Secret Squirrel has heard of the Donald Trump comments concerning application of 25 per cent taxation on all imports from China.Squirrel has some firm grounding in economics, and,being already an MRL politician,is skilled in the ways and means of politics and finds Donald Trump to be sadly lacking in both areas,Here Squirrel turns his political and economic savvy towards the analysis and consequences of Donald Trumps harsh,rash, and foolishly made,unthoughtout reactionary statement of
an economic policy and direction he has most certainly made.
Well now,firstly, to get a firm grounding as the basis of this dessertation,let's talk taxes,tariffs, and Valued Added Tax.Tariffs are a form of selective tax, applied to the import of certain items, such that it is an attempt to balance out
and protect local business from the effect of the cheaper foreign imports,tariffs may also be applied by the exporting nations on products exported to other nations,being selective to certain products,but being referred to on occasion as a
tax rather than actual name applied tariff.Tax is just that, a general sale tax, applied at an end product sales to consumer. In between there is Value Added Tax which is applied internally in a specific nation, such as France(France generates 50% of tax income from VAT),where the tax is applied to the product at specific stages in it's development to the final sale,so is cumulative in the final result,much being hidden from the consumer,and still yet may or may not be taxed
by whatever name on the final purchased product.
Donald Trump has stated (should he become President,when and if he decides to run, and assuming he should so dazzle the general American elector with such a display of political bull fertilizer that he should win), he will raise a tax on
China,chinese goods, made in China, 25%.Now where will he raise it, at the source,the lower cost sector...as in first supplier, or when it hits importer/distributor, or at the final the point of purchase. Now the cost of any item starts small, then as each gets it, they add profit margins/cost to it, a sort of value added......till it reaches the retail sales sector, you.You will pay the highest.Of course the cost of those available goods to YOU,will go up.A good idea for you the consumer in these dire times of recession, rising prices,no,but it would benefit any existing American business.
The idea isn't by any means new, nor Trumps really, take U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.,as an example.Schumer's plan: Place a 30 percent tariff on Chinese goods entering the United States. To Schumer, one of the main reasons Chinese manufacturers are able to edge out American businesses is that their government keeps the value of its currency artificially low.“It’s against the rules and against what every other country does,” he said of the practice, which he believes allows Chinese goods to undersell American ones by 30 percent." Schumer even yet offered a reason for it,an economic reason,and Schumer,a politician,elected, carefully considered the public,his stature, and his image, in avoiding blasphemy,foul language,swearing in general.Politicians may not exactly be holy men,but it is best to keep up appearances.Here he wishes China to increase the value of it's currency,but then the stronger currency could purchase more from those with a weaker currency,for less. In short purchases from America, as China does, would then suffer due to the increased value of the currency.And, seeing the undervalued currency at an advantage,Schumer wouldn't suggest lowering the value of the American currency,to improve things, which should work just as much, since then America could purchase even less for it's dollar than it does.This is in the global economic view. America is best to remain in the tunnel vision view, and go with tariffs.Schumer has a sound basis in economics,here he was referring to tariffs on lumber imports affecting constituents, and that of applying tariffs to what are seen to be economic danger areas,a wise and sound grounding in economics reveals itself.
Consider Trumps economic system, is he a financial genius? He is portrayed as such.He's been bankrupt, and.recovered, sort of. You see he lost money, but he didn't loose any of his money, he lost, or would have, and did, loose money, yours in a figure of speaking, investment money, by those who foolishly invested in his businesses...he didn't loose his own money and suddenly have a vast fortune, a fortune great enough to run for President with,a fortune so vast he can afford to easily loose what he frivolously expends running for public office, that of The President Of The United States.
So in some ways his business savvy is exceptionally great, with respect to his own finances.However in cases where he is manipulating and using investment funds of others, they get the business, they get and take the loss.He looses, and he doesn't loose, he looses for you, your money, not his own, which waxes greater according to the system of the day.
So is it such a good idea to tax Chinese goods,made in China, in the United States,raising costs of the goods to you, 25%?Not really, the principles of laissez faire, the business practices of subsidies etc that America is so strictly
against in other countries, is,in effect,violated, as in raising the costs of goods from other nations, in effect subsidizes those of all other nations.
The point here is this does not affect goods from any other nations, in any sector, and so does NOT really protect US businesses.But would he do that now. No,I don't think so,for here we see his words.........
