Would You Wait Over a Century to Reunite with Your Family?

Would you wait 131 years to reunite with your brother or sister? How about 112 years to see your children, or mom or dad, again? Probably not ... since at that point, barring any astounding medical advances in the intervening time, you'd be dead.

Prakash Khatri, attorney, Homeland Security consultant, and former Citizenship and Immigration Ombudsman in the Department of Homeland Security, recently issued a press release to call attention to the ludicrousness of the American immigration system. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will take the money of hopeful Mexican immigrants with family in the United States, but fails to let them know they're going into a line they'll most likely die before seeing the end of. *cough* scam *cough*

While for these family members a "line" does exist (which many people who want to immigrate don't even have), it's an absurd one. The State Department reports that the family visa backlog for Mexico's FB 2B category (over-21 unmarried children of permanent residents) goes back to 1992, but Khatri reveals that those applying today can expect to wait rather more than a couple decades under our current country-based cap on immigration.

The press release provides a handy chart with the estimated wait time, calculated based on the number of family visas we've issued annually over the past five years. At our current rate, the wait for a FB 2B visa for a Mexican family member is 112 years — as in, you'll be dead before your kids can join you. Khatri also crunches the numbers looking at 10 years of visas, which makes the the picture slightly rosier, but not much: the expected wait is 95 years. And if the child gets married in that time, you're out of luck: unless you become a U.S. citizen, there's no longer a way for your offspring to immigrate through you.

Another quirk of immigration law is that an "intending immigrant" can be (and often is) denied a visitors visa. So for the next 112 years, not only can't your kids immigrate, they can't even make a short visit for a family reunion, an additional insult. Even the spouses (heterosexual couples only, of course) or children under 21 of permanent residents wait 3.5 years, which is of course lightening speed in comparison, but because that ban on visiting still applies, also a long time to go without even a visit, especially if the children are little.

For U.S. citizens, your over-21 children can immigrate from Mexico within a short 40.1 years. Oh, unless they got married in that time: then tack on another 6.5 years on to the delay. In any case, you might all still be alive then — important, since if the sponsor of an immigration application dies, so does the application. A citizen's siblings, however, can hop onto the 131-year line. (For perspective, the oldest living human being ever confirmed died before she hit her 123rd birthday.) Why don't they just say there isn't a snowball's chance in hell your brother or sister will be permitted to immigrate?

If I were a U.S. citizen trying to bring my family to join me in America, I'd be deeply infuriated with the current dragging of heels on immigration reform. This is why comprehensive immigration reform that emphasizes family-based immigration is so vital; we must get rid of the unjust system that keeps families apart. When the system is designed to take people's money, but never offer a real chance at entering the United States and seeing their family again (ahem ... scam), it's no wonder people go through the ordeal of immigrating without authorization. If we provided a way for them to get in line and legally rejoin their families before being delivered in a coffin, they would do it in a heartbeat.

By: Alex DiBranco

Sorry, Dr. Paul, I believe in Civil Rights

The U.S. is debating the Civil Rights Act of 1964...all over again.

No, we're not stuck in some kind of crazy time warp - it's just election season 2010.

This past week, the victor in Kentucky's Republican Senate primary and Tea Party favorite Rand Paul decided to come out swinging against parts of the Civil Rights Act. It's not that he supports racism, Paul says. But he does support private businesses' right to deny certain customers based on whether they're black or white in the name of "private ownership."

As NAACP President and Change.org Changemaker Benjamin Jealous writes this week, Paul is leading U.S. voters down a dangerous, ill-informed path.

According to Paul, the market's free hand would eventually have forced most businesses to serve black people.

But Paul is badly in need of a history lesson. Even after Jim Crow laws were reversed, those businesses that actually served blacks were still subject to threats and outright violence - often sanctioned by local and state governments. The market would never have eliminated slavery, and it's not going to eliminate racism, either.

After making his inflammatory comments on NPR and the Rachel Maddow Show and sparking widespread backlash, Paul went silent. On Friday, he canceled his planned appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press." He's now equivocating on his statements about whether he would have voted the Civil Rights Act, but he hasn't backtracked on his argument that companies should have the right to deny service to blacks and other minorities.

All this is conduct hardly befitting a candidate for the United States Senate. By endorsing a system that allows businesses to humiliate and discriminate against minorities at will, Paul is appealing to the worst strands of our nation's history. And by then shrinking from debate after his reckless comments, he's failing to give the voters of Kentucky a clear sense of where he really stands.

NAACP President Benjamin Jealous has offered to debate Rand Paul about the Civil Rights Act and the role of discrimination in America - anytime, anywhere. If Rand Paul wants a seat in the highest elected body in the country, he should be willing to an open debate about his vision for America.

American Citizen Faced Deportation

American Citizen Faced Deportation
By Alex Perez & BJ Lutz
NBCChicago.com
updated 4:18 p.m. PT, Tues., May 25, 2010

A Chicago man who spent the weekend in jail and faced deportation on suspicion he is in the country illegally said what happened to him illustrates the need for America to change the way it deals with immigration.
Eduardo Caraballo said his self-described nightmare began last week when he was arrested in connection with a stolen car case. He maintains his innocence and says the car case is still being investigated, but says the real problems began when his mother posted his bail Friday.
Instead of being released, he was told by authorities that Immigration and Customs Enforcement was detaining him because he was an illegal immigrant.
"That's crazy. Because I was born in Puerto Rico. I never knew that Puerto Rico wasn't part of the United States," the 32-year-old said Monday.
Caraballo said he repeatedly told officers that he was born in Puerto Rico and therefore an American citizen. His mother also presented his birth certificate, but despite that and his state-issued ID, officials told him he was facing deportation.
"I'm pretty sure they know that Puerto Ricans are citizens, but just because of the way I look -- I have Mexican features -- they pretty much assumed that my papers were fake," he said. "They were making me feel like I can't voice my opinion or I can't even speak for myself to let them know that I am a citizen."
He says officers asked him specific questions about the Caribbean island that he could not answer, mostly because he moved to the mainland when he was 8 months old and has only been back to Puerto Rico once since birth.
Almost three days later, and after his mother contacted Rep. Luis Gutierrez's office, immigration officials released Caraballo at about 2 p.m. Monday.
And now, Gutierrez, who's fighting for national immigration reform, wants answers.
"You know what this proves to you? That in Arizona, they want everybody to be able to prove they're legally in the country. They want everybody to prove that they're an American citizen. Here we had an American citizen, that the federal government, not state authorities, but the federal government, with all their technology and all their information capacity that they have, could not determine, for more than three days, his status as an American citizen. It's very, very, very dangerous ground to tread," the Chicago Democrat said.
The Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office declined to answer specific questions about Caraballo's case, but in a statement released Monday afternoon said that he was released once his citizenship was confirmed.
Caraballo said he is considering legal action and hopes his story is a lesson.
"Immigrations should analyze the way they judge people. They can't just judge people by their color or their features, by the way they look, they should actually investigate thoroughly, and they should do that before they put the hold on somebody," he said.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37328213/

Danny Westneat | The fruits of our labor absurdity | Seattle Times Newspaper

Danny Westneat | The fruits of our labor absurdity | Seattle Times Newspaper

Know Your Rights

El Servicio de Inmigración y Naturalización (Immigra t i o n
and Naturalization Service - INS) ha pasado a formar
p a r te del Departa m e n to de Seguridad Nacional (Department
of Homeland Security - DHS) y su nombre y org a n i z a c i ó n
han sido modificados de la siguiente manera:
1. Oficina de Ciudadanía y Servicios de Inmigra c i ó n
(Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services - BCIS)

2. Oficina de Aduanas y Protección de Fronteras
( B u reau of Customs and Border Pro tection – CBP)
3. Oficina de Control de Inmigración y Aduanas
(Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement - ICE)

Estas tres oficinas forman parte del DHS y para los fines
del presente folleto se las denominará “DHS”.
I. ¿QUÉ HAGO SI LA POLICÍA, EL FBI
O LOS AGENTES DEL DHS SE PONEN
EN CONTACTO CONMIGO?

