Friday, June 29, 2007


I'm one of the "old guard" who, in my youth, used to visit Canada and Mexico regularly and enjoyed the hospitality (at the time) of both countries. I'm also an honorably discharged vet (Korean War) who absolutely resents the very idea that our government wants to tax us all some more by requiring that $100+ passports be carried by legal citizens. I understand the argument that this might protect us from terrorists, but I don't buy that. With all the capabilities of creating forged documents today, it would seem to be a simple matter for these people to supply the overworked state department with clever, and honest looking documentation that would appear legitimate. In other words, the idea seems to be good, but in the cold light of reason and fact, it fails the acid test miserably.
This email was sent to both my Senators. If I receive any response, I'll post it in the comments.
The following was sent to me by a friend and I reprint here. I'm not sure if I believe it all because many years ago I went freely into and out of Mexico without all this foldorol. On the other hand, I did not seek employment there and the government was friendly with the U.S.
I also know that for a number of years a fair amount of Americans retired into Mexico because the cost of living was considerably cheaper than remaining in the states. Take your choice, most likely you know more about present day Mexico than I do:
Subject: illegal immigrants, US vs Mexico
Date: Sat, 19 May 2007 07:38:26 -1000
I received this from my friend in California in April 2006. His preamble to the email was interesting to note then but now - in light of the legislation working its way through DC - it's pertinent. He said: What interests me about this is not the content below, but that most Americans don't understand that we have no boundaries, no real impediments to entering our country and participating in our society, no standards or restrictions -- at least, none that we enforce and adhere to, and that we're probably the only nation in the world like this. Without enforcement, there is no law. The only power of law is its ability to be enforced. Without boundaries, we live at the mercy of others.
The following from a director with SW BELL in Mexico City. I spent five years working in Mexico. I worked under a tourist visa for three months and could legally renew it for three more months. After that you were working illegally. I was technically illegal for three weeks waiting on the FM3 approval. During that six months our Mexican and US Attorneys were working to secure a permanent work visa called a FM3. It was in addition to my US passport that I had to show each time I entered and left the country. Barbara 's was the same except hers did not permit her to work. To apply for the FM3 I needed to submit the following notarized originals (not copies) of my: 1. Birth certificates for Barbara and me. 2. Marriage certificate. 3. High school transcripts and proof of graduation. 4. College transcripts for every college I attended and proof of graduation. 5. Two letters of recommendation from supervisors I had worked for at least one year. 6. A letter from The St. Louis Chief of Police indicating I had no arrest record in the US and no outstanding warrants and was "a citizen in good standing."
7. Finally; I had to write a letter about myself that clearly stated why there was no Mexican citizen with my skills and why my skills were important to Mexico. We called it our "I am the greatest person on earth" letter. It was fun to write.
All of the above were in English that had to be translated into Spanish and be certified as legal translations and our signatures notarized. It produced a folder about 1.5 inches thick with English on the left side and Spanish on the right. Once they were completed Barbara and I spent about five hours accompanied by a Mexican attorney touring Mexican government office locations and being photographed and fingerprinted at least three times.
At each location (and we remember at least four locations) we were instructed on Mexican tax, labor, housing, and criminal law and that we were required to obey their laws or face the consequences. We could not protest any of the government's actions or we would be committing a felony. We paid out four thousand dollars in fees and bribes to complete the process. When this was done we could legally bring in our household goods that were held by US customs in Laredo Texas. This meant we rented furniture in Mexico while awaiting our goods. There were extensive fees involved here that the company paid. We could not buy a home and were required to rent at very high rates and under contract and compliance with Mexican law. We were required to get a Mexican drivers license. This was an amazing process. The company arranged for the licensing agency to come to our headquarters location with their photography and finger print equipment and the laminating machine. We showed our US license, were photographed and fingerprinted again and issued the license instantly after paying out a six dollar fee. We did not take a written or driving test and never received instructions on the rules of the road. Our only instruction was never give a policeman your license if stopped and asked. We were instructed to hold it against the inside window away from his grasp. If he got his hands on it you would have to pay ransom to get it back. We then had to pay and file Mexican income tax annually using the number of our FM3 as our ID number. The companies Mexican accountants did this for us and we just signed what they prepared. I was about twenty legal size pages annually. The FM 3 was good for three years and renewable for two more after paying more fees. Leaving the country meant turning in the FM# and certifying we were leaving no debts behind and no outstanding legal affairs (warrants, tickets or liens) before our household goods were released to customs. It was a real adventure and If any of our senators or congressmen went through it once they would have a different attitude toward Mexico.
The Mexican Government uses its vast military and police forces to keep its citizens intimidated and compliant. They never protest at their White House or government offices but do protest daily in front of the United States Embassy. The US embassy looks like a strongly reinforced fortress and during most protests the Mexican Military surround the block with their men standing shoulder to shoulder in full riot gear to protect the Embassy. These protests are never shown on US or Mexican TV. There is a large public park across the street where they do their protesting. Anything can cause a protest such as proposed law changes in California or Texas.
Please feel free to share this with everyone who thinks we are being hard on illegal immigrants.
S. Joy Webster
602 Loulu Way
Makawao, HI 96768
Phone & fax: 808/572-6303
One more thing from my correspondent:
Two illegal immigrants are panhandling on the street. Jose drives a Mercedes, lives in a mortgage free house and has a lot of money to spend. Carlos only brings in 2 to 3 dollars a day.
Carlos asks Jose how he can bring home a suitcase full of $10 bills every day.
Jose says "Look at your sign. It says: I have no work, a wife and 6 kids to support."
So Carlos looks at Jose's sign.
It reads "I only need another $10.00 to move back to my country".