'“We are being ripped off by the rest of the world to the tune of trillions of dollars,” Trump said. “I am not talking about the old word, billions. I am talking about the new word, trillions.” Trump says he knows just how to fix things, starting with China. “Twenty-five percent tax on China, unless they behave,” he told O’Reilly.Trump is advocating total taxation, on everything,rather than a system of balancing and countering tariffs, as have been successfully applied in
economics in past times.Tariffs have proved tried and true in equity and equality for all nations.
However what Trump advocates and envisages is a form of war with another nation,not an economic tool for the improvement or betterment of America and Americans, but rather a political action directed against another nation,a nation with a higher power economy than America's declining one, and he does not expect nor believe that an economically superior nation could not effectively retaliate,He's obviously not well schooled,heeled, nor grounded in the reality of economics and economic systems.
Trump's reactions and ideas, are just that, radical,reactionary,born out of a hot headed, unthinking simple idiocy, founded and based in only one thing, that of playing to the crowd.Can Trump challenge my economic thoughts? Well Now I was taught by John Kenneth Galbraith, that great economic illuminary,in general business economics,the self- same John Kenneth Galbraith, writer of a great many economic tomes,and the economic advisor to President Kennedy, and also in my college days by Dr. Sani,who became Canada's economic advisor, this versus Donald Trump who's successful bankruptcies enriched his
fortunes far yet more greatly, and who didn't loose a cent of his own monies in those bankruptcies, loosing, rather, those who were foolish enough to invest by and through him.Face it, we are,most assuredly, hardly, compares as it were.
So...meaningless political blurb, double speak,the old, "unless they behave."Behave, this is a reason for an action.What
kind of behaviour,refrain from invasions of foreign lands, military intervention sin foreign lands?Behave? What is behave?Is America behaved?Will Donald Trump behave?. I do believe they will be behaved in his days, from the get go of a
Trump Presidency, won't be the very first thing he does when and should,he become President, no indeed.Political bluster,so much empty rhetoric,interspersed with a lot of swearing,blasphemy, and the like.The usual promises all make and don't
keep.One of Obama's was to get rid of the Mexicans,rid America of the illegal immigration problem.From the get go he didn't,he hasn't and is yet proposing and espousing amnesty, which is to absorb the problem and hence make them all
legal..so problem solved, no illegal immigration if it's declared and made legal is there..imagine, Obama kept his promise.
So what is America to do with respect to China? Obviously a system of well planned,well thought out,tariffs,in short economic protectionism, placed to encourage,assist in the development of, and protect, American better business
interests,protectionist tariffs which Reagan and Bush removed.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Secret Squirrel Ponders Tornadoes.
Secret Squirrel sees, and knows, reading and seeing on the tele, of things across the pond,across the big puddle,and in wishing to extend his great helping hand as he sees an America that is a disaster, in all sorts,an America out of sorts, from it's obviously of highly questionable birth President,(imagine, not invited to the Royal Wedding of Prince William,Rightwise Firstborn Son Of the Prince of Wales and Princess Diana,Stepmothered by The Duchess of Cornwall) ,and on down, floods, hurricanes, Mexicans,internal racial civil turmoil,and.........shudder,that great big fear, the tornado,actually tornadoes.
Tornado coming....the big warning, and what to do....Know where you can take shelter in a matter of seconds, and practice a family tornado drill at least once a year.Forget about the old notion of opening windows to equalize pressure; the tornado will blast open the windows for you!Cover yourself with a mattress in case things fall on you, or the house.But what's to do first,change your underwear,make sure it's clean, after all they may find you dead and you don't wish'em to think you lived like a bag man.Get in the basement and under some kind of sturdy protection (heavy table or work bench), or cover yourself with a mattress or sleeping bag. Know where very heavy objects rest on the floor above (pianos, refrigerators, waterbeds, etc.) and do not go under them. They may fall down through a weakened floor and crush you.Always there are yet other variations of things to do, but the major one is, go to the basement.Of course once it passes, and should it have hit your house, look amongst the rubble for your underwear,I imagine about now you'll have to change yours.
Well how are we to avoid tornadoes?Well now, ideally one could simply pack up and move with the house, a solution if at hand there, simply live in an RV (Recreational Vehicle), a sort of live in bus of sorts,or the smaller relative of a Camper of various variety. However, some people simply must live in houses.Well, as we know, tornadoes tend to eradicate houses.However it has been noted, watching things from the outside, that those on the inside, to whom said tornado is happening, they seem to take refuge in basements and cellerages to survive the tornado event.Well how can you avoid all of this.No one seems to have come up with a way,not so far, but I,Secret Squirrel, engineer par excellence, nemesis of The Great Ishambard Kingdom Brunel, I THE GREATER ENGINEER, if I do say so myself, have come up with a solution for it all, a solution so unique, it will affect the design of cities! Yes! Squirrel Cities! Following the Squirrel pattern of construction!