P: ¿Tengo que responder a las preguntas que me
hagan los agentes?

R: C o n st i t u c i o n a l m e n te usted tiene derecho a no
co n te star las pre g u n tas. El negarse a re s p o n d e r
a las pre g u n tas no co n st i t u ye un delito. Se re co m i e n d a
hablar con un abogado antes de acceder a re s p o n d e r
cualquier pre g u n ta. No está obligado a hablar co n
nadie aunque haya sido arre stado o incluso si se
e n c u e n t ra en prisión. Sólo un juez le puede ord e n a r
que co n te ste pre g u n tas.
P: ¿Puedo hablar con un abogado?

R: Tiene derecho a hablar con un abogado antes de
responder cualquier pregunta ya sea que la p o l i c í a
le haya informado o no sobre dicho dere c h o . La ta re a
del abogado es pro teger sus derechos. Una vez que
expresa su deseo de hablar con un abogado, lo s
funcionarios deberían dejar de hace r le preguntas.
Aunque no tenga un abogado, le puede decir al
funcionario que desea hablar con un abogado a n tes d e
responder cualquier pre g u n ta. Si tiene un a b o g a d o,
lleve siempre su ta r j e ta consigo. Muést re s e l a al
funcionario y solicite llamar a su abogado. Recuerd e
o b tener el nombre, el org a n i s m o al que pertenece y
el número de teléfono de cualquier investigador
que lo visite, y comuníquele dicha información a
su abogado.
P: ¿Los agentes pueden re g i s t rar mi vivienda u of i c i n a ?

R: La policía u otros agentes encargados del
c u m p l i m i e n to de la ley no pueden re g i st rar su vivienda
a menos que usted lo permita, o a menos que te n g a n
una orden de allanamiento. Una orden de allanamiento
es una orden judicial que permite que la policía
realice una búsqueda específica. Interferir con el
allanamiento probablemente no i n terrumpirá la
realización del mismo y podrían arre sta r lo. Sin embarg o ,

II. ¿QUÉ HAGO SI NO SOY
C I U DA DA N O Y EL DHS SE PONE
EN CONTACTO CONMIGO?

Haga valer sus derechos. Si usted no exige que se
re s p e ten sus derechos o si firma alguna documenta c i ó n
renunciando a sus derechos, el DHS lo puede
deportar antes de que usted vea a un abogado o a
un juez de inmigración. N u n ca firme documenta c i ó n
alguna sin antes leerla, entenderla y conocer las
consecuencias de firmarla.

Hable con un abogado. Si fuera posible, lleve co n s i g o
el nombre y número de teléfono de un abogado
que responderá a sus llamados. Las leyes de
inmigración son difíciles de entender y ha habido
muchos cambios últimamente.

De acuerdo con las leyes, reglamentaciones y
directrices del DHS actuales, las personas que no
son ciudadanas tienen los siguientes derechos
independientemente de su situación inmigratoria.
La siguiente información puede cambiar por lo cual
es importante que se comunique con un abogado.

Los siguientes derechos se aplican a personas
que no son ciudadanas que se encuentren en el
territorio de los EE.UU. Las personas que no son
ciudadanas que se encuentran en la frontera y
que están tratando de ingresar a los EE.UU.
tienen restricciones adicionales y no tienen todos
los mismos derechos.

P: ¿Tengo derecho a hablar con un abogado an tes
de responder cualquier pregunta del DHS o de
firmar cualquier documentación del DHS?

R: Sí. Si lo detienen, tiene derecho a llamar a un
abogado o a su familia; también tiene derecho a que
un abogado lo visite mientras se encuentra dete n i d o.
Tiene derecho a que su abogado lo acompañe en
cualquier audiencia ante un juez de inmigración. No
tiene derecho a un abogado designado por el gobierno
p a ra pro ce d i m i e n tos de inmigración; pero si ha
sido arre stado, los funcionarios de inmigración le
tienen que most rar una lista de prove e d o res de
servicios jurídicos gra t u i tos o de bajo co sto.

P: ¿Debería llevar mi tarjeta de residencia perma -
nente (green card) u otra documentación de inmi -
gración conmigo?

R: Si tiene documentación que lo autoriza a perm
a n e cer en los EE.UU., debe llevarla consigo. La
p re s e n tación de documentación falsa o ve n c i d a
a n te el DHS puede tener como consecuencia la
d e p o r tación o una acción penal. La pre s e n ta c i ó n
de una ta r j e ta de residencia permanente (gre e n
ca rd), un formulario I-94, un Permiso de tra b a j o
( E m p loyment Authorization Card), una Ta r j e ta para
c r u ce de fro n te ra (Border Cro ssing Card) o cualquier
o t ra documentación vigente que pruebe que su
situación es legal cumplirá con este re q u i s i to.
debe ex p resar clara m e n te que usted no prestó su
co n s e n t i m i e n to y que el allanamiento se realiza en
contra de su voluntad. L e g a l m e n te, su co m p a ñ e ro
de habitación o huésped puede dar su consent
i m i e n to para que se l leve a cabo un allanamiento si
la policía considera que dicha persona cuenta con
la a u toridad para hace r lo . La policía y los agente s
e n ca rgados del cumplimiento de la ley nece s i tan una
o rden para re g i st rar una oficina, pero su emple a d o r
puede acceder a que se realice el allanamiento de
su puesto de trabajo sin su permiso.
P: ¿Qué hago si los agentes tienen una orden de
a l l a n a m i e nto?

R: Si usted se encuentra pre s e n te cuando los agente s
l legan para realizar el allanamiento, puede solicita r
q u e le muest ren la orden. La orden debe especifica r
d e ta l l a d a m e n te los lugares que se re g i st rarán y l a s
p e rsonas o cosas que se pueden lleva r. Llame a s u
abogado tan pro n to como le sea posible. Pre g u n te si
le permiten observar el allanamiento; si se lo p e r m i te n,
debería hace r lo. Tome nota de los nombre s , los número s
de placas, a qué organismo perte n e ce cada funcionario,
los lugares donde registraron y lo que se lleva ro n .
Si se encuentran pre s e n tes otra s personas, pídales
que actúen como testigos para que observen cuidad
o s a m e n te lo que está suce d i e n d o .

P: ¿Tengo que responder a las pre g u ntas si la policía
tiene una orden de allanamiento?

R: No. La existencia de una orden de allanamiento
no implica que usted deba co n te star pre g u n ta s .
P: ¿Qué hago si los agentes no tienen una orden de
allanamiento?

R: Usted no está obligado a permitir que la policía
registre su vivienda, ni tiene que responder sus
preguntas. La policía no puede obtener una orden
basándose en su negativa.

P: ¿Qué hago si los agentes no tienen una orden de
allanamiento pero insisten en registrar mi vivienda
incluso después de que me opongo?

R: No interfiera con el allanamiento. Si hay alguna
persona con usted, pídale que sea testigo de que
usted no está prestando su consentimiento para
que se realice el allanamiento. Llame a su abogado
tan pronto como le sea posible. Tome nota de
los nombres y los números de placas de los fun -
cionarios que realicen el allanamiento.

P: ¿Qué sucede si de todos modos hablo con los
agentes de gobierno?

R: Todo lo que les diga a los agentes encargados
del cumplimiento de la ley puede ser usado en su
contra y en contra de otras personas. Recuerde
que mentir a un funcionario del gobierno constituye
un delito. Guardar silencio hasta que consulte a un abogado no lo es. Aunque ya haya contestado
algunas preguntas, puede negarse a
seguir respondiendo hasta que tenga un abogado.

P: ¿Qué hago si la policía me detiene en la calle?