There's an article from New Hampshire about a novel way to help people not get tickets for speeding. (Click on the header.)
A guy named Larry Lemay has come up with a solution both new and different. It makes sense to him, anyway.
I remember when it was common to see signs all over stating "Speed Kills".
My high school Driver's Ed teacher had a saying (although like most teen agers we kind of ignored it): "We have 100 mile an hour cars, 65 mile an hour highways and 25 mile an hour brains."
The only thing that hasn't changed in his remark is the speed of our brains.
I read a column that stated that more than 1,250,000 people were killed every year on our high speed highways. Shucks, that's more than we have had killed in Iraq.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

HERE'S SOME LIGHTER STUFF ] ~ Children Are A Wonder ~ Trying To Dress An Active Child Is Like Trying To Thread A Sewing Machine While It's Running. There Are Two Things A Child Is Willing To Share. Communicable Diseases, And Their Mother's Age. Cleaning Your House While The Kids Are At Home Is Like Trying To Shovel The Driveway During A Snowstorm. Kids Really Brighten A Home. They Never Turn Of Any Lights. An Alarm Clock Is For People Who Don't Have Any Small Kids. Shouting To Make Your Child Obey Is Like Using The Horn To Steer Your Car. Lastly, Any Child Will Tell You The Sole Purpose Of Their Middle Name Is So They Can Tell When They Are Really In Trouble. Almost a third of young adults in the UK would prefer, if given the choice, to give up sex rather than their mobile phone, according to a survey conducted as part of the Mobile Life forum. Mobile Life is a joint initiative of The Carphone Warehouse and the London School of Economics (LSE). The survey of 1256 adults aged 16 to 64 was carried out by Ipsos-Mori during May 11 to 14. The research showed that almost a third (30%) of young adults aged between16-24 would prefer, if given the choice, to give up sex, chocolate, alcohol and hot drinks than their mobile phone. In comparison, an overwhelming 28% of those aged 25-34 singled sex out as the one thing they wouldn't want to give up for a month (seems that Generation Y still have a lot to learn from Generation X). Overall almost two thirds of those questioned (63%) also believe that a mobile phone is ‘vital to maintaining their quality of life.' This figure rose to 77% amongst those aged 16-24. In stark contrast, under half (48%) of those aged over 55 agreed with the statement. The survey also reaffirmed that mobile phones have become a social must have, with 76% of those questioned feeling that ‘it is now a social requirement to have a mobile phone'. Those aged 16-24 are pioneering the notion that being contactable at any time is a must in today's society; an overwhelming 92% agreed with the statement. Although once seen a techie gadget for men, the rise of fashion phones has made women more likely to agree that mobile phones are a social requirement, at 81% compared with 71% of men. The survey confirmed something that we all already know, that the British truly are eccentric, well actually, stark raving mad, with a staggering 1 in 3 people saying that they would not give up their mobile phone for a million pounds or more. A million pounds is almost US$2 million. Like, hello, I'd give up sex, chocolate, alcohol, hot drinks AS WELL AS my mobile phone for US$2 million. Mad dogs and English men... Cat owners can now see what their pet gets up to once theygo through the flap. It follows the launch of 'cat cam' by a German inventor, reports