I admit this, I got the idea of the housing in the underground city of Goober Pedy in Australia,they've the right idea there, but no tornadoes........so we simply sensibly apply this to conditions of living with tornadoes. Well, there you see, is the answer, simply don't build and above ground home, build an underground home,or earth sheltered housing as the greens call it.Now I'm not suggesting something ridiculous as a Hobbit Hole, nay, I'm talking full fledged underground, comfortable,affordable, housing!!Indeed one simply must see the sense and sensibility in this.Underground housing makes use of naturally cool surroundings, tremendous savings in electricity in the summer as cooling is quite natural. Now for the winter season,the surrounding earth naturally insulates and hence there is vast energy savings as well when heating is required! All round here we have win win in terms of climate control of said underground housing.And what now of factories etc providing jobs as it were, office spaces etc etc etc.Well, dare I say it, but we have more than adequate examples of the great many underground factories which the Geramns built during the war to avoid allied bombings.Yes indeed, there were vast factories built underground, and quite workable as well they were.Entire cities can be built around underground lines.
Look at Wiltshire,England,Burlington: The 35 acre, secret subterranean Cold War City that lies 100 feet beneath Corsham. built for the cold war, underground, 35acres,Over a kilometre in length, and boasting over 60 miles of roads,completely self-sufficient the secret underground site could accommodate up to 4,000 people,Although never actually used, the New York grid-style city of roads and avenues was equipped with all the facilities needed to survive. From underground hospitals, canteens, kitchens and laundries to storerooms of supplies, accommodation areas and offices,An underground lake and treatment plant could provide all the drinking water needed whilst 12 huge tanks could store the fuel required to keep the four massive generators, in the underground power station, running for up to three months(the self generation was for emergency use, a similar Tornado city would be fed from the outside.......The city was also equipped with the second largest telephone exchange in Britain, a BBC studio from which the PM could address the nation and an internal Lamson Tube system that could relay messages, using compressed air, throughout the complex.So...........not only does the idea work in theory, but it works in practice as well.
And what will the tornadoes do above ground? Well, to be on the safe side, we can employ the thousands of abandoned or the shunned not used FEMA trailers, indeed these can be taken and we can set up false trailer parks near the underground cities.The Soviets made fake blow up tanks and other military vehicles to fool US forces you know.Similarly we could construct blow up trailers, and suitable blow those up whenever there is a tornado warning,in a fake trailer park,near to, but farther away from, our underground city complex,just to be on the safe side.You see, the tornadoes, will be naturally attracted to them, further led away from the city site, as it were, and so all things that must pass, will pass.In short we offer up these fake trailer parks in similar fashion to a libation poured on the ground to satisfy..........err Bacchus as it were, and hence the tornado will be too.
So you see,Squirrel has a solution for everybody's problems........in good time..............should the politicians of the day listen and see the sense in sensibility,but then, they're politicians, and that's all they'll ever be,they're the lot that sat in the back of the class in the corner, and had things thrown at them throughout,the shunned and despised, held in high regard only by the prefects,the lads the blessed bad girls wouldn't allow to touch them.....sad things of the day,and of the present day as well.Sad Sacks you see, sad because they won't see the rhyme and reason of Secret Squirrel's solution to the problem of tornadoes.
Secret Squirrel,
M.R.L.,(MP,Dunny On The Wold),
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.
Tornado coming....the big warning, and what to do....Know where you can take shelter in a matter of seconds, and practice a family tornado drill at least once a year.Forget about the old notion of opening windows to equalize pressure; the tornado will blast open the windows for you!Cover yourself with a mattress in case things fall on you, or the house.But what's to do first,change your underwear,make sure it's clean, after all they may find you dead and you don't wish'em to think you lived like a bag man.Get in the basement and under some kind of sturdy protection (heavy table or work bench), or cover yourself with a mattress or sleeping bag. Know where very heavy objects rest on the floor above (pianos, refrigerators, waterbeds, etc.) and do not go under them. They may fall down through a weakened floor and crush you.Always there are yet other variations of things to do, but the major one is, go to the basement.Of course once it passes, and should it have hit your house, look amongst the rubble for your underwear,I imagine about now you'll have to change yours.