R : P re g u n te si puede irse. Si le dicen que sí, váya s e .
Si la policía le dice que no está arre stado pero que no
puede irse, usted está siendo detenido. La policía
puede re g i st rar su ve st i m e n ta por afuera si cree que
hay algún motivo para sospechar que usted est á
armado y es peligroso. Si desean seguir re g i st r á n d olo
más allá del ex terior de la ve st i m e n ta, diga claram
e n te: “No permito que me re g i st ren”. De to d o s
modos, es posible que continúen re g i st r á n d o lo. No
es necesario que responda a ninguna pre g u n ta si lo
detienen o arre stan con una excepción importa n te. El
oficial de policía puede pre g u n ta r le su nombre
después que lo hayan detenido y, en algunos esta d o s ,
lo pueden arre star si se niega a re s p o n d e r.
P: ¿Qué hago si la policía me detiene en mi auto m óv i l ?
R: Mantenga las manos donde el oficial de policía
pueda verlas. No está obligado a permitir que lo
registren. Pero si la policía considera que existe
causa probable, puede registrar su automóvil sin
su consentimiento. Los oficiales pueden separar a
los pasajeros de los conductores para interrogarlos
en privado y comparar sus respuestas pero
nadie tiene que contestar preguntas.

P: ¿Qué hago si la policía o el FBI me amenaza con
obtener una citación judicial si no respondo a sus
preguntas?

R: Una citación judicial es una orden por escrito
para que usted se presente a un tribunal y haga
una declaración acerca de información que
pudiera tener. Si la policía o el FBI lo amenazan
con obtener una citación judicial, usted debe llamar
a un abogado inmediatamente. En general,
todo lo que usted diga puede ser usado en su contra.

P: ¿Tengo que co ntestar pre g u ntas si me han arrestado?

R: No. Si lo arrestan, usted no está obligado a
prestar declaración ni a responder a pregunta
alguna. Solicite un abogado inmediatamente.
Siempre debe consultar con un abogado antes de
decidir responder a alguna pregunta.

P: ¿Qué hago si la policía o el FBI me trata mal?

R: Tome nota del número de placa del oficial o
agente, el nombre, u otra información de identifi -
cación. Usted tiene derecho a solicita r le esta info rmación
al oficial o agente. Tra te de enco n t rar te st i g o s
y anote sus nombres y números de te l é fo n o. Si re s u l ta
lesionado, solicite atención médica y tome fo to g ra f í a s
de las lesiones tan pro n to como le sea posible. Llame
a un abogado o co n ta c te a la oficina lo cal de AC LU.
El Servicio de Inmigración y Naturalización (Immigra t i o n
and Naturalization Service - INS) ha pasado a formar
p a r te del Departa m e n to de Seguridad Nacional (Department
of Homeland Security - DHS) y su nombre y org a n i z a c i ó n
han sido modificados de la siguiente manera:

1. Oficina de Ciudadanía y Servicios de Inmigra c i ó n
(Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services - BCIS)

2. Oficina de Aduanas y Protección de Fronteras

( B u reau of Customs and Border Pro tection – CBP)
3. Oficina de Control de Inmigración y Aduanas
(Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement - ICE)

E stas tres oficinas forman parte del DHS y para los fines
del presente folleto se las denominará “DHS”.

I. ¿QUÉ HAGO SI LA POLICÍA, EL FBI
O LOS AGENTES DEL DHS SE PONEN
EN CONTACTO CONMIGO?

P: ¿Tengo que responder a las preguntas que me
hagan los agentes?

R: C o n st i t u c i o n a l m e n te usted tiene derecho a no
co n te star las pre g u n tas. El negarse a re s p o n d e r
a las pre g u n tas no co n st i t u ye un delito. Se re co m i e n d a
hablar con un abogado antes de acceder a re s p o n d e r
cualquier pre g u n ta. No está obligado a hablar co n
nadie aunque haya sido arre stado o incluso si se
e n c u e n t ra en prisión. Sólo un juez le puede ord e n a r
que co n te ste pre g u n tas.

P: ¿Puedo hablar con un abogado?

R: Tiene derecho a hablar con un abogado antes de
responder cualquier pregunta ya sea que la p o l i c í a
le haya informado o no sobre dicho dere c h o . La ta re a
del abogado es pro teger sus derechos. Una vez que
expresa su deseo de hablar con un abogado, lo s
funcionarios deberían dejar de hace r le preguntas.
Aunque no tenga un abogado, le puede decir al
funcionario que desea hablar con un abogado a n tes d e
responder cualquier pre g u n ta. Si tiene un a b o g a d o,
l leve siempre su ta r j e ta consigo. Muést re s e l a al
funcionario y solicite llamar a su abogado. Recuerd e
o b tener el nombre, el org a n i s m o al que pertenece y
el número de teléfono de cualquier investigador
que lo visite, y comuníquele dicha información a
su abogado.

P: ¿Los agentes pueden re g i s t rar mi vivienda u of i c i n a ?

R: La policía u otros agentes encargados del
c u m p l i m i e n to de la ley no pueden re g i st rar su vivienda
a menos que usted lo permita, o a menos que te n g a n
una orden de allanamiento. Una orden de allanamiento
es una orden judicial que permite que la policía
realice una búsqueda específica. Interferir con el
allanamiento probablemente no i n terrumpirá la
realización del mismo y podrían arre sta r lo. Sin embarg o ,

II. ¿QUÉ HAGO SI NO SOY
C I U DA DA N O Y EL DHS SE PONE
EN CONTACTO CONMIGO?

Haga valer sus derechos. Si usted no exige que se
re s p e ten sus derechos o si firma alguna documenta c i ó n
renunciando a sus derechos, el DHS lo puede
deportar antes de que usted vea a un abogado o a
un juez de inmigración. N u n ca firme documenta c i ó n
alguna sin antes leerla, entenderla y conocer las
consecuencias de firmarla.
Hable con un abogado. Si fuera posible, lleve co n s i g o
el nombre y número de teléfono de un abogado
que responderá a sus llamados. Las leyes de
inmigración son difíciles de entender y ha habido
muchos cambios últimamente.
De acuerdo con las leyes, reglamentaciones y
directrices del DHS actuales, las personas que no
son ciudadanas tienen los siguientes derechos
independientemente de su situación inmigratoria.
La siguiente información puede cambiar por lo cual
es importante que se comunique con un abogado.
Los siguientes derechos se aplican a personas
que no son ciudadanas que se encuentren en el
territorio de los EE.UU. Las personas que no son
ciudadanas que se encuentran en la frontera y
que están tratando de ingresar a los EE.UU.
tienen restricciones adicionales y no tienen todos
los mismos derechos.

P: ¿Tengo derecho a hablar con un abogado an tes
de responder cualquier pregunta del DHS o de
firmar cualquier documentación del DHS?

R: Sí. Si lo detienen, tiene derecho a llamar a un
abogado o a su familia; también tiene derecho a que
un abogado lo visite mientras se encuentra dete n i d o.
Tiene derecho a que su abogado lo acompañe en
cualquier audiencia ante un juez de inmigración. No
tiene derecho a un abogado designado por el gobierno
p a ra pro ce d i m i e n tos de inmigración; pero si ha
sido arre stado, los funcionarios de inmigración le
tienen que most rar una lista de prove e d o res de
servicios jurídicos gra t u i tos o de bajo co sto.
P: ¿Debería llevar mi tarjeta de residencia perma -
nente (green card) u otra documentación de inmi -
gración conmigo?

