I've been hearing about something called the "North American Community" for a couple of years now. The history behind it is that in March of 2005, President Bush, the Prime Minister of Canada, and President Vincente Fox of Mexico had a meeting and decided to start us on a road that will push us toward the goal of becoming a "North American Community", something similar to the European Union.
I have to admit that when I first heard this, I thought, "Sounds a little 'grassy knoll' to me," and I didn't think that much about it. However, if you "google" the term "North American Community", quite a few articles pop up. Sometimes you will hear it called "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" (SPP) -- there is even a website at
http://spp.gov/.
There is a local radio talk-show host in our area that has poo-pooed all of this; his idea is that there are conspiracy geeks that sit in their underwear at their computers until the wee hours of the morning making this stuff up, all while wearing tin foil on their heads.
I took a look at the "thomas" website today (http://thomas.loc.gov/) and searched through what the Senate is presenting this week as our "new" immigration bill -- Senate Bill 1639. Everyone seems to read the first few sections of this legislation; no one seems to care about all of the hidden things they stick in these bills towards the end. I usually start reading somewhere in the middle and work my way to the end, then hit the beginning sections last. In Section 413 (a) (9) it says, "The Partnership for Prosperity is a bilateral initiative launched jointly by the President of the United States and the President of Mexico in 2001, which aims to boost the social and economic standards of Mexican citizens, particularly in regions where economic growth has lagged and emigration has increased."
Section 413 (a) (10) says: "The Presidents of Mexico and the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada, at their trilateral summit on March 23, 2005, agreed to promote economic growth, competitiveness, and quality of life in the agreement on SECURITY AND PROSPERITY PARTNERSHIP OF NORTH AMERICA."
Section 413 (b): "SENSE OF CONGRESS REGARDING PARTNERSHIP FOR PROSPERITY - It is the sense of Congress that the United States and Mexico SHOULD ACCELERATE the implementation of the Partnership for Prosperity to help generate economic growth and improve the standard of living in Mexico..."
If you keep reading through the bill, you will see that we (translation: the US taxpayer) are going to pour untold amounts of money into Mexico to help with loans for farmers, to assist Mexico in establishing better banking, to help Mexico "strengthen education and training opportunities" in Mexico, and the US will help Mexico improve health care for the people still living in Mexico.
So the Senate's answer to illegal immigration is to pour billions of dollars into a country where corruption already abounds, without knowing how much of it will actually end up doing any good for anyone other than the corrupt leaders. My first question is, why do we have to basically pay what ends up being "extortion" money in order to solve illegal immigration? Where are we going to get money for schools in Mexico when we can't seem to find it for so many rural and inner-city schools that don't have enough in our own country? We can't have health care for all American citizens, but we have enough money to help Mexico with their health care? I feel my taxes going up every second!
More importantly, if the "SPP" is just a myth, why is it in black-and-white in a Senate bill under consideration?
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Saturday, June 2, 2007
President Bush on My Mind
I just finished helping my husband lay tile in our bedroom. Actually, he lays the tile and grouts it, and I come behind him with a wet sponge and wipe off the excess grout. As I worked away, getting more dirty and more smelly by the minute, my thoughts turned to President Bush.
I think of him often: when I am cooking dinner or doing dishes, when I am pulling weeds in my yard, or carrying in my groceries. My teenage son thinks of him when he mows the yard and washes the car. I didn't ask my husband if he was thinking of President Bush when he put a new roof on our old house.
Why do I think of President Bush? Because according to him, I am supposed to have illegal aliens doing all of these jobs for me. When did he tell me that? Every time he goes to the microphone to talk about the "guest worker" program. I have lost track of how many times he has asked the question, "If we deport these 12 million people (more like 20 million, but okay), who will mow our lawns or clean our homes and watch our children?".