Well how are we to avoid tornadoes?Well now, ideally one could simply pack up and move with the house, a solution if at hand there, simply live in an RV (Recreational Vehicle), a sort of live in bus of sorts,or the smaller relative of a Camper of various variety. However, some people simply must live in houses.Well, as we know, tornadoes tend to eradicate houses.However it has been noted, watching things from the outside, that those on the inside, to whom said tornado is happening, they seem to take refuge in basements and cellerages to survive the tornado event.Well how can you avoid all of this.No one seems to have come up with a way,not so far, but I,Secret Squirrel, engineer par excellence, nemesis of The Great Ishambard Kingdom Brunel, I THE GREATER ENGINEER, if I do say so myself, have come up with a solution for it all, a solution so unique, it will affect the design of cities! Yes! Squirrel Cities! Following the Squirrel pattern of construction!
I admit this, I got the idea of the housing in the underground city of Goober Pedy in Australia,they've the right idea there, but no tornadoes........so we simply sensibly apply this to conditions of living with tornadoes. Well, there you see, is the answer, simply don't build and above ground home, build an underground home,or earth sheltered housing as the greens call it.Now I'm not suggesting something ridiculous as a Hobbit Hole, nay, I'm talking full fledged underground, comfortable,affordable, housing!!Indeed one simply must see the sense and sensibility in this.Underground housing makes use of naturally cool surroundings, tremendous savings in electricity in the summer as cooling is quite natural. Now for the winter season,the surrounding earth naturally insulates and hence there is vast energy savings as well when heating is required! All round here we have win win in terms of climate control of said underground housing.And what now of factories etc providing jobs as it were, office spaces etc etc etc.Well, dare I say it, but we have more than adequate examples of the great many underground factories which the Geramns built during the war to avoid allied bombings.Yes indeed, there were vast factories built underground, and quite workable as well they were.Entire cities can be built around underground lines.
Look at Wiltshire,England,Burlington: The 35 acre, secret subterranean Cold War City that lies 100 feet beneath Corsham. built for the cold war, underground, 35acres,Over a kilometre in length, and boasting over 60 miles of roads,completely self-sufficient the secret underground site could accommodate up to 4,000 people,Although never actually used, the New York grid-style city of roads and avenues was equipped with all the facilities needed to survive. From underground hospitals, canteens, kitchens and laundries to storerooms of supplies, accommodation areas and offices,An underground lake and treatment plant could provide all the drinking water needed whilst 12 huge tanks could store the fuel required to keep the four massive generators, in the underground power station, running for up to three months(the self generation was for emergency use, a similar Tornado city would be fed from the outside.......The city was also equipped with the second largest telephone exchange in Britain, a BBC studio from which the PM could address the nation and an internal Lamson Tube system that could relay messages, using compressed air, throughout the complex.So...........not only does the idea work in theory, but it works in practice as well.
And what will the tornadoes do above ground? Well, to be on the safe side, we can employ the thousands of abandoned or the shunned not used FEMA trailers, indeed these can be taken and we can set up false trailer parks near the underground cities.The Soviets made fake blow up tanks and other military vehicles to fool US forces you know.Similarly we could construct blow up trailers, and suitable blow those up whenever there is a tornado warning,in a fake trailer park,near to, but farther away from, our underground city complex,just to be on the safe side.You see, the tornadoes, will be naturally attracted to them, further led away from the city site, as it were, and so all things that must pass, will pass.In short we offer up these fake trailer parks in similar fashion to a libation poured on the ground to satisfy..........err Bacchus as it were, and hence the tornado will be too.
So you see,Squirrel has a solution for everybody's problems........in good time..............should the politicians of the day listen and see the sense in sensibility,but then, they're politicians, and that's all they'll ever be,they're the lot that sat in the back of the class in the corner, and had things thrown at them throughout,the shunned and despised, held in high regard only by the prefects,the lads the blessed bad girls wouldn't allow to touch them.....sad things of the day,and of the present day as well.Sad Sacks you see, sad because they won't see the rhyme and reason of Secret Squirrel's solution to the problem of tornadoes.
Secret Squirrel,
M.R.L.,(MP,Dunny On The Wold),
Minister For Re-Deranged Re-Engineering.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Secret Squirrel On America's Illegal Immigration Problem.