R: Si tiene documentación que lo autoriza a perm
a n e cer en los EE.UU., debe llevarla consigo. La
p re s e n tación de documentación falsa o ve n c i d a
a n te el DHS puede tener como consecuencia la
d e p o r tación o una acción penal. La pre s e n ta c i ó n
de una ta r j e ta de residencia permanente (gre e n
ca rd), un formulario I-94, un Permiso de tra b a j o
( E m p loyment Authorization Card), una Ta r j e ta para
c r u ce de fro n te ra (Border Cro ssing Card) o cualquier
o t ra documentación vigente que pruebe que su
situación es legal cumplirá con este re q u i s i to.Si no lleva esta documentación con usted, lo
podrían acusar de un delito menor. Siempre te n g a
una co p i a de su documentación de inmigración en
poder de un familiar o amigo de confianza que se
la pueda enviar por fax si fuera necesario. Consulte
con su abogado de inmigración sobre su caso en
p a r t i c u l a r. Se le podría exigir que muest re su
i d e n t i f i cación a o f i c i a les de policía, agentes de la
patrulla de fro n te ra y pilo tos de avión.
P: ¿Estoy obligado a hablar con funcionarios del
gobierno ace rca de mis ante ce d e ntes de inmigra c i ó n ?
R : Una vez que haya most rado pruebas de su
situación no está obligado a continuar hablando co n
los funcionarios; esto depende de usted. Le co n ve n d r í a
g u a rdar silencio y hablar con un abogado p r i m e ro ,
dependiendo de su situación. Las leyes de inmigra c i ó n
son muy co m p l i cadas. Podría tener un pro b le m a
sin darse cuenta. Un abogado puede p ro teger sus
d e rechos, asesora r lo, y ayudarlo a ev i ta r dar re s p u e sta s
que lo pueden perjudica r. Si el DHS le hace alguna
p re g u n ta sobre sus cre e n c i a s p o l í t i cas o re l i g i o s a s ,
grupos a los que perte n e ce o co n t r i b u ye, cosas que
ha dicho, lugares a los que h a viajado, u otro tipo de
p re g u n tas que no le pare ce n co r re c tas, usted no
e stá obligado a re s p o n d e r. Un funcionario no puede
s o l i c i ta r le pruebas de su situación inmigra toria en
su hogar u otro lugar privado a menos que te n g a
una orden de allanamiento .

P: Si me arrestan por infringir las leyes de inmigración,
¿tengo derecho a una audiencia ante un
juez de inmigración a fin de de fenderme en contra
de acusaciones de deportación?

R: Sí. En la mayoría de los casos sólo un juez de
inmigración puede determinar su deportación. Sin
e m b a rgo, si renuncia a sus derechos o decide “irs e
del país vo l u n ta r i a m e n te,” accediendo a salir del país,
podría ser deportado sin una audiencia. Si tiene
condenas penales, lo arre sta ron en la fro n te ra, ingre s ó
a los EE.UU. mediante el programa de exención
de visado (visa waiver program), o han ordenado
su deportación en el pasado, us ted podría ser
deportado sin una audiencia. Comuníquese con un
abogado inmediatamente para averiguar si existe
algún tipo de protección judicial para usted.

P: ¿Si me arrestan, puedo llamar al consulado de mi país?

R: Sí. Aquellas personas arrestadas en los EE.UU.
que no sean ciudadanas tienen derecho a llamar
al consulado de su país o solicitar a la policía que
notifique de su arresto al consulado. La policía
debe permitir que funcionarios de su consulado lo
v i s i ten o se comuniquen con usted si los funcionarios
consulares así lo deciden. El consulado de su país
le puede ayudar a enco n t rar un abogado o le
puede ofrecer otro tipo de asistencia.

For More information on this visit http://action.aclu.org/site/

Rand Paul's Exhausting Week

A Three Mintue, Accurate Summary is NOT "brutal"

Kentucky Senate nominee Rand Paul, as you know, bailed on a planned appearance on "Meet The Press" this weekend after a week of enduring...well, you probably know what he endured, right?

In his absence, "Meet The Press" ran a three-minute long video that reviewed everything that had happened, from his win in the GOP primary to subsequent interviews in the Louisville Courier Journal and on the Rachel Maddow Show, his subsequent backtracking on his statements in those settings, and his later statements on the White House's treatment of British Petroleum.


Since then, I've read a number of accounts, touting this video as something that really stuck it to Rand Paul. Taegan Goddard says it was a "brutally tough opening segment." New York Mag's Daily Intel enthuses that the segment allowed "host David Gregory made sure to embarrass him in absentia." Gawker says, "Ouch," in a post entitled "Why You Should Not Cancel On Meet The Press."

Hey, guys, let's get a grip, okay? "Meet The Press" ran a perfectly anodyne video compilation of a series of already well-traveled news stories, for an audience that most likely was hyper-aware of what had already happened in the world of Rand Paul. It doesn't advance the story in any new ways, and adds no further editorial comment other than to mention that Paul had canceled on "Meet The Press." But we knew that was happening on Friday? And that's supposed to be a brutal embarrassment? Reminding people of what they already knew?

Empirically speaking, "Meet The Press" didn't make life any worse for Rand Paul than it already was. I have to imagine that his campaign hardly regrets their decision not to appear on the show if the worst thing they had to endure was a video montage of their own memories

RACHEL MADDOW V RAND PAUL - (This Is Awesome!) PART 1

John Mayer - Waiting On The World To Change

My TEA Party Rally Experience

The following is a compilation of things that I learned, quotes that I heard, opinions that were expressed, and questions I formulated based on my attendance at a TEA Party Rally at Delores' Cafe in Owensboro, KY at 6:30 p.m. May 11, 2010:

Installment 1:

Upon my arrival, I was given bumper stickers (pictured above), a booklet with a copy of The Constitution of the United States (also, pictured above; and I would like to give a sincere "thank you" to the TEA Party of Owensboro for giving it to me) and the following flyer listing reasons to get involved with the TEA Party movement:

Part I: The Flyer (from United Freedom Makers of Daviess County; kyfreedom.com)

Why should I get involved with a Tea Party?
Because of...
1. The need to protect faith and keep us "One nation under God" (Okay, right off the bat, this strikes me to be in stark contrast to what I thought the Party was all about, i.e. freedom and the Constitution of the United States. Bill of Rights, Amendment I. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." I think the Constitution is pretty clear on that one).
2. The Political Attack on Family Values. (I will get to this one later, in the quotation portion of the blog. I didn't understand this one because I needed a clarification of what this statement meant...in my opinion, it can be interpreted many ways).
3. The growing expansion of socialism in our government.
(Distribution of net worth and financial wealth in the United States, 1983-2007
Total Net Worth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 33.8% 47.5% 18.7%
1989 37.4% 46.2% 16.5%
1992 37.2% 46.6% 16.2%
1995 38.5% 45.4% 16.1%
1998 38.1% 45.3% 16.6%
2001 33.4% 51.0% 15.6%
2004 34.3% 50.3% 15.3%
2007 34.6% 50.5% 15.0%

Financial Wealth
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1983 42.9% 48.4% 8.7%
1989 46.9% 46.5% 6.6%
1992 45.6% 46.7% 7.7%
1995 47.2% 45.9% 7.0%
1998 47.3% 43.6% 9.1%
2001 39.7% 51.5% 8.7%
2004 42.2% 50.3% 7.5%
2007 42.7% 50.3% 7.0%

In terms of types of financial wealth, the top one percent of households have 38.3% of all privately held stock, 60.6% of financial securities, and 62.4% of business equity. The top 10% have 80% to 90% of stocks, bonds, trust funds, and business equity, and over 75% of non-home real estate. Since financial wealth is what counts as far as the control of income-producing assets, we can say that just 10% of the people own the United States of America.

