondary schools. ¡Rápido, obtiene a abuela en la escuela de enseñanza primaria!

These conditional resident students are also protected by the Fair Labor Standards Act and State laws governing minimum age for employment and they will have to be paid minimum wage. No more landscaping or ironing for you, senorita! Good news is that if they drop out they lose all these privileges. That is if someone reports their dropout status to INS.

Section 630. The specially granted conditional resident illegal alien gets “expedited processing” of these applications at no additional cost. Maybe the government can expedite my passport. Otherwise, I’ll be forced to enter Mexico illegally!

Section 631. Here’s the BIG GIVEAWAY. It’s called “HIGHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE.”

The illegal alien conditional residents are eligible for student loans, work-study employment, and “services under such title IV (20 USC 1070 et seq.), subject to the requirements for such services.” The last one is the Pell Grant program. They don’t want you to know they are going to give a FREE RIDE for being an ILLEGAL ALIEN, so they call it “mumbo (20 USC 1070 et seq.) jumbo.”

Section 632. This is the one that makes it alright. After 7 years the Secretary of Illegal Immigration has to report to Congress (or is that Congreso?) on the status of the illegal alien conditional residents. That is, the number that applied, were granted, were cancelled, were removed, etc. This will protect us. Bean counters who can’t find the illegals now will keep track of them.

Now that you’ve got a primer in the DREAM Act, don’t you feel better about S1348? I know I do! ¡Bailaré y cantaré en el día de la derrota de Lindsey Graham!

"Dr." Laura Ingraham's spiel on OxyClinton


To watch this skit of Laura Ingraham's spiel on OxyClinton that originally aired on "The 1/2 Hour News Hour" on the Fox News Channel on May 13, 2007 go to the source link above.

"President" Rush Limbaugh and "Vice President" Ann Coulter


Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter play President and Vice President on Fox News’ new satirical television show "The 1/2 Hour News Hour" that premiered Sunday, February 18 at 10pm Eastern. To see the skit go to the source link above.

Monday, June 18, 2007

Impacts of Illegal Immigration: Economic Costs


As noted in previous sections, the economic impact of illegal immigration covers a wide stratum, including the costs for the collateral impact of crime, traffic accidents, education, health care, and the infrastructure. The ADDENDUM of this report contains even more.

As detailed in Importing Poverty: Immigration and Poverty in the United States: A Book of Charts the bottom line is that illegal immigration brings in a tremendous number of poor, unskilled, and uneducated people along with all their inherent problems.

As noted in a KGTV report, Illegal Immigration Could Cost Taxpayers Trillions, "The influx of illegal immigrants has effectively "imported about 10 million high school dropouts into the United States," said Robert Rector, a senior research fellow in welfare and family issues for the Washington, D.C.-based think tank."

While a smaller percentage than most countries, the US has our own resident poor and uneducated to take care of and, as rich as the country is, we simply can not support all the poor and uneducated who want to come here.

One can understand why Mexicans, the largest component of illegal aliens, come to the U.S. In Mexico, they are typically paid only $5.00 per day for their labor. When wages for Mexican workers rise, the peso is conveniently devalued to keep Mexico competitive with foreign countries like China and India. The owners of Mexican businesses often keep their money in dollars in American banks and escape the devaluation of their currency. Between that and the thoroughly incompetent government, the common people are forever doomed to poverty. Without a revolution in Mexico, America is their only hope. Unfortunately, the results of revolutions in countries to our south generally are not good.

At this point it is worth noting that Mexico is not a resource-poor country. Mile for mile, it has natural resources that are among the richest in the world and it is a net exporter of oil. It is, however, a corrupt country which is one of the main reasons why there are so many poor people wanting to flee to the USA for economic opportunities.

However, just being poor or wanting to come here is not a valid reason to violate the national sovereignty of the United States. If so, most of the world would be here. While we already devote considerable resources to our resident poor, the USA does not have the resources for all the world's poor.

An article in the San Francisco Chronicle stated that Mexicans living in the U.S. send between $6 and $8 billion back to their families every year, making them the third-biggest legitimate force in the Mexican economy, after oil and tourism. Additionally, US taxpayers pay for all the direct and indirect costs of "housing" the Mexican illegal aliens. In essence, it's an unofficial form of foreign aide. Mexico isn't about to control its borders, since Mexicans fleeing their country for work in the U.S. send plenty of money back to their own country.