Secret Squirrel has turned his attention to the massive problem of illegal immigration in the United States,and has found that states are all for enacting and enforcing laws to deal with the rooting out, and deportation of, illegal immigrants,not in defiance of,in actuality, but also in concert with, the government of the United States,should it actually allow the states to do so,in particular as the government of Barack Obama, will not, and does not actually enforce existing the existing laws of America with respect to illegal immigration.In other words,what we actually find,as I mentioned in concert with, the so called controversial laws dealing with illegal immigration are very much paralleling lines the existing illegal immigration laws which for some reason the
government of Barack Obama, being sworn to uphold and enforce the same, won't do,the federal laws of America.It seems Obama and the courts are irritated that States should parallel their laws, and then also,imagine, actually follow and enact them,and heavens forbid,enforce them.Squirrel also has found that whilst the government of Mexico objects to these laws,the government of Mexico itself has utterly and completely similar laws in effect, enacted, enforced laws, and even laws far greater in efforts, being in fact, thence, utterly Draconian,even yet Hitlerite by comparison.Squirrel also found that whilst Obama stands fast as a pinata for the Mexicans, and takes the criticism provided by the Mexican President, he does not attack the Mexican President for having similar laws and yet more Draconian laws, behaviour indicative of a man,of Barack Obama, being there for ineffectual,inadequate,sub standard,below par, as a President of the United States,the wrong man, not at any time, but for all time.But let's look now at the enacted laws which the Mexican President objects to,and Obama as well, and thence also peruse the laws of the Mexican President,himself,of Mexico, and let's then draw our conclusions as to all things having passed,and things which yet should be.
The governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer,was said to have defied Barack Obama to sign into law the toughest anti-immigration legislation in the US.
It is a bill that requires immigrants to carry documents to prove they are citizens, and will penalize employers taking on day workers who are illegal immigrants,among other things,however most of the provisions were blocked by
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton included one requiring a police officer to determine the immigration status of a person detained or arrested if the officer believed the person was not in the country legally.Bolton also halted provisions requiring immigrants to carry their papers at all times and making it illegal for
people without proper documents to tout for work in public places.Effectively this pulls the teeth of the bill,and effectively protects the many illegal immigrants in Arizona. Brewer's lawyers said the federal government hasn't effectively enforced immigration law and that the state law will assist federal authorities.
"I remain steadfast in my belief that Arizona and other states have a sovereign right and obligation to protect their citizens and enforce immigration law in accordance with federal statute," Brewer said in a statement.
The Governor's Office said Brewer, Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne and their legal team — in conjunction with counsel for the Arizona Legislature — will be considering their legal options including appealing to a larger 9th Circuit panel or seeking an immediate petition for the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the injunction.
The bill's author, state Sen. Russell Pearce, issued a statement saying the appeals court ruling was "utterly predictable."
"SB 1070 is constitutionally sound, and that will be proven when the U.S. Supreme Court takes up this case and makes the proper ruling," he said. "This battle is a battle of epic proportions. It is about a state's right to enforce the laws of this land and protect its citizens from those who break our laws."The Justice Department did not immediately comment.
Parts of the law blocked from taking effect while the case works its way through the courts include a provision requiring police to question people's immigration status while enforcing other laws if there is a reasonable
suspicion they're in the country illegally. Other provisions that are on hold include: requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers; making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job; and allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without a warrant.In a separate opinion concurring with the panel's ruling, Appeals Court Judge John T. Noonan noted the intent of the state statute is clear and goes beyond what federal law allows."If we read Section 1 of the statute, the statute states the purpose of providing a solution to illegal immigration in the United States. So read, the statute is a singular entry into the foreign policy of the United States by a single state," he wrote.
Judge Carlos Bea would uphold two of the provisions — those allowing police to question people about their immigration status and to make warrantless arrests — and wrote a pointed dissent."As I see it, Congress has clearly expressed its intention that state officials should assist federal officials in checking the immigration status of aliens," he wrote. He also included a footnote that quoted Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland" to criticize what he called the majority's convoluted reasoning.The passage of SB 1070 last year reignited an immigration debate that has simmered in Arizona and across the nation for years.Proponents called the law a long-overdue effort by a state that has been overburdened by illegal immigration and a lack of federal action on the issue.Others states, however, did follow Arizona's lead,and commenced similar legislation, tired of Barack Obama's do nothing government...The Alabama Senate on Thursday night
approved an Arizona-style immigration bill that would allow law enforcement officers to detain people they suspect of being in the country illegally.