Table 6: Distribution of income in the United States, 1982-2006

Income
Top 1 percent Next 19 percent Bottom 80 percent
1982 12.8% 39.1% 48.1%
1988 16.6% 38.9% 44.5%
1991 15.7% 40.7% 43.7%
1994 14.4% 40.8% 44.9%
1997 16.6% 39.6% 43.8%
2000 20.0% 38.7% 41.4%
2003 17.0% 40.8% 42.2%
2006 21.3% 40.1% 38.6%

The rising concentration of income can be seen in a special New York Times analysis of an Internal Revenue Service report on income in 2004. Although overall income had grown by 27% since 1979, 33% of the gains went to the top 1%. Meanwhile, the bottom 60% were making less: about 95 cents for each dollar they made in 1979. The next 20% - those between the 60th and 80th rungs of the income ladder -- made $1.02 for each dollar they earned in 1979. Furthermore, the Times author concludes that only the top 5% made significant gains ($1.53 for each 1979 dollar). Most amazing of all, the top 0.1% -- that's one-tenth of one percent -- had more combined pre-tax income than the poorest 120 million people (Johnston, 2006).

But the increase in what is going to the few at the top did not level off, even with all that. As of 2007, income inequality in the United States was at an all-time high for the past 95 years, with the top 0.01% -- that's one-hundredth of one percent -- receiving 6% of all U.S. wages, which is double what it was for that tiny slice in 2000; the top 10% received 49.7%, the highest since 1917 (Saez, 2009).

And the rate of increase is even higher for the very richest of the rich: the top 400 income earners in the United States. According to an analysis by David Cay Johnston -- recently retired from reporting on tax issues at the New York Times -- the average income of the top 400 tripled during the Clinton Administration and doubled during the first seven years of the Bush Administration. So by 2007, the top 400 averaged $344.8 million per person, up 31% from an average of $263.3 million just one year earlier (Johnston, 2010). (For another recent revealing study by Johnston, check out "Is Our Tax System Helping Us Create Wealth?").

(I know that the above information and statistics are last dated at 2007, but the following is the addendum to the article updated in 2010.)

So far there are only tentative projections -- based on the price of housing and stock in July 2009 -- on the effects of the Great Recession on the wealth distribution. They suggest that average Americans have been hit much harder than wealthy Americans. Edward Wolff, the economist we draw upon the most in this document, concludes that there has been an "astounding" 36.1% drop in the wealth (marketable assets) of the median household since the peak of the housing bubble in 2007. By contrast, the wealth of the top 1% of households dropped by far less: just 11.1%. So as of April 2010, it looks like the wealth distribution is even more unequal than it was in 2007. (See Wolff, 2010 for more details.)

(I do not believe, though, that you can base a Presidential Administration's Economic Policy on numbers alone (in this case, referring to President Obama's Administration as a Socialist Administration). However, as illustrated by the numbers and statistics presented above, it is clear that we do not currently reside in a Socialist country. Our government is not confiscating the wealth of all of individuals and redistributing it equally among the citizens.)

Socialism: 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
-Definition according to Merriam-Webster Online

(The last time I went to Wal-Mart, it was not government owned and the government did not distribute my items to me in the check-out line; I had to pay for them.)

4. The political attack on the Constitution of the United States. (Wow, this one is tough. Mainly because The Constitution was purposely written to be open to interpretation. However on this point I only say, please refer to point #1. If you infuse religion and government, then you are contradictory to Amendment I of the Bill of Rights, which the last time I checked was a part of the Constitution. There are also other things discussed at the meeting that I would consider to be to contradict The Fourth, Fifth, and 14th Amendments, which I will address later in the section about quotes and notes.)

5. The increasing tax burden on hardworking Americans.

President Obama's Comprehensive Tax Policy Plan:

•Cut taxes for 95 percent of workers and their families with a tax cut of $500 for workers or $1,000 for working couples.
•Provide generous tax cuts for low- and middle-income seniors, homeowners, the uninsured, and families sending a child to college or looking to save and accumulate wealth.
•Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.
•Dramatically simplify taxes by consolidating existing tax credits, eliminating the need for millions of senior citizens to file tax forms, and enabling as many as 40 million middle-class Americans to do their own taxes in less than five minutes without an accountant.

Under the Obama Plan:

•Middle class families will see their taxes cut – and no family making less than $250,000 will see their taxes increase. The typical middle class family will receive well over $1,000 in tax relief under the Obama plan, and will pay tax rates that are 20% lower than they faced under President Reagan. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama plan provides three times as much tax relief for middle class families as the McCain plan.
•Families making more than $250,000 will pay either the same or lower tax rates than they paid in the 1990s. Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the tax cuts they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility. But no family will pay higher tax rates than they would have paid in the 1990s. In fact, dividend rates would be 39 percent lower than what President Bush proposed in his 2001 tax cut.
•Obama’s plan will cut taxes overall, reducing revenues to below the levels that prevailed under Ronald Reagan (less than 18.2 percent of GDP). The Obama tax plan is a net tax cut – his tax relief for middle class families is larger than the revenue raised by his tax changes for families over $250,000. Coupled with his commitment to cut unnecessary spending, Obama will pay for this tax relief while bringing down the budget deficit.


Impact of the Obama Tax Plan
WHO TAX CUT
1. Married Couple Making $75,000 with two children, one of whom is in college $3,700
[includes $1,000 Making Work Pay; $500 universal mortgage credit; and $4,000 college credit net of current college credits]

2. Married Couple making $90,000 $1,000
3. Single Parent making $40,000 with two young children and childcare expenses. $2,100
[includes $500 making work pay; $500 universal mortgage credit, and $1,100 from Obama expansion of the child care tax credit]
70-Year Old Widow Making $35,000 $1,900

Source: Calculations based on IRS Statistics of Income. Tax savings is conservative; does not account for up to $500 in savings from expanded Savers Credit and the $2,500 in savings per family from the Obama healthcare plan

Based on the above Comprehensive Tax Policy, I fail to see how President Obama is increasing the tax burden on hardworking families, unless only "hardworking families" are pulling down over $250,000/annually. Also, those households earning over $250,000/annually or more make up less than 5% of the general population. Does that mean the rest of us are NOT working hard? Based on the statement by the TEA Party it can be deduced that 95% of the population are not in the category of "hardworking Americans," i.e. Teachers, Nurses, Police Officers, Fire Fighters, Plumbers, Judges, Social Workers, etc.

So far, I have covered only the first five bullet points in the flyer. There are 24 total. Plus I would like to address to actual stump speeches, question/answer session, and discussion. So, this blog is to be continued. Remember to always challenge your thinking and your own arguments or they never get stronger; to always surround yourself with like minded people only makes YOUR thought process weaker.

Installment 2:

I am now going to continue covering Part I: The Flyer

6. The Redistribution of wealth through government programs.
(I believe much was covered in bullet number 5 concerning this matter, i.e., that the redistribution of wealth is not taking place, but I also feel a need to clarify. I worked as a Family Support Worker for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (the office that provides Food Stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, and K-TAP, known in other states as TANF). So far during the Obama Administration, there have been no changes to these government programs, nor have there been any changes to Social Security benefits. Many who are critics of our current welfare system (including all the programs listed above) simply are not familiar with the facts. The food stamp program is underwritten by the US Department of Agriculture who refuses to allow Able Bodied Adults without Dependents [under the age of 6] (known as ABAWD's) to be eligible for food stamps. Also, Families on K-TAP (TANF, AFDC) are have a 5 year lifetime limit from the date of enrollment in the program. They are required to volunteer 20 hrs a week to receive a monthly check from the government in the total amount of $125/month. The period given is so that recipients can attend college, get job training etc. Recipients are required to meet with a case manager who monitors their progress in becoming independent of the system. The only real change have been some stimulus funds to help those in low paying jobs or the unemployed to obtain job training or higher education thereby making them independent of the system and self-sufficient. Also, the elephant in the room when it comes to the subject of the distribution of wealth is Healthcare. This is a very polarizing issue. So let's take a further look at the actual heathcare plan and see how it "redistributes the wealth," in the next bullet point.