While the $6-8 billion number is often quoted, a fairly recent story in The Brownsville Herald, Banks seek stake in billions sent home, notes that some estimates place the amount of dollars going south in 2006 will be $45 Billion, which was up from an estimated $30 Billion in 2004.

Regardless of the amount, all that money is leaving the US economy and not creating additional job opportunities here. Additionally, all that money represents jobs Americans used to have.

Have you heard about the Social Security Proposed Totalization agreement with Mexico? Me neither, before starting the investigation for this report. Somehow it neglected to get reported in our local paper and TV news.

As reported by Bruce Barton in Totalization Sell-Out: What You Don't Know will Cost You:

"... the Commissioner of the U.S. Social Security Administration (Jo Anne Barnhart) and her Mexican counterpart concluded the U.S.-Mexican Totalization Agreement. This agreement had to be in place prior to the administration's second term and its all-out offensive for Social Security reform. This agreement would allow illegal aliens working in the U.S. to qualify for Social Security benefits with as few as six coverage credits, as opposed to the 40 now required of American workers.

Additionally, illegal workers could qualify for partial benefits after only 18 months (working illegally and with a false identity), while the American worker would still have to work 10 years in order to vest in the program. Lastly, families and dependents of illegal workers would be entitled to benefits as dependents and survivors, even if not residing in the U.S.

... The Social Security Administration's estimate is that only about 50,000 Mexican workers (both legal and illegal) will enter the program in its first year at a cost of $78 million. This ignores the fact that presently there are an estimated 5 to 6 million undocumented Mexicans now in the American workforce. In 2004, the SSA did a study and determined that there were up to 800,000 mis-matched social security accounts, many of which were workers using non-work social security cards, or worse, using stolen social security numbers.

Meanwhile, estimates of the SSA are that by 2050 only 300,000 Mexican workers in the U.S. would be in the system at a cost projection of $650 million annually.

Among its negative findings, the GAO summarized its report this way: "Under the Social Security Act, all earnings from employment in the United States count towards earning social security benefits, regardless of the lawful presence of the worker, his or her citizenship status, or country of residence. Immigrants [both legal and otherwise] become entitled to benefits from unauthorized work if they can prove that the earnings and related contributions belong to them. However, they cannot collect such benefits unless [or until] they are either legally present in the United States [hence the Administration's Guest Worker Program], or living in a country where SSA is authorized to pay them their benefits. [Hence an SSA office in Mexico City] Mexico is such a country."

This is so outrageous one would think it was an urban legend being spread over the internet. Unfortunately, this one is true.

Also see Critics say Social Security deal would give billions to Mexicans by Michelle Mittelstadt of the Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau where she reports "Federal officials insist it would cost only $105 million for the first 5 years." Right. Only if the cost overruns were deducted from their pay and Social Security. Oops, Congress and dimwitted bureaucrats are never held accountable and Congress exempted themselves and all Federal employees from the Social Security System.

They both have a MUCH BETTER retirement plan – funded by taxpayers of course.

To see what the The Senior Citizens League (TSCL) says about it see the WND article, Social Security billions could go to Mexicans, where the League notes:

"It represents a sell-out of American workers and their families," the group's analysis said. "Such a one-sided pact with its enormous financial risks should never have been negotiated in the first place."

Also see Totalization is a Bad Idea, by Representative Ron Paul of Texas.

If you want to see an actual copy of the Totalization Agreement, forced out of the Government bureaucracy by the TSCL by-the-way, go here.

In the opinion of this writer, such a scheme almost dwarfs the irresponsibility of allowing unfettered illegal immigration.

In any case, a 2004 study from the Center for Immigration Studies, The High Cost of Cheap Labor - Illegal Immigration and the Federal Budget, was one of the first to estimate the impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Based on Census Bureau data, the study estimates that households headed by illegal aliens used $10 billion more in government services than they paid in taxes in 2002. These figures are only for the federal government; costs at the state and local level are also significant.

The study also notes that if illegal aliens were given amnesty, the fiscal deficit at the federal level would grow by nearly $29 billion. Note that number is only for the direct costs and does not count all the indirect costs of the collateral damage being inflicted.

If the Government says the deficit will grow by $29 billion, you can be confident that the actual amount will end up much greater. In any case, just the education costs are greater than that much of a deficit however the politicians conveniently ignore that most of those costs are borne by the states.