The fact that he thinks I have someone doing all of these things for me shows me just how out of touch he is with my life. He keeps saying that it is time we bring the illegal aliens out of the shadows and get them paying their fair share of taxes. I guess he forgot about the days when he was in their tax bracket (ha ha). My niece is in that tax bracket; she's in that "early married" stage of life where you are just getting started. She is married, with one child, and she and her husband have those "starter" jobs while she tries to work her way through school. Thanks to the child tax credit, the child care credit, and a little something called the "earned income credit" for lower-wage earners, her family had $500 in taxes withheld during the year and at tax time received a refund check from the IRS for $3,700. How many of the people President Bush is talking about will be in the same situation? I guess that must have slipped his mind.
Whether it is $400 haircuts (that's almost a new sofa at my house), a prominant senator who is rumored to be building a gigantic vaction home on some island, or a President who cannot imagine life in America without a throng of people around to do what we just consider "daily chores", the rhetoric and lifestyles surrounding today's politicians shows me that they have no concept of the reality of my life at all. And probably no concern for it, either.
I think of him often: when I am cooking dinner or doing dishes, when I am pulling weeds in my yard, or carrying in my groceries. My teenage son thinks of him when he mows the yard and washes the car. I didn't ask my husband if he was thinking of President Bush when he put a new roof on our old house.
Why do I think of President Bush? Because according to him, I am supposed to have illegal aliens doing all of these jobs for me. When did he tell me that? Every time he goes to the microphone to talk about the "guest worker" program. I have lost track of how many times he has asked the question, "If we deport these 12 million people (more like 20 million, but okay), who will mow our lawns or clean our homes and watch our children?".
The fact that he thinks I have someone doing all of these things for me shows me just how out of touch he is with my life. He keeps saying that it is time we bring the illegal aliens out of the shadows and get them paying their fair share of taxes. I guess he forgot about the days when he was in their tax bracket (ha ha). My niece is in that tax bracket; she's in that "early married" stage of life where you are just getting started. She is married, with one child, and she and her husband have those "starter" jobs while she tries to work her way through school. Thanks to the child tax credit, the child care credit, and a little something called the "earned income credit" for lower-wage earners, her family had $500 in taxes withheld during the year and at tax time received a refund check from the IRS for $3,700. How many of the people President Bush is talking about will be in the same situation? I guess that must have slipped his mind.
Whether it is $400 haircuts (that's almost a new sofa at my house), a prominant senator who is rumored to be building a gigantic vaction home on some island, or a President who cannot imagine life in America without a throng of people around to do what we just consider "daily chores", the rhetoric and lifestyles surrounding today's politicians shows me that they have no concept of the reality of my life at all. And probably no concern for it, either.
Smoking Bans and Other "Annoyances"
I want to state up front that I am not a smoker and never will be. I find it an unpleasant habit that I will never understand and there are times that it can be an annoyance. Apparently, Dallas Mayor Laura Miller found it an annoyance, too, when she and her daughter went out for dinner one night. The difference is that when she is annoyed, she can do something about it. Before the city knew it, they had a full-out smoking ban in all of their restaurants. I always thought that businesses had the right to make those kinds of decisions. Of course, there DO need to be some measures taken: separate "smoking" sections, some added ventilation systems, etc., to make sure that it does NOT become a health issue (no clouds of smoke billowing across your table as you eat), but in the end I would like to think that this "land of the free" left this decision to freedom: the freedom of patrons to choose to go to a restaurant or not, and the freedom of a business owner to have the kind of atmosphere he or she wants in their business.