7. The increasing destruction of the American health care system.
(Health reform will make health care more affordable, make health insurers more accountable, expand health coverage to all Americans, and make the health system sustainable, stabilizing family budgets, the Federal budget, and the economy:

Overview of HealthCare Reform:

It makes insurance more affordable by providing the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history, reducing premium costs for tens of millions of families and small business owners who are priced out of coverage today. This helps 32 million Americans afford health care who do not get it today – and makes coverage more affordable for many more. Under the plan, 95% of Americans will be insured.
It sets up a new competitive health insurance market giving millions of Americans the same choices of insurance that members of Congress will have.
It brings greater accountability to health care by laying out commonsense rules of the road to keep premiums down and prevent insurance industry abuses and denial of care.
It will end discrimination against Americans with pre-existing conditions.
It puts our budget and economy on a more stable path by reducing the deficit by more than $100 billion over the next ten years – and more than $1 trillion over the second decade – by cutting government overspending and reining in waste, fraud and abuse.
Key Provisions in Health Reform:
Health reform built off of the legislation that passed the Senate and improves on it by bridging key differences between the House and the Senate and includes several key Republican provisions.

One key improvement, for example, is eliminating the Nebraska FMAP provision and providing significant additional Federal financing to all States for the expansion of Medicaid. For America’s seniors, the reform completely closes the Medicare prescription drug “donut hole” coverage gap. It strengthens the Senate bill’s provisions that make insurance affordable for individuals and families, including protections for out-of-pocket costs, while also strengthening the provisions to fight fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid to save taxpayer dollars. The threshold for the excise tax on the most expensive health plans will be raised from $23,000 for a family plan to $27,500 and will start in 2018 for all such plans.

To read the entire Healthcare Reform Bill as signed and with all updated revisions, please visit http://www.whitehouse.gov. The site encourages questions based on your particular situations, so feel free to ask about anything you don't understand.)

8. The disregard of the immigration laws in the United States. (Please see the next bullet as in my opinion the two topics are too similar not to be addressed at the same time).

9. The lack of protection and security of the United States borders. (Being that my sister is an immigration attorney, that I volunteer at her clinic to help immigrants (documented and undocumented), and given that many people I consider friends and dear my heart are undocumented immigrants (often referred to as Illegal Aliens) I will have to try to keep my personal bias out of this one, but I will offer my opinions on solutions.

First of all, I think it goes without saying that the current Immigration System is broken. The following is a Overall View of The current administration's plan for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Progress

The President signed the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act, which provides quality health care to 11 million kids – 4 million who were previously uninsured -- and removes barriers preventing legal immigrant children from being covered. (Based on my personal experience this a real spending saver in the long run. Many of the children I have worked with are not documented and are, therefore, not eligible for Medicaid. Due to this problem, their parents do not take them to the doctor for check-ups, regular office visits, or for minor illnesses. The problem with this is that when preventative care is not available and a minor illness progresses into a more severe condition, the child's family only has one option...The Emergency Room. We all know how expensive those trips can be, so when a child racks up a $4,000 bill for a hospital visit due to pneumonia, it lies on our shoulders as the insured and the taxpayers to cover that expense.)

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides over $400 million in funds to strengthen security and infrastructure for ports of entry on the Southwest border.

Guiding Principles

President Obama believes that our broken immigration system can only be fixed by putting politics aside and offering a complete solution that secures our border, enforces our laws, and reaffirms our heritage as a nation of immigrants. He believes our immigration policy should be driven by our best judgment of what is in the economic interest of the United States and what is in the best interest of the American worker. President Obama recognizes that an orderly, controlled border and an immigration system designed to meet our economic needs are important pillars of a healthy and robust economy.

Strengthen Border Control
President Obama will protect the integrity of our borders by investing in additional personnel, infrastructure, and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.

Improve Our Immigration System
President Obama will fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and enable legal immigration so that families can stay together.

Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally
President Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by preventing employers from hiring undocumented workers and enforcing the law.

Bring People Out of the Shadows
President Obama supports a system that allows undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.

Work with Mexico
President Obama will promote economic development in Mexico to decrease the economic desperation that leads to illegal immigration.

(In addition to the administration's views, I would like to share some general facts about the subject of immigration that I feel are sometimes not understood by the general public:

Immigration Myth Busters

Myth: Today's immigrants are different than those of 100 years ago

The widespread misconception that "today's immigrants" are somehow more attached to the ways of their home country than the immigrants of earlier generations was probably conjured up hundreds of years ago.
But, before you throw your hands up in defeat when you hear someone argue that new immigrants don't work hard or won't learn English, consider responding with these quick mythbusting facts!

FACT: The percentage of the U.S. population that is foreign-born now stands at 11.5%; in the early 20th century it was approximately 15%.

FACT: Similar to accusations about today's immigrants, those of 100 years ago initially often settled in mono-ethnic neighborhoods, spoke their native languages, and built up newspapers and businesses that catered to their fellow émigrés.

FACT: If we view history objectively, we remember that every new wave of immigrants has been met with suspicion and doubt and yet, ultimately, every past wave of immigrants has been vindicated and saluted.

Myth: The Senate voted to allow illegal aliens access to our Social Security

This common myth is again making the rounds in viral emails and online petitions. Before deleting the frustrating forward, consider responding with these quick mythbusting facts!

FACT: Contrary to what people think, undocumented workers are not (and have never been) eligible to claim social security benefits. Moreover, most undocumented workers will use a false social security number to prove work authorization, therefore paying money into a benefit system that they will never be eligible to use.

According to the Social Security Administration (SSA), undocumented immigrants “account for a major portion” of the billions of dollars paid into the Social Security system under names or social security numbers that don’t match SSA records.

As of October 2005, the reported earnings on which these payments are based—which are tracked through the SSA’s Earnings Suspense File (ESF)—totaled $520 billion.

10. The corruption of our government due to no term limits. (Now, I was under the impression that this particular sect of the Tea Party had major issues with the current president whose term and term limits are clearly spelled out in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the term of four years..." This, in conjunction with Amendment XXII, Section 1. "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of the President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which someone else was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once." As for Senators and members of the House of Representatives, their terms are limited to 6 years and 2 years, respectively, as outlined in Article I, sections 2 and 3. There is no allusion to term limits for either post, and to date no amendments have been passed to change this. So, it is a choice...protect the integrity of the Constitution as written, or advocate for changing it.)

11. The pressure to further the liberal, progressive agenda.

First, let's take a look at what Wikipedia has to say about the word "liberal:"

Words such as liberal, liberty, and libertarian all trace their history to the Latin liber, which means "free".[5] One of the first recorded instances of the word liberal occurs in 1375, when it was used to describe the liberal arts.[6] The word's early connection with the classical education of a medieval university soon gave way to a proliferation of different denotations and connotations. Liberal could refer to "free in bestowing" as early as 1387, "made without stint" in 1433, "freely permitted" in 1530, and "free from restraint"—often as a pejorative remark—in the 16th and the 17th centuries.[7] In 16th century England, liberal could have positive or negative attributes in referring to someone's generosity or indiscretion.[8] In Much Ado About Nothing, Shakespeare wrote of "a liberal villaine" who "hath...confest his vile encounters".[9] With the rise of the Enlightenment, the word acquired decisively more positive undertones, being defined as "free from narrow prejudice" in 1781 and "free from bigotry" in 1823.[10] In 1815, the first use of the word liberalism appeared in English.[11] By the middle of the 19th century, liberal started being used as a fully politicized term for parties and movements all over the world.

The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary defines the word liberal as "giving freely, generous, not sparing; open-minded, not prejudiced ... for general broadening of the mind".[12] It also defines the word as "regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change".[13] Identifying any definitive meaning for the word, however, has proven challenging to scholars and to the general public. The widespread use of the word liberal often inspires people to understand it based on a wide array of factors, including geographic location or political orientation.[14] The American political scientist Louis Hartz echoed this frustration and confusion, writing that "Liberalism is an even vaguer term, clouded as it is by all sorts of modern social reform connotations, and even when one insists on using it in the Lockian sense...there are aspects of our original life in the Puritan colonies and the South which hardly fit its meaning".[15] Hartz emphasized the European origin of the word, conceptualizing a liberal as someone who believes in liberty, equality, and capitalism—in opposition to the association that American conservatives have tried to establish between liberalism and centralized government.