At this point it is worth noting that Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post reported in Cost of Senate Immigration Bill Put at $126 Billion:

"The Senate's embattled immigration bill would raise government spending by as much as $126 billion over the next decade, as the government begins paying out federal benefits to millions of new legal workers and cracks down on the border, a new Congressional Budget Office analysis concludes.

Law enforcement measures alone would necessitate the hiring of nearly 31,000 federal workers in the next five years, while the building and maintenance of 870 miles of fencing and vehicle barriers would cost $3.3 billion. Newly legalized immigrants would claim nearly $50 billion in federal benefits such as the earned income and child tax credits, Medicaid, and Social Security."

Amazingly, it seems that few people want to ask WHY we should be paying for illegal aliens to stay in the US.

Steven Camarota notes in a Judicial Watch Special Report, New Fronts in the Immigration Battle:

"All the research suggests that the reason illegal aliens create large fiscal [deficits] for the country is not their legal status, but rather their educational attainment. Sixty percent of illegals are thought not to have even a high school education, another twenty percent, a high school education only. All the research suggests that people with relatively little education make relatively little money in the modern American economy ...[As] a consequence, they tend to pay relatively little in taxes, even if they are legal and on the books.

At the same time, [these individuals] tend to use a fair amount in public services, reflecting their lower incomes. I estimate illegals pay about $16 billion a year to the Federal Government in taxes ... the difference between what they pay in taxes and use in services is about $10 billion. So right now the net drain on the Federal Government alone from illegal families is about $10 billion. If we began to legalize [these individuals] and they began to pay taxes and use services like legal immigrants with the same level of education, the net fiscal drain would roughly triple to nearly $30 billion."

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has a fairly recent article, The Estimated Cost of Illegal Immigration, where the net number is put at $24.4 Billion. However, as noted, some experts say almost twice that much is being sent out of the country and just the education and traffic accident costs are more than that.

As this paper has detailed, just the education costs could be as high as $34.5 billion. That and just $10 billion in services minus the $16 billion in taxes is a net drain is $28.5 billion, not $10 billion. Add in the collateral damage from crime and traffic accidents, as well as lost wages and the number really soars.

The aforementioned KGTV report, Illegal Immigration Could Cost Taxpayers Trillions, notes: "The National Academy of Sciences estimated that each immigrant will result in a $100,000 net annual cost to taxpayers." If that is the case then illegal immigrants are costing the country TRILLIONS of dollars, which is, of course, the point of the KGTV report.

As far as the author of this report has determined after many hours of searching, there is no official calculation of all the direct and indirect costs of illegal aliens. As referenced in this report, there is a piece here and a piece there but NOBODY IS TRACKING IT.

In any case, when you add up all the direct and indirect costs it would not surprise me if the amount exceeded $100 billion, per year. If the data for the costs of crime is correct, and the traffic accidents participation turns out to be as great as some indicators point to, then the number could easily exceed $200 billion.

Using the $200 billion figure and 300,000,000 million people in the US, that would be $667 for every person in the United States. However only 136,000,000 file taxes, and of those about 44,000,000 pay no taxes leaving about 92,000,000 actual taxpayers. For them, illegal immigration could be costing each taxpayer about $2,174 each. In states with high percentages or concentrations of illegal aliens the amount is even higher.

At $2,174, that amount would buy a head of $5.96 per head of lettuce every day of the year. What could you do with an extra $2,174? So much for a "victimless crime."

However, regardless of the economic costs, how can you put a cost on the Americans being molested, raped, killed, and murdered by illegal aliens?

Myths and lies of illegal immigration By Kathy McKee


January 4, 2004; published in The Sonoran News

Because the pro-illegal alien lobby has a bottomless pit of money and can hire PR people to spin (and fabricate) anything any way, there are an undue number of myths and lies that the public (and many politicians) has bought into. The FACTS are:

1. It is NOT racist to call these people "illegal aliens" In fact, "illegal aliens" is the only term used in federal laws and regulations to describe criminals (and they ARE criminals) who come into our country illegally. They are not illegal immigrants, not undocumented immigrants, not migrant workers, and not day laborers - they're ILLEGAL ALIENS.

2. Mexico is NOT a poor country. By sending its teeming masses to our country, that status keeps on rising. Mexico has more resources per square mile than the U.S. and plenty of money to take care of its own people. Why should the taxpayers of this country subsidize Mexico's corruption?

