I'm Offended!

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

New theme, spam issues being worked on (still) and lot’s of content to put up.

I found that I have the ability to block IP addresses so hopefully my spam problem has been fixed. You guys wouldn’t have noticed a difference but I kept getting hundred’s of emails to approve comments on my blog posts. Unfortunately most of those posts were garbage that linked to sites with Chinese or Russian URL’s.

See above.

Mexico is outraged over influx of its own citizens

September 9, 2009

The shoe is on the other foot, and the Mexicans from Sonora don’t like it one bit. Can you believe the nerve of these people? It’s almost funny.
Advertisement

The state of Sonora is angry at the influx of Mexicans into Mexico. Nine state legislators from the state of Sonora traveled to Tucson to complain about Arizona’s new employer crackdown on illegal immigrants from Mexico.Â

It seems that many illegal immigrants from Mexico are returning to their hometowns, and the officials in the Sonora state government are ticked off about it. A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora was in Tucson recently to say Arizona’s new employer sanctions law will have a devastating effect on the Mexican state. At a news conference the legislators said Sonora, Arizona’s southern neighbor comprised mostly of small towns, cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools it will face as Mexican workers here return to their country without jobs or money.

The Arizona law, which took effect Jan. 1, punishes employers who knowingly hire individuals who don’t have valid legal documents to work in the United States. Penalties include suspension or loss of business licenses. Because more companies are complying, illegal immigrants are finding it more difficult to find work, so they are going home.

The Mexican legislators are angry because the influx of their own citizens is placing a burden on the state government.

“How can they pass a law like this?” asked Mexican representative Leticia Amparano-Gomez, who represents Nogales.

“There is not one person living in Sonora who doesn’t have a friend or relative working in Arizona,” she said, speaking in Spanish. “Mexico is not prepared for this, for the tremendous problems it will face as more and more people working in Arizona and sending money to their families, return to their hometowns without jobs.”

“We are one family, socially and economically,” she said of the people of Sonora and Arizona.

Wrong!

The United States is a sovereign nation, not a subsidiary of Mexico, and American taxpayers are not responsible for the welfare of Mexico’s citizens. It’s time for Mexico – and its citizens – to stop parasitically feeding off the United States and start taking care of its citizens’ own needs.

I believe it’s high time for all American states to pass a law like the one in Arizona. Perhaps that would solve many immigration problems that the U.S. Congress refuses to address.

Joseph Jerome is a resident of Parowan and a member of The Spectrum & Daily News Writers’ Group.

U.K. Official Says Oil Was Part Of Lockerbie Talks

by The Associated Press
September 5, 2009

Trade and oil considerations played a major role in the decision to include the Lockerbie bomber in a prisoner transfer agreement between Britain and Libya, a senior British official said in an interview published Saturday.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw said trade, particularly a deal for oil company BP PLC, was “a very big part” of the 2007 negotiations that led to the prisoner deal. The agreement was part of a wider warming of relations between London and Tripoli.

“Libya was a rogue state,” Straw was quoted as saying by The Daily Telegraph newspaper. “We wanted to bring it back into the fold and trade is an essential part of it — and subsequently there was the BP deal.”

The British government has faced intense criticism over the release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, a Libyan convicted in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am airliner over Lockerbie, Scotland. The attack killed 259 people aboard the plane, most of them American, and 11 on the ground.

Last month Scottish officials freed al-Megrahi, 57, on compassionate grounds because he is dying of prostate cancer.

Although he was not released under the prisoner transfer agreement, opposition politicians, and many victims’ families, claim business considerations influenced the decision to free him.

On Wednesday, Prime Minister Gordon Brown insisted there was “no conspiracy, no cover up, no double dealing, no deal on oil” over the bomber’s release.

But officials admit the prisoner transfer agreement was part of a wider set of negotiations aimed at bringing Libya in from the international cold, and improving British trade prospects with the oil-rich nation.

David Lidington, foreign affairs spokesman for the main opposition Conservatives, said it was “very hard to square what Jack Straw says today with Gordon Brown’s repeated denials of any kind of deal.”

“That’s why we need an independent inquiry to get to the truth.”

Documents released by the government show Straw had originally tried to ensure that al-Megrahi was exempted from any prisoner deal with Libya, but in December 2007 he changed his mind. He wrote in a letter to his Scottish counterpart that “wider negotiations with the Libyans are reaching a critical stage” and a blanket agreement was in “the overwhelming interests for the United Kingdom.”

Soon after, Libya ratified a $900 million oil exploration deal with BP. The oil company acknowledged Friday that it had urged the government to sign the prisoner transfer deal, but insisted it had not singled out al-Megrahi as part of the discussion.

Straw said Brown had not been involved in negotiations over the prisoner agreement.

“I certainly didn’t talk to the PM,” he was quoted as saying. “There is no paper trail to suggest he was involved at all.”

Well most of it.  I tried to find the parts that everyone was complaining about.  After ’skipping to the good parts’, I was quite unnerved by what I read.  Here’s some of it;

Sec. 401. Tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage.
‘SEC. 59B. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.

‘(a) Tax Imposed- In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of-
‘(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year,

‘(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

This is proof in black and white that having health care is NOT an OPTION. You MUST have ‘acceptable’ health care coverage or you are fined with a tax penalty. If you can’t afford it, you go on the ‘free one’ (tax payer funded) the government is giving out. Socialism indeed.

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.
(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term ‘grandfathered health insurance coverage’ means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

Obama said you can keep your coverage. He didn’t state under what conditions. If you make ANY changes (ie Have a child) you MUST enroll in a ‘government approved’ health insurance plan. Also an employer will not be allowed to add any new employee’s to their health care plan. Another example of socialism.

SEC. 1173A. STANDARDIZE ELECTRONIC ADMINISTRATIVE TRANSACTIONS.
‘(D) enable the real-time (or near real-time) determination of an individual’s financial responsibility at the point of service and, to the extent possible, prior to service, including whether the individual is eligible for a specific service with a specific physician at a specific facility, which may include utilization of a machine-readable health plan beneficiary identification card;

Here’s a double whammy! A backdoor to National ID cards and RATIONING! Why should anyone be ‘eligible’ for ’specific services’ or ’specific physicians’? I thought this was health care for all? Isn’t this ‘just like’ what congress gets?

3 SEC. 246.
NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.
Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

It says it won’t allow payments for affordability credits. Nothing about not providing health care. I’m leery about this because there is no way to verify who is illegal. I personally know someone who was illegal (now legal) who pulled a social security number out of his ass and put it down on his job application. What makes it worse is this;

“On July 16, an amendment by Rep. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) that would have required use of the SAVE program to prevent illegal immigrants from receiving the affordable premium credits was defeated by the House Ways and Means Committee.”

If covering illegals is a major issue with this Health Care ‘Reform’ Bill, why would they defeat this amendment? If this amendment passed, it would have put my mind at ease on this one issue.  I smell fish.