Now for "Progressive:" (According to Dictionary.com)

adjective

1.favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2.making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3.characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.
4.(initial capital letter) of or pertaining to any of the Progressive parties in politics.
5.going forward or onward; passing successively from one member of a series to the next; proceeding step by step.
6.noting or pertaining to a form of taxation in which the rate increases with certain increases in taxable income.
7.of or pertaining to progressive education: progressive schools.
8.Grammar. noting a verb aspect or other verb category that indicates action or state going on at a temporal point of reference.
9.Medicine/Medical. continuously increasing in extent or severity, as a disease.

–noun

10.a person who is progressive or who favors progress or reform, esp. in political matters.
11.(initial capital letter) a member of a Progressive party.
12.Grammar.
a.the progressive aspect.
b.a verb form or construction in the progressive, as are thinking in They are thinking about it.

(Based on the definition of these words and their roots, the ideals do not seem harmful; but perhaps the fear is that when put into practice thses agendas stear us in a direction that does not encourage "improvement..." or "general broadening of the mind.")

12. The need to protect America for future generations. (This will be addressed in quotes and notes, because I also needed clarification for what exactly was intended by this statement.)

13. The growing national debt and careless spending by our government.

By October 2008, due to increases in domestic and foreign spending,[100] the national debt had risen to $11.3 trillion,[101][102] an increase of over 100% from the start of the year 2000 when the debt was $5.6 trillion. (The preceeding infomation about the increase of National Debt under the Bush Administration is an excerpt from a report from the Congressional Budget Office.) This can only be compounded when adding the costs of the Afgan/Iraq wars, a Government Bailout of Wall Street, and a stimulus package that sent money to American families as an incentive to increase consumer spending.

Accumulated Debt/Savings
In the last
65 secs.
Borrowed by the General Fund – $ 12,868,230,079,398* $ 3,345,256
Income: Income taxes. Outgo: Defense 30%, Interest 19%, ...
Saved by the Social Security Trust + $ 2,632,245,780,224 $ 314,245
Income: FICA Payroll taxes. Outgo: Benefits and disability
Saved by other Gov. Trust Funds + $ 4,222,491,089,559 $ -324,071
Income: FICA & gas taxes. Outgo: Medicare, highways, etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Debt Held by the Public (net debt) – $ 8,645,738,989,838† $ 3,669,327

The above is a snapshot of the U.S. National Debt Clock. In short, when President G.W. Bush left office he left a National Debt of $11.4 trillion according to the most recent numbers, and since taking office President Obama has added $1.4 trillion to that number. I don't see how his spending is more severe than that of his predecessor, but I guess only time will tell. And I feel, it must be noted, that some of that debt added under the Obama Administration is the $10 million/month that the Federal Government is spending on the war in Iraq (which proven by recent findings was of no imminent threat to the United States domestically, due to the absence if Weapons of Mass Destruction in their possession.)

That is the end of Installment 2. I have now worked my way through 13 of 24 bullets. Quotes and Notes will be sure to follow. Please keep reading and if you have any additional research to add, send it to me.

Installment #3

Beginning with bullet point #14 from the flyer describing why people should get involved with the Tea Party:

14. The government threat to our freedom and liberty. (I will address this later in quotes and notes, because, once again, I needed specific instances of when the present government has threatened our freedom and proof to back up that statement. However, on the subject of liberty please see the defition of liberty and how the two words "liberty" and "liberal" derive from the same root word. How can they be on opposing sides of the political spectrum? (Based on meaning and etimology alone, of course).

15. The policies that weaken our American military forces. (Yet again, I was given no evidence to support this declartion. However, it is my humble opinion that the current administration is not weakening the "American" military forces. I write "American" in quotes, because as a clarification point I prefer to call them the Armed Forces of the United States of American. The term "American" is ver general and could refer to military forces in any and/or all parts of "America;" i.e. North America (Canada, Mexico, etc.), Central America, and South America. I wondered though if the party was specifically referring to Barack Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp (GITMO)...The current president decided to close the detention camp after several violations of the Geneva convention came to light from 2004-2008...please see below for exerpts from a Dec. 2004 article in the Washington Post decribing such violations reported by the FBI:

"Detainees at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were shackled to the floor in fetal positions for more than 24 hours at a time, left without food and water, and allowed to defecate on themselves, an FBI agent who said he witnessed such abuse reported in a memo to supervisors, according to documents released yesterday..."

"The documents also make it clear that some personnel at Guantanamo Bay believed they were relying on authority from senior officials in Washington to conduct aggressive interrogations. One FBI agent wrote a memo referring to a presidential order that approved interrogation methods "beyond the bounds of standard FBI practice," although White House and FBI officials said yesterday that such an order does not exist.

Instead, FBI and Pentagon officials said, the order in question was signed by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld in December 2002 and then revised four months later after complaints from military lawyers that he had authorized methods that violated international and domestic law..."

"The Army was embarrassed by photos of snarling military dogs and cowering detainees in Iraq, which officials acknowledged later had violated the Geneva Conventions protections for military prisoners."

For more evidence of direct violation of the Geneva Convention's policies regarding the interrogation of Prisoners of War detainees please see the links below:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302380.html
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/353/1/6
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/09/guantanamo.humanrights
http://www.time.com/time/press_releases/article/0,8599,1071230,00.html
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2278021.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc6Mblqzk2E

According to Barack Obama the Executive Order signed closing GITMO was nescessary to prevent any further undermining of the moral authority of the United States. To quote President Obama:

"The message that we are sending around the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly," Obama said. "We are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals."

A draft copy of the order said: "In view of significant concerns raised by these detentions, both within the United States and internationally, prompt and appropriate disposition of the individuals currently detained at Guantánamo and closure of the facility would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice."

As I have mentioned, so far in this administration, I can not find any other points to support the delcaration that the current administration has implemented any other policies that have weakened our U.S. Armed Forces. If you [the reader can find any policies that you feel support this statement, please add them under "comments."

16. The need to reverse the indoctrination of liberalism in our schools.
(This statement could be referring to our public schools on a national level, but since it was a local Tea Party meeting, I will take it from that perspective. As an employee of the Daviess County Public Schools and the daughter of an employee of the Owensboro Public Schools, I do have some personal insights into the day to day operations of the local school systems. I have not witnessed any "indoctrination of liberalism" in either school system. In fact, what I have witnessed would be more on the side of indoctrinating conservatism (and in some cases, even racism). For instance, when the President of the United States decided to address the students of the United States on the issue of Education during a live broadcast [given during school hours], the Owensboro Public Schools sent home a permission slip that parents had to sign and send back to school so that their children could view the President's address. In the Daviess County Public Schools the students were given a slip for parents to return only if they did NOT want their child to see the address. However, Both schools showed the speech on a delay so that it could be reviewed before being seen by students. In my opinion, I believe both school systems acted conservatively in the given situation. Both school systems have in the past year allowed the religious group the Gideons to distribute copies of the New Testament in public schools (which I believe is in violation with the 1st Amendment separating church and state, but is open for interpretation). And, I personally have been the recipient of countless religious e-mails and even a handful of racist e-mails that were sent using the district wide e-mail system. Which, once again, I believe violate the establishment of the separation of church and state. I don't believe racism is a tenent of Conservatism or Liberalism, but wither way it has no part in Public Education. As my mother has always told me, "Hate and Prejudice are taught in the home."

17. The propaganda of state-controlled media.
(This is a tough one for me. Mainly because there was no evidenciary support to back up the claim that our media outlets are state controlled or slanted in some way by the government. However, if there was any evidence out there to support this claim wouldn't the simplest way to solve the issue be to follow the guidelines of the 1st Amendment "Congress shall make no law...abridging freedom of speech, or of the press...and to petition the Government for a redress of such grievances." Such grievances can and should be taken to the United States Supreme Court. The goverment has no power over the media and should not have said power.