3. Illegal aliens are NOT necessarily coming here to work. Lou Dobbs recently reported that 33 percent of our prison population is now comprised of non-citizens. Plus, 36 to 42 percent of illegal aliens are on welfare. So, for a good proportion of these people, the American dream is crime and welfare, not coming here to work.

4. Illegal aliens are NOT doing work Americans won't do. What jobs won't Americans do? In most states, Americans still clean their own houses, do their own landscaping, clean hotel rooms, work in restaurants and fast food places, paint houses, DO CONSTRUCTION WORK, work in airports, etc. - just like we have the past 200 years before "our" government allowed these people to invade our country. There are 18 million Americans who cannot find a job, so illegal aliens who are coming here to work do so at peril to American workers.

5. Illegal aliens absolutely do not contribute more than they cost. Certainly the millions in prison and on welfare aren't contributing a dime to our economy, and the ones who are working often are paid in cash with no deductions for taxes at all. The ones who use fraudulent social security numbers and qualify to pay taxes and social security have so many deductions for dependents that they pay little if any taxes. We have seen them pay less than $100 in taxes and get back $4,000 refunds (thanks to earned income tax credits and multiple dependents).Some bargain, eh?

6. The economy does NOT depend on illegal aliens. Sure, greedy CEOs (making $50 to $150 MILLION a year) and business owners depend on illegal aliens, but due to #3, #4 and #5 above, the only thing illegal aliens are contributing to is the collapse of our economy and making the rich richer.

7. Without illegal aliens, the price of agricultural products and other goods and services will NOT soar. The definitive study on this subject is the University of Iowa's "How Much Is That Tomato?" The study concludes that 'since labor is such a small component of the end-price of agricultural products (which includes price to the growers, transportation costs, processing /storage costs, grocers' profit, etc.), using minimum wage workers instead of illegal aliens would increase prices of agricultural products by approximately 3 percent in the summer and 4 percent in the winter ... hardly the making of $10 heads of lettuce, $25 hamburgers, $1,000 per night Days Inn hotel rooms like the pro-illegal alien lobby claims.

8. Consumers are NOT benefiting from lower labor costs. Again, it's CEOs and business owners who benefit from taxpayer subsidies for their illegal alien workers. The Big Three automakers say they moved so many jobs to Mexico because their labor costs are 80 percent less than in America. Anybody notice the price of new cars spiraling downward under NAFTA?

So, before you believe the prevalent pack of lies perpetuated by the illegal alien lobby, which makes billions off this government-sanctioned criminal activity, ask yourself who's saying this garbage and look at what they have to gain. Citizens Against Illegal Immigration, just like Protect Arizona NOW, is an all-volunteer, totally grass-roots organization of citizens who are making nothing and have nothing personal to gain from their efforts to fight this corruption. Whose side are you on, and what are YOU doing to save your state and country from this evil?

McKee is the state coordinator of Citizens Against Illegal Immigration, as well as director of Protect Arizona NOW. A former Quaker Sunday School teacher and Volunteer of the Year in a large metropolitan area, she has a 35-year record of charity work and philanthropy largely benefiting minorities.

Separation of religion and Constitution by Robert Meyer


Robert Meyer

Robert Meyer

December 29, 2005

The past year brought about the usual manifold church and state controversies which are polarizing citizens farther toward opposite ends of the ideological continuum. This is because the increasing influence of militant secularism has been highly successful in its goal of reconfiguring the scope, meaning and intention of the Constitution's First Amendment.

Secularists want you to believe that religious precepts must be surgically removed from public policy and expression. This is why people like Michael Newdow have attacked the modern Pledge and the current national motto. Will it eventually become an act of civil defiance to wish someone a Merry Christmas?

While a growing number of people understand that the Constitution contains no such phrase as "separation between church state," numerous people today believe that this concept embodies the true meaning of the Religious Clauses, when in fact it does not.

The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist had less than glowing accolades for this phrase as he wrote in the Wallace v. Jaffree decision " amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The 'wall of separation between church and State' is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned." In addition, I would point out that this phrase falls prey to the abuses of subjective ambiguity.

James Madison's original draft for the First Amendment was "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established (my emphasis), nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed." This clearly shows that "establishment of religion" was more narrowly defined as installing a national church.

Jefferson's "wall of separation'" metaphor was merely an articulation of essential federalism, as he clarifies in his second inaugural address: "In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies...."