Bill sponsor Sen. Scott Beason, R-Gardendale, said the state needs to address illegal immigration because the federal government has been unwilling or unable to do so."I think the state is just letting people know we are going to do our best to aid in enforcement and try to begin to deal with the issue of illegal immigration," Beason said."With thousands of illegal immigrants in the state working, that's thousands of jobs Alabamians could be holding," Beason said.Beason and other supporters of the bill said the state needs to send a clear message that it will address illegal immigration. But opponents questioned the legality of the bill and said it would lead to racial profiling.The bill would make it illegal to employ, harbor, rent to or give a ride to an illegal immigrant with reckless disregard of the fact the person is in the country illegally.The bill would require police officers to verify a person's immigration status from anyone they stop for a traffic violation or other infraction if there is "reasonable suspicion" the person is in the United States unlawfully. The officer would have to make a reasonable attempt to verify a person's immigration status, and suspected illegal immigrants could be detained.Beason said those attempts would include tapping into state and federal databases to verify a person's identity -- such as verifying a person has a driver's license if they didn't have it with them.Georgia’s Senate also has followed suit,being fed up with Obama's do nothing policies and approach to illegal
immigration,and approved an Arizona-style crackdown on illegal immigration.Like Arizona’s law, Georgia’s bill would empower police to question certain suspects about their immigration status. HB 87 also would penalize people who transport or harbor illegal immigrants or use fake identification to get a job here.
Georgia lawmakers argue such a crackdown is necessary because illegal immigrants are burdening public schools, jails and hospitals here. Proponents frequently point to a recent Pew Hispanic Center estimate that says Georgia is home to more illegal immigrants than Arizona at 425,000.Georgia, meanwhile, is among 30 states that have considered omnibus legislation targeting illegal immigration this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In all, 52 such bills have been introduced nationwide. About three-quarters of them resemble Arizona's SB 1070. So far, 14 of these bills have failed. And two have passed, both in Utah. Democrat President Obama criticized the state's move as "misguided." He said full-blown immigration reforms are necessary but not just now.So when is full blown immigration reform necessary, when all the illegals have become legals and there are not more yet to come?Imbecile.........the federal government won't enforce existing anti-illegal immigration laws, does little to halt to continuing flow of illegal immigrants,and forces the states to pay a share for the illegal immigrants,effectively then introducing them in to the states, encouraging them to enter the states, and then charges the states for things being what they are,and
not applying the monies to halting the illegal immigrant flow.Illegals are just that, they don't belong in the country, they are illegal.........they are therefor criminal,felons.........
Ten million illegal immigrants live in the US, according to estimates by academic and government agencies, although Bear-Stearns investment firm analysts claim that the US illegal immigrant population "may be as high as 20 million people."
About 75% of undocumented immigrants arrive across the US southern border with Mexico, and hail from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia and other Central and South American countries. The bulk...about 50% of all illegals....are Mexican-born people.Time magazine stated in 2004 that illegal immigration accelerated under the Bush Administration, with the US gaining 3 million additional illegal immigrant residents in 2004. A third of all illegal immigrants in the US live in California. Other states with large illegal populations are, in descending order, Texas, New York, Illinois, Florida and Arizona.Arizona illegal immigration law mirrors Federal law.One of the mast flagrant and sickening lies being circulated right now is that the new Arizona illegal immigration crackdown law is something new and unheard of. Thus, critics have cited it as being some kind of racist legislation aimed at anyone of “brown” skin.
However, taking this one step further to actually examine the legislation, which 99% of the critics have not, shows that the Arizona law mirrors existing federal law except that it finally gives it teeth at the state level.
The Washington Times reports the truth:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough has an odd obsession for criticizing conservatives for calling Mr. Obama a “Nazi” all the time, yet he has no problem comparing the newly signed Arizona immigration law to “Nazi guards asking to see your papers.” Even President Obama did not go that far, but he did call the new law “misguided.”
On both accounts Mr. Scarborough is wrong. One day he will hopefully realize that LaRouche Democrats who attend various protests with Nazi images of Mr. Obama are not conservatives and Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law is designed to mirror federal immigration laws already in place.Federal law mandates that aliens register and carry their documentation. Arizona’s new law functions the same
way. Why hasn’t the MSNBC host called the federal law “Nazi” in nature?
“Let’s clarify what isn’t in the bill. The law does not give police officers any additional powers to stop or pull anybody over. You’re still going to have to abide by lawful contact,” said Bob Dane spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) , a Washington, D.C., based immigration nonprofit.
Mr. Dane made it clear that an officer of the law cannot simply walk up to an individual who is not committing a crime or traffic violation and ask the person for his or her legal status.This is nothing more than existing federal but giving the state of Arizona the right to enforce it. Therefore, the race-baiters and race-hustlers are dead wrong on this issue and should be clamoring about the federal statute if they have a real beef with it.