Installment #4:

18. The destruction of our free market enterprise system that propels the world economy.

It is true that the United States is a dominant force in the Global Economy, as demostrated by the Recession in the United States and the way it affected the Markets all over the world. However, that recession was caused primarily by the Mortgage Crisis, Corporate Banks, and the Automotive Industry. All of these were results of deregulation. Which means the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) was not doing their job keeping tabs on what the Banks were doing. If we (the US) removes such regulations and deregulates all businesses, then who is looking out for general public. I believe the article below illustrates this point quite clearly; that "inequality destroys capitalism..." and a market free of regulations causes inequality.

The foreclosure crisis is the immediate crisis for triggering of a crisis of astronomical proportions that has come to be termed the The Great Recession. The sub-prime mortgages leading to tumbling foreclosures can be regarded as the immediate cause but there are deeper underlying reasons.

One of the prime reasons was low wages. Hence to avoid a rerun of the crisis is generation of more jobs but with higher wages.

Many argue that the trouble broke because consumer debts reaching unsustainable levels. This has caused the economy to downsize itself to the proper levels equal to the income of the consumers.

Others say that the financial system was abused by those in power resulting in huge losses. The goose that laid the golden egg was killed by themselves.

Basically the gap between the haves and have-nots became monstrous. The wages stagnated while the economy grew leading to this gross inequality. Thus inequality and polarization of wealth led to the gap that suddenly began to topple to find the equilibrium.

Suppose the wealth of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates was converted into $100 bills and made into stacks. The two stacks would go up 30 miles upwards - at least before the collapse in stocks. If the wealth of the richest 1% families is stacked (1.16 million households) the height would be 60 feet. 1% owns about 33.4% of all the wealth of the country. If the savings of the poorer half are stacked then the stack would hardly reach an inch above the ground. So these one inch stacks are encircling a tower in the middle rising 30 miles upwards. Is this fair? In the last ten years the richest 10% families of USA saw their wealth jump by 94% while the average families saw an increase of 30% - this too was totally wiped out by the recent crisis.

Inequality can destroy the capitalistic system. If 99% was owned by the big buddies then there would be no demand for either products or services because one fellow would have the wealth in his pocket. This applies not only on the national scale as of USA but also globally. Thus it is foolish to think that China and others are going to save the situation by having their people start consuming. The logistics remain the same. Production equals to supply and wages equal to demand. There has to be a balance to keep the show going.

Technological advancement in the Internet field caused a revolution that led to a sudden increase in gains for the mother country - USA. But as with all other inventions, when the newness brushed off to other parts of the world, the rate of profit too went burst. But nevertheless already gains were made and some people were sitting with money.

The Internet had made the world a smaller planet and soon the business community was quick to learn that it was cheaper to produce in other parts like China and some countries of South America rather than in USA. Labour was far cheaper. Money dealings could be done on the net and this led to outsourcing. All the big companies shifted their production centres abroad. Service centres too changed gear. Suddenly jobs began to vanish.

But for those with bulging pockets the problem arose about what to do with the money. They did not want to invest in manufacturing production. Had they done so it would have given a fillip to real economy. But they decided on what seemed the easy way out - pour the money into another thing that was real - the real estate.

This led to the rushing in of dollars to boost up the sub-prime mortgage market. But since nothing real was being generated the empty balloon burst. There was no point in building houses for people who ultimately did not have jobs. There was nothing to sustain the economy but an empty balloon.

Joe Lee Simpson, expert author of real estate market, thrives on writing for different niches. For Revitalizing the US Real Estate Market One Property at a Time then better to visit here

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Joe_Lee_Simpson

19. The need for real welfare reform that inspires people to help themselves.

As I stated in bullet point #6, I don't believe most residents of Kentucky know how the welfare system works. If they did, they would see that due to the mandatory volunteer hours, the very small goverment living subsidy, and the five year lifetime limit DO inspire people to either help themselves within 5 years or fend for themselves without government assitance after their limit is up. (Please refer to bullet #6 for a deeper explanation of the Kentucky Welfare System).

Statement Art

My Wish for Mother's Day

This Mother's Day was not bad. I didn't get a new car with a bow on it; I didn't get a new Coach purse; but I did get some Ghirardelli Chocolates, a card, a yellow flower in a "hand-painted" Styrofoam cup, and 3 sushi rolls. I also got to take a nap with my son. My son is 3 years old, but he will be 4 years old in August, so technically, this is my 4th Mother's Day. This is my 2nd Mother's Day, as a "single mother." Though, it was a good day, I kept feeling like something was missing. I know what it is. Now that certain options have faded or been eliminated, I feel as if I am closer to narrowing down what it is I want out of this life. I just want a family. I want a husband and eventually more children that will be as happy to see me at the end of the day as I will be to see them. Sounds simple enough (though it is a complicated subject), but all I want next year is someone (an adult) to share my life with and be my partner and to love me...just the way I am.

Immigration Takes Center Court at Suns-Spurs Playoffs

The Phoenix Suns will once again don their "Los Suns" jersey -- this time in response to Arizona's new immigration law.

It’s not often point guards and power forwards partake in politics.

Responding to a recently passed immigration policy in Arizona, the Phoenix Suns will take the court Wednesday in jerseys bearing their name in Spanish.

Robert Sarver, owner of “Los Suns,” said his team will wear the jerseys during Game Two of its playoff matchup with the San Antonio Spurs, which falls on the Mexican holiday, Cinco de Mayo.

“We are proud that 400 players from 36 countries compete in the NBA, and the league and the Suns have always considered that to be a great strength of the NBA,” he said in a statement.

The move was designed, in part, to honor Phoenix’s Latino community, Sarver said.

The Suns also have a Latin-born player, guard Leandro Barbosa of Brazil. He is one of the NBA’s 18 players from Latin America. Hispanics compose about 15 percent of the NBA’s market, according to the league.

The new immigration law, which goes into effect in August, allows police in Arizona to demand proof of residency. Critics say the law encourages racial profiling. Proponents say it’s a necessary response to stem the tide of illegal immigrants flowing into the state.

The Suns’ protest was roundly supported by NBA players and officials, according to an NBA.com report.

NBA Commissioner David Stern called said he thought the move was “appropriate.” The NBA Players Association also praised the protest as NBAPA Executive Director Billy Hunter called the immigration law “offensive and incompatible with the basic notions of fairness and equal protection.”

Added star point guard Steve Nash: “Obviously the passing of the recent bill and what that means to our state, to civil liberties, and the quality and precedent it’s setting, and message it sends to our youngsters in the community, we have a problem with that. It's great that our owner took the initiative and our players are behind him.”

In an interview with Sports Illustrated’s Dan Patrick, the always outspoken Charles Barkley said the immigration law offended him, both as an African-American and as a resident of Arizona. He suggested the policy was merely a political ploy.

“Most of those immigrants here are busting their hump, doing a great job, and to go after them every couple of years because you want to raise hell doing something to get re-elected, that’s disrespectful and disgusting,” he said.

Despite that the Spurs will do battle with the Suns at 8 p.m. ET, at least one San Antonio player was able to find solidarity with his rivals.

Argentina-born guard Manu Ginobili said he hopes Arizona can find another way to deal with its immigration woes.

“I hope they change [the law] back to what it was and give the workers the possibility to be legal and pay taxes as everyone else,” he told NBA.com.

Wednesday won’t be the first time the NBA has honored the Latino community. In March, the league held Noche Latina (Latin Night), with Los Lakers, the Knicks of Nueva York, Miami’s El Heat and Dallas’ Los Mavs among nine teams wearing Spanish-language jerseys.

SERIOUSLY?!?

What have I ever written on Facebook that would make them think I would buy items from this website???