Secularists know that Jefferson, who was serving an ambassadorship in Paris during the framing of the Constitution, was heavily influenced by European rationalism. They therefore wish to closely align the meaning of the First Amendment predominately with the views of Jefferson, binding both his theological perspective and constitutional views into one seamless garment.

However, historian Perry Miller, himself an atheist, has this to say about Jefferson's permeating influence on American culture. "Actually European Deism was an exotic plant in America, which never struck roots in the soil. 'Rationalism' was never so widespread as liberal historians, or those fascinated with Jefferson have imagined."

Perhaps the best analysis as to the definition of "establishment" can be traced in the words and history of Washington's first Day of Thanksgiving Proclamation.

"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God..."

It should be noted that this proclamation commemorated the framing of the First Amendment. Washington was the president of the very Constitutional Convention which drafted it. First it is obvious that acknowledging God is not establishment — Washington calls it a duty. Next Washington recommends a religious practice — a day of thanksgiving and prayer. Therefore, the recommendation of a religious practice was not counted as establishment. Lastly, a request by Congress isn't tantamount to Congress making a law establishing a religion.

For those who habitually warn us about the dangers of mixing politics and religion, I give you the comments about this subject from Washington's Farewell Address.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness — these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity...And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

So much of what is claimed to violate separation of church and state, is nothing more than the expressions of disgruntled secularists, who think that the Bill of Rights gives to them freedom from religion.

Robert Meyer is a hardy soul who hails from the Cheesehead country of the upper midwest. Robert is known by his opponents as a "clever rhetorician" who often exposes the fallacies of knee-jerk arguments presented in local papers. Seeking to develop precepts for every aspect of life — based on a conservative Christian worldview — Robert often gleans inspiration from looking off his back deck, over the scenic Fox river and recalling the wise counsel of those who mentored him. To bark about this editorial, contact Robert at

Immigration Reform is Simple: Enforce Existing Laws by National Commander Paul A. Morin


The American Legion’s Position on Illegal Immigration

By American Legion National Commander Paul A. Morin

The United States Senate should block the compromise immigration bill---the issue is too important to create new laws while ignoring existing laws.

The American Legion, most Americans, and the majority of legal immigrants oppose any measures that sanction or condone coming to this country in any manner other than as stipulated by existing law, whether disguised as "undocumented workers" or "guest-worker programs" or any other wordsmithing that is synonymous with amnesty.

Americans understand the meaning of "immigration," but the adjectives "legal" and "illegal" seem to be deliberately ignored by some.

The American Legion’s official position is simple: enforcement, enforcement, and enforcement.

Assimilation into American society by legal immigrants is important to the nation’s welfare; however, the failure to properly enforce existing immigration laws divides the nation and manifests both serious racial and cultural turmoil.

The message to Capitol Hill is clear:

* Oppose any great influx of legal immigrants and support immigration quotas set on a moderate and regulated scale in numbers that enable immigrants to be readily absorbed into the culture and lifestream of the United States.
* Call for a strong and ceremonially rich citizenship naturalization process.
* Remain steadfast in the belief that all legal immigrants seeking citizenship should possess a level of proficiency with the English language and an understanding of U.S. history and government.
* Advocate that a naturalization ceremony should be mandatory and conducted in the English language and in a U.S. district court.
* Support legislation that allows legal immigrants who are U.S. military veterans, with less than three years of active-duty service, to seek naturalization if they are injured or their injuries were aggravated while on active-duty with the U.S. Armed Forces, resulting in a discharge under honorable conditions.

Before enacting new laws that legalize illegal conduct, try enforcing existing laws.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

NASCAR sues AT&T for $100 million

NASCAR sues AT&T for $100 million

By CHARLES ODUM, AP Sports Writer
Sun Jun 17, 6:53 PM ET

ATLANTA - NASCAR filed a $100 million counter claim against AT&T Inc. on Sunday, accusing the wireless provider of interfering with its exclusive sponsorship agreement with rival wireless company Nextel.

The suit also asks that NASCAR be granted the right to kick AT&T — and all telecommunications companies other than Nextel — out of its top series in 2008.
NASCAR filed the suit electronically in U.S. District Court in Atlanta, alleging breach of contract, fraud and misrepresentation, and conspiracy to aid and abet wrongful interference with Nextel.