the Daily Mail. J├╝rgen Perthold, who lives in America, attached his light-weight camera to the collar of his tom cat Mr Lee. "I wanted to find out what he gets up to, where he spends his days," Mr Perthold said. "He goes out the whole day, sometimes he returns hungry sometimes not, sometimes with traces of fights, sometimes he also stays out all night. It gave me the idea to equip the cat with a camera. "The camera takes one photo a minute for 48 hours and has revealed that the chubby tabby has the hots for a neighbouring feline, although he is in contention withanother black tom. Mr Lee spends much of his time exploring the undergrowth, looking longingly up at bird feeders and meeting other moggies under parked cars. The camera weighs 70 grams including the batteriesand Mr Perthold said it didn't give his cat any problems. He wrote his own software to control the camera and perfected the design. He is now selling his invention for $30 in the US. (And I'll bet I know a couple of people who will tell me what they would call this invention?) If you take an Oriental person and spin him around several times, does he become disoriented? If people from Poland are called Poles, why aren't people from Holland called Holes? Why do we say something is out of whack? What's a whack? Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery? If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled? If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular? When someone asks you, "A penny for your thoughts", and you put your two cents in, what happens to the other penny? Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker? Why do croutons come in airtight packages? It's just stale bread to begin with. When cheese gets it's picture taken, what does it say? Why is a person who plays the piano called a pianist but a person drives a race car not called a racist? Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites?Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things? Why isn't 11 pronounced onety one? "I am" is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that "I do" is the longest sentence? If lawyers are disbarred and clergymen defrocked, doesn't it follow that electricians can be delighted, musicians denoted, cowboys deranged, models deposed, tree surgeons debarked, and dry cleaners depressed? If Fed Ex and UPS were to merge, would they call it Fed UP? Do Lipton Tea employees take coffee breaks? What hair color do they put on the drivers licenses of bald men? I was thinking about how people seem to read the Bible a whole lot more as they get older, then it dawned on me . . .they're cramming for their finals. I thought about how mothers feed their babies with tiny little spoons and forks so I wondered, what do Chinese mothers use? Toothpicks? Why do they put pictures of criminals up In the Post Office? What are we supposed to do, write to them? Why don't they just put their pictures on the postage stamps so the mailmen could look for them while they delivered the mail? If it's true that we are here to help others, then what exactly are the others here for? You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive. No one ever says, "It's only a game", when their team is winning. Ever wonder what the speed of lightning would be if it didn't zigzag? Do you think that, if I played a blank tape at full blast, mimes would go nuts? If a cow laughed really hard, would milk come out her nose? If olive oil comes from olives, where does baby oil come from? Whatever happened to Preparations A through G?