“Most police contact with the public happens [via motor-vehicle contact], so it’s not going to change the mechanical lawful process that a police officer goes through. He’s going to write you up if you are doing something wrong, like driving down the highway doing 90 miles on hour. He’s going to pull up and ask for license,
registration and documentation identity.Only after all of that are the police going to be required (he is now required under the law) to ask about immigration status, but then and only if the person has reasonable suspicion the person might be an illegal alien, and then, even then he can’t use as part of his reasonable suspicion, he can’t consider race, color, or national origin, as part of his suspicion.
President Obama has played the fear card as well as the race card on this issue to continue dividing the country as he’s been doing for months now. ABC News reports:
The president said, “you can try to make it really tough on people who look like they, quote, unquote look like illegal immigrants. One of the things that the law says is that local officials are allow to ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers — but you can imagine if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona, your great, great grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed,
that’s something that could potentially happen.”
Perhaps you might get “harassed,” Mr. President, for taking your kid out for ice cream if you commit a crime while doing so. That’s about it. Law enforcement cannot stop someone on the street and demand papers or threaten to arrest them. So if you take your kids for ice cream and commit grand theft auto at the same time, yeah the police might “harass” you about some papers while they’re arresting you for an alleged crime.
However, if law enforcement catches an individual committing a crime, even as simple as speeding, they’re going to ask for a license and/or some form of identification. If you can’t produce such documentation within a reasonable time frame, then you can create a reasonable suspicion that perhaps you may be here illegally.President Obama’s criticism is unfounded and childish. He is purposely inciting fear among Hispanics with an aim toward the 2010 election. There is no basis for his criticism and he clearly has not read federal law which is what he took an oath to uphold.He complains about the carrying of documentation of ones person,.Hey here we're not only referring to "illegals" who may lack the same,and it is the Mexicans who complain about this, but just look at other Mexican laws,Mexico demands that US citizens traveling inside the country must carry documentation with them at all times:
Entry to Mexico: As of March 1, 2010, all U.S. citizens – including children — must present a valid passport, book or card, for travel beyond the “border zone” into the interior of Mexico. Entry by any means, for example by plane or car, is included in this requirement. The “border zone” is generally defined as an area between 20 to 30 kilometers of the border with the U.S., depending on the location. Stays of less than 12 hours within the border zone do not require a visa or tourist card.
U.S. citizens traveling as tourists beyond the border zone or entering Mexico by air must pay a fee to obtain a tourist card, also known as an FM-T, available from Mexican border crossing points, Mexican tourism offices, airports within the border zone and most airlines serving Mexico.
Upon arrival in Mexico, business travelers must complete and submit a form (Form FM-N 30 days) authorizing the conduct of business, but not employment, for a 30-day period. Travelers entering Mexico for purposes other than tourism or business or for stays of longer than 180 days require a visa and must carry a valid U.S. passport. U.S. citizens planning to work or live in Mexico should apply for the appropriate Mexican visa.
I could be harassed in Mexico if I take my kids to get ice cream if I don’t have my papers! President Obama, will you stand of me when I get my kids Mexican ice cream in Guadalajara? How dare Mexican law demand I be carrying my passport at all times, shame on those racist Mexicans!Surely also,in the spirit of reciprocity, the United States could demand and enact the same with respect to Mexicans or whoever thence entering the United States from and through Mexico?The Mexicans do it, American can't? Why not? Would Calderon scream if America enacted the same legislation,regulation?Yes! He does too,and,Obama,cowers in fear and caves in,But why?
The Mexicans have commented severely on these bills, with rhetoric and complaints to Obama, such as Mexico’s Foreign Ministry who said in a statement that it was worried about the rights of its citizens and relations with Arizona. Why whatever does Calderon do with his illegal immigrants? Well now,Mexican President Felipe Calderon denounced as “racial discrimination” an Arizona law giving state and local police the authority to arrest suspected illegal immigrants and vowed to use all means at his disposal to defend Mexican nationals against a law he called a “violation of human rights.”But the legislation, signed April 23 by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, is similar to Reglamento de la Ley General de Poblacion — the General Law on Population enacted in Mexico in April 2000, which mandates that federal, local and municipal police cooperate with federal immigration authorities in that country in the arrests of illegal immigrants.
Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” violate Mexican law, are not “physically or mentally healthy” or lack the “necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents.“This sounds like the kind of law that a rational nation would have to protect itself against illegal immigrants — that would stop and punish the very people who are violating the law,” said Rep. Steve King of Iowa, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, citizenship, refugees, border security and international law.“Why would Mr. Calderon have any objections to an Arizona law that is less draconian than his own, one he has pledged to enforce?” Mr. King said.
Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on terrorism and homeland security, described Mr. Calderon’s comments as “hypocritical to say the least.”“I would have expected more from Mr. Calderon,” said Mr. Kyl, who serves as the Senate minority whip. “We are spending millions of dollars to help Mexico fight the drug cartels that pose a threat to his government, and he doesn’t seem to recognize our concerns. He ought to be apologizing to us instead of condemning us.” Rep. Ted Poe, Texas Republican and a member of the House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees, described Mr. Calderon’s criticism as “arrogant and hypocritical.” He said Mexico’s immigrations laws are “even tougher than those in the United States” and it was inappropriate to denounce the Arizona law when “Mexico does the very same thing.”
Rep. John Culberson, a Texas Republican who has advocated for stricter border enforcement policies, said the Arizona law was enacted as a result of the nation’s “failed immigration policies.”“We should focus our time and resources on enforcing policies that work, like zero tolerance, which has reduced crime and illegal immigration dramatically along our southern border,” he said.Ricardo Alday, a spokesman at the Mexican Embassy in Washington, did not return calls for comment.
But the embassy has said the Mexican government is “deeply concerned by the potential dire effects” that the Arizona law will have on the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States — about 450,000 of them in Arizona.Indeed, because, from Arizona, they'd be getting them back,no thanks to Obama, from Arizona for that,nor from Mexico for them.What does Calderon do with his illegals....
Mexican President Felipe Calderon has accused Arizona of opening the door “to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement.” But Arizona has nothing on Mexico when it comes to cracking down on illegal aliens.Well now, the dark pot has commented on the white enamel kettle, indeed, Arizona having much softer,milder laws with respect to illegal immigrants, than does,indeed, Mexico have.Does Obama mention this in defense of Arizona, in efforts to rid Arizona, and America, of the illegal immigrants?No, he doesn't.
While open-borders activists decry new enforcement measures signed into law in Arizona last week, they remain deaf, dumb or willfully blind to the unapologetically restrictionist policies of our neighbors to the south.The Arizona law bans sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration laws, stiffens penalties against illegal alien day laborers and their employers, makes it a misdemeanor for immigrants to fail to complete and carry an alien registration document, and allows the police to arrest immigrants unable to show documents proving they are in the U.S. legally. If those rules constitute the racist, fascist, xenophobic, inhumane regime that the National Council of La Raza, Al Sharpton, Catholic bishops and their grievance-mongering followers claim, then what about these regulations and restrictions imposed on foreigners?
– The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” How’s that for racial and ethnic profiling?
– If outsiders do not enhance the country’s “economic or national interests” or are “not found to be physically or mentally healthy,” they are not welcome. Neither are those who show “contempt against national sovereignty or security.” They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.Imagine,America's is much easier as in, "Do you know what the American national anthem is?", "Si." "Eh?" "Si", "You're in".It seems maintaining the high standard the Mexicans do, would be and is too much for America, too Nazi,too cruel,too restrictionist?The Mexicans would say so were it so.
– Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years’ imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years’ imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama’s illegal alien aunt — a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is
awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim)All of these provisions are enshrined in Mexico’s Ley General de Población (General Law of the Population) and were spotlighted in a 2006 research paper published by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy. There’s been no public clamor for “comprehensive immigration reform” in Mexico, however, because pro-illegal alien speech by outsiders is prohibited.But under the Mexican constitution, such political speech by foreigners is banned. Noncitizens cannot “in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.” In fact, a plethora of Mexican statutes enacted by its congress limit the participation of foreign nationals and companies in everything from investment, education, mining and civil aviation to electric energy and firearms. Foreigners have severely limited private
property and employment rights (if any).
As for abuse, the Mexican government is notorious for its abuse of Central American illegal aliens who attempt to violate Mexico’s southern border. The Red Cross has protested rampant Mexican police corruption, intimidation and bribery schemes targeting illegal aliens there for years. Mexico didn’t respond by granting mass amnesty to illegal aliens, as it is demanding that we do. It clamped down on its borders even further. In late 2008, the Mexican government launched an aggressive deportation plan to curtain illegal Cuban immigration and human trafficking through Cancun.
At the same time, Article 67 of Mexico's immigration law requires that all authorities "whether federal, local or municipal" demand to see visas if approached by a foreigner and to hand over migrants to immigration authorities.Mexican law calls for six to 12 years of prison and up to $46,000 in fines for anyone who