NASCAR and AT&T have been battling all season over NASCAR's refusal to allow AT&T to put its logos on Jeff Burton's car. Burton and his Richard Childress Racing team have a sponsorship agreement with Cingular, which has since been purchased by AT&T.

AT&T is re-branding the company, but NASCAR would not allow the logos to be changed, citing its agreement with Nextel. Cingular and Alltel were grandfathered into the sport when Nextel entered in 2004, but no changes are permitted to their deals and no other telecommunications companies are allowed into the sport.

NASCAR claims Nextel has exclusivity through its 10-year, $700 million investment.

AT&T sued, and U.S. District Judge Marvin Shoob issued a preliminary injunction last month that allowed the Cingular logos to be replaced. He also barred NASCAR and any entity affiliated with it from interfering with AT&T's rights as primary sponsor of the car in the Nextel Cup series.

Burton has raced with AT&T logos since the May 19 ruling. He and Childress both said Sunday they were close to a contract extension for both the driver and AT&T.

In its counterclaim, NASCAR charges that AT&T and Cingular breached its contract with NASCAR, noting the company agreed to abide by NASCAR rules.

NASCAR is seeking a ruling that it "may take certain actions for the 2008 season in order to protect NASCAR and all participants in the sport by placing NASCAR into full compliance with the terms and conditions of the Nextel Sponsorship Agreement."

"Cingulars refusal to follow NASCAR rules and accept NASCARs denial of this paint scheme, and the filing of this lawsuit, has undermined NASCARs authority as the sanctioning body of stock car auto racing," said the suit.

Most notable among those "certain actions" is that "NASCAR may exercise its discretion not to offer NASCAR membership to Cingular or AT&T for the 2008 NASCAR Nextel Cup Series season."

NASCAR also contends it should have the right to not offer a driver and car owner agreement for 2008 to any car sponsored by a telecommunications company other than Nextel.
Alltel sponsors Ryan Newman for Penske Racing.
NASCAR spokesman Ramsey Poston said NASCAR does not comment on pending litigation.
AT&T spokesman Mark Siegel could not be reached for comment.

More Random Thoughts

My mind had some free time to think up of some goofy thoughts, so I actually wrote most of them down in order to share them with you here. Buckle up really tight, in case you have to laugh too hard.

1. Who was the first snake oil salesman, and was he really selling snake oil?,

2. Isn't the phrase political correctness an oxymoron? The only thing that is "politically correct" for politicians is their favorite radio station, WII-FM (What's In It For Me?). This is especially true in New Jersey, where both grafting and pension-padding is still legal.,

3. Which pudding was the proof found in?, and

4. Who came up with the name disposable douche? I tend to think, "Who wants to keeps it?"

The section below is an extension of my random thoughts, as I digress on some familiar song titles from the years past.

1. "Save A Prayer" by Duran Duran, "Like A Prayer" by Madonna, "Let Us Pray" by Elvis Presley, and "I Say A Little Prayer" by Dionne Warwick (Aretha Franklin has the more famous version)- Don't let the thought police hear you say it in public. They'll be crying, "Separation of church and state."

If I can go off on a tangent, this fallacious phrase does NOT exist anywhere in the Constituion. It was concocted in the mind of the bereaved Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black in the 1947 case, Everson v. Board of Education. This case dealt with the Ewing Township, NJ Board of Education reimbursing partial monies to families for bussing children to Catholic school. If you would like to read more about this, you can read it in Mark Levin's book, Men In Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America . By the way, Hugo Black was a member of the Ku Klux Klan.,

2. "Natural Woman" by Aretha Franklin- Makes me think of O.B. or some other feminine product. I will leave it at that.

3. "Who's Crying Now" by Journey- A couple weeks ago, the answer would have been Paris Hilton. Now, it is disbarred District Attorney Michael Nifong, the man who wrongfully accused three Duke lacrosse players. You only have yourself to blame., and

4. "Falling In Love" by Hamilton, Joe Frank, and Reynolds, "Shining Star" by The Manhattans, and "Faithfully" by Journey- I tend to catch myself singing along to these songs when I hear them. The only problem is that, 1) I am not married, 2) I am not at a wedding reception, and 3) I am currently unattached. If the first two applied and passed the test, then it wouldn't be an issue. Even if I had a girlfriend, it could send them running (maybe not).

I will be working Monday through Friday this week. If you shall leave a message, please be patient. I wish you all a healthy and productive week ahead. Take care.