"Senate Blocks Immigration Bill By Charles Babington
Washington - The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President Bush's plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.
"The bill's supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants. The vote was 46 to 53 in favor of limiting the debate. "Senators in both parties said the issue is so volatile that Congress is highly unlikely to revisit it this fall or next year, when the presidential election will increasingly dominate American politics. "A similar effort collapsed in the Congress last year, and the House has not bothered with an immigration bill this year, awaiting Senate action. "The vote was a stinging setback for Bush, who advocated the bill as an imperfect but necessary fix of current immigration practices in which many illegal immigrants use forged documents or lapsed visas to live and work in the United States. "It was a victory for Republican conservatives who strongly criticized the bill's provisions that would have established pathways to lawful status for many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants. They were aided by talk radio and TV hosts who repeatedly attacked the bill and urged listeners to flood Congress with calls, faxes and e-mails. "The bill would have toughened border security and instituted a new system for weeding out illegal immigrants from workplaces. It would have created a new guest worker program and allowed millions of illegal immigrants to obtain legal status if they briefly returned home. "Bush, making a last-ditch bid to salvage the bill, called senators early Thursday morning to urge their support. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez approached senators as they entered and left the chamber shortly before the vote. " 'We have been in contact with members of Congress over the past couple of days and the president has made it clear that this is important to him,' White House spokesman Tony Snow said before the vote. "But GOP conservatives led the opposition. They repeatedly said the government must secure the borders before allowing millions of illegal aliens a path to legal status. " 'Americans feel that they are losing their country ... to a government that has seemed to not have the competence or the ability to carry out the things that it says it will do,' Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., said in the debate's final hour. "Sen. Elizabeth H. Dole, R-N.C., said many Americans 'don't have confidence' that borders, especially with Mexico, will be significantly tightened. 'It's not just promises but proof that the American people want,' Dole said. "But the bill's backers said border security and accommodations to illegal immigrants must go hand in hand. ' "Year after year, we've had the broken borders,' said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. "Year after year, we've seen the exploitation of workers. Year after year, we've seen the people who live in fear within our own borders. This is the opportunity to change it. Now is the time.' "Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told colleagues that if the bill faltered, the political climate almost surely would not allow a serious reconsideration until 2009 or later. It would be highly unlikely, she said, 'in the next few years to fix the existing system... We are so close.'
"In any moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing,and the worst thing you can do is nothing."--- Theodore Roosevelt.
Seems they did the right thing.
Senator Edward Kennedy. He wants us to bail out one more country whose people won't do anything to help themelves. Now
he seems to have an attitude of to hell with American's needs. Let's bail the world out of it's misery. And why is it wrong to have people who have deliberately and knowingly broken various laws to live in fear of retribution? By the way Senator, now is NOT the time.
As for Dianne Feinstein remark, my answer is: And? What's your point?
I'm sure you noticed that Gutierrez tried to influence the Senate vote. I occurs to me that he is lucky I'm not his boss.
I wonder what the Homeland Security Mistake said to Senators? Don't you suppose he backed President Dubya? You know. Homeland Security: The joke you want to cry about.
Hooray for our smarter Senators. Thank you.
If you click on the header, you'll see how easy it is to register to vote in this country.

Sunday, June 24, 2007


<--- Is laughing 'cause it's better than crying.

I watched Meet The Press this morning. First off, I want to point out that I don't always subscribe to the ideas and thoughts they allow many of our political clowns to foist off on an unsuspecting audience. And my agreeing with Pat Robertson is an event in this household.

But he and an, um, illegal alien sycophant, (one Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill) had at it today. Pretty good shouting match but Robertson was not as rude as Gutierrez. It reminded me that the winner of a debate is rarely the person who shouts and yells the most.

If you click on the header you can see Representative Gutierrez' stand on illegality in America. No where does he use the word illegal. At least I didn't see it. Now, Mr Gutierrez is the chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Immigration Task Force. Could that position possibly create a conflict of interest? You betcha dupa it could. (I don't see "illegal" on their pages, either.)

The link to the MTP transcript is here: .

Among asinine claims by those supporting amnesty for the illegals is the idea that these people help the American economy. That they help the middle class stay strong and viable. Now, I wonder how taking any job at minimum wage (or lower) "helps" the economy?

My Economics 101 professor would have a fit with that. Economic logic dictates that the fewer people who are available to do a particular job, the higher the remuneration will be. In other words, if the most mundane job in the world has three hundred openings and only one hundred people apply for the jobs, the company will offer more money until they get the other two hundred needed workers.

However, if six hundred people apply for these jobs, management has no incentive to raise the pay scale. Thus that other big lie, that the illegals only do the jobs that Americans won't, is patently ridiculous. Pay a man for his efforts and he will work for you.

Chapter two of this tirade will continue when (and if i get enough response to this article).