If we all have the right to do away with things that are unhealthy and annoying in our eating establishments, then do you want to know what I find unhealthy and annoying? Children in buffet-style restaurants. If I were mayor, children under the age of 12 would be banned! I cannot count the number of times I have stood in line behind some small child as they SLOWLY made their way through the buffet. After seeing some sweet darling scratch their bottom or pick their nose, my stomach lurched as I watched them manhandle each dinner roll until they found just the right one. After finally finding some food that had not been contaminated with a million germs from a grubby hand, I began the journey to my table. This is where the real peril ensued. As I tried to keep my drink from sliding off my tray as I waddled along, a sweet little girl ran squealing, trying to get away from her brother. They both darted in front of me, causing me to stop on a dime, sloshing soda all over my new shirt. My mother, who has broken bones in previous falls at home, required a full compliment of body guards (us) to surround her as she made the dangerous journey. So, in my perfect world, young children would be tied to their chairs or sent to Chuck E. Cheese.
Is my point that I don't like children? Nope. I popped out two of those little critters myself and rearing them has been THE most important thing I will probably ever do. But one person's annoyance does not always deserve to be policy. And while it may be "fashionable" today to come down on smoking in the name of "health and welfare", I have to wonder what comes next? Will they start weighing me on a scale at the front of the restauraunt and select the size of my plate based on my number? Before you think I am crazy, remember that New York has now told its restaurants they cannot use trans-fats, and many other places are following suit. I've always thought it odd that if I want to go out and have indiscriminant sex or an abortion on demand, then it is "my body, my choice", but if I want to throw down an order of hot, yummy french fries then I need the government to protect my body from my choice. Does it really go both ways?
If you are someone who hates cigarette smoke, then you have won a victory. For today. But remember, today's smoking ban might become tomorrow's ban on something you like that some smoker finds annoying.
If we all have the right to do away with things that are unhealthy and annoying in our eating establishments, then do you want to know what I find unhealthy and annoying? Children in buffet-style restaurants. If I were mayor, children under the age of 12 would be banned! I cannot count the number of times I have stood in line behind some small child as they SLOWLY made their way through the buffet. After seeing some sweet darling scratch their bottom or pick their nose, my stomach lurched as I watched them manhandle each dinner roll until they found just the right one. After finally finding some food that had not been contaminated with a million germs from a grubby hand, I began the journey to my table. This is where the real peril ensued. As I tried to keep my drink from sliding off my tray as I waddled along, a sweet little girl ran squealing, trying to get away from her brother. They both darted in front of me, causing me to stop on a dime, sloshing soda all over my new shirt. My mother, who has broken bones in previous falls at home, required a full compliment of body guards (us) to surround her as she made the dangerous journey. So, in my perfect world, young children would be tied to their chairs or sent to Chuck E. Cheese.
Is my point that I don't like children? Nope. I popped out two of those little critters myself and rearing them has been THE most important thing I will probably ever do. But one person's annoyance does not always deserve to be policy. And while it may be "fashionable" today to come down on smoking in the name of "health and welfare", I have to wonder what comes next? Will they start weighing me on a scale at the front of the restauraunt and select the size of my plate based on my number? Before you think I am crazy, remember that New York has now told its restaurants they cannot use trans-fats, and many other places are following suit. I've always thought it odd that if I want to go out and have indiscriminant sex or an abortion on demand, then it is "my body, my choice", but if I want to throw down an order of hot, yummy french fries then I need the government to protect my body from my choice. Does it really go both ways?
If you are someone who hates cigarette smoke, then you have won a victory. For today. But remember, today's smoking ban might become tomorrow's ban on something you like that some smoker finds annoying.
Friday, June 1, 2007
Hidden Items in Immigration Legislation
As a talk-radio fan, I have heard a lot of discussion on pending immigration legislation. Most of it has centered on amnesty and whether or not the current legislation being considered is or is not amnesty. Although this is a concern of mine (and I do have quite a few thoughts on this), my big concerns are all of the hidden items that might be lurking in this bill that no one is talking about. While browsing the Thomas website, I came across Senate Bill 1348, sponsored by Harry Reid (Border Security and Immigration Reform Act of 2007 [Placed on Calendar in Senate]). When I read Sections 113 - 117, I was amazed by what I found.
I will admit up front that I am no lawyer, and hopefully I am misunderstanding what is there; however, if I am reading this correctly, amnesty for illegal aliens is the least of our worries. There are measures in here that seem to begin the chipping away of our sovereignty as a nation.
Section 117 discusses "Cooperation With the Government of Mexico". Regarding building a fence along the US/Mexican border, Subsection (d) basically says that US Government officials will have to consult with Mexican officials "before the commencement of any such construction in order to-- (1) solicit the views of affected communities; (2) lessen tensions; and (3) foster greater understanding and stronger cooperation on this and other important security issues of mutual concern." So does that mean that President Bush and the Senate do not have to listen to what the citizens of the US want, but they DO have to listen to what the citizens of Mexico want?
The title in Section 114 says it all - "Improving the Security of Mexico's Southern Border". This section basically says that officials of the US, Canada, and Mexico are going to assess the needs of Guatemala and Belize to secure their borders and then WE ARE GOING TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO HELP MEXICO SECURE ITS SOUTHERN BORDER. Now, we don't have the funds/manpower that we need to secure our borders, but by golly we are going to make sure that no one sneaks into Mexico. It would be laughing hysterically by now if I weren't so shocked.
Section 113(3)(C) considers "exploring methods for Canada, Mexico, and the United States to waive visa requirements for nationals and citizens of the same foreign countries;", while (3)(E) looks at "developing and implementing an immigration security strategy for North America that works toward the development of a common security perimeter by enhancing technical assistance for programs and systems to support advance automated reporting and risk targeting of international passengers;". Not being a lawyer, am I wrong in thinking that this sounds like we are going to have one outer perimeter of the three North American countries, with freedom to move about as if it were one country? Is that the ultimate goal?
You can debate the issue of "amnesty" all day, and it is a worthy debate. However, that isn't what keeps me up at night. This pig in a poke of a bill is much more far-reaching that that. Its long, shadowy hand reaches out to slowly choke our sovereignty as a nation.
I will admit up front that I am no lawyer, and hopefully I am misunderstanding what is there; however, if I am reading this correctly, amnesty for illegal aliens is the least of our worries. There are measures in here that seem to begin the chipping away of our sovereignty as a nation.
Section 117 discusses "Cooperation With the Government of Mexico". Regarding building a fence along the US/Mexican border, Subsection (d) basically says that US Government officials will have to consult with Mexican officials "before the commencement of any such construction in order to-- (1) solicit the views of affected communities; (2) lessen tensions; and (3) foster greater understanding and stronger cooperation on this and other important security issues of mutual concern." So does that mean that President Bush and the Senate do not have to listen to what the citizens of the US want, but they DO have to listen to what the citizens of Mexico want?
The title in Section 114 says it all - "Improving the Security of Mexico's Southern Border". This section basically says that officials of the US, Canada, and Mexico are going to assess the needs of Guatemala and Belize to secure their borders and then WE ARE GOING TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO HELP MEXICO SECURE ITS SOUTHERN BORDER. Now, we don't have the funds/manpower that we need to secure our borders, but by golly we are going to make sure that no one sneaks into Mexico. It would be laughing hysterically by now if I weren't so shocked.
Section 113(3)(C) considers "exploring methods for Canada, Mexico, and the United States to waive visa requirements for nationals and citizens of the same foreign countries;", while (3)(E) looks at "developing and implementing an immigration security strategy for North America that works toward the development of a common security perimeter by enhancing technical assistance for programs and systems to support advance automated reporting and risk targeting of international passengers;". Not being a lawyer, am I wrong in thinking that this sounds like we are going to have one outer perimeter of the three North American countries, with freedom to move about as if it were one country? Is that the ultimate goal?
You can debate the issue of "amnesty" all day, and it is a worthy debate. However, that isn't what keeps me up at night. This pig in a poke of a bill is much more far-reaching that that. Its long, shadowy hand reaches out to slowly choke our sovereignty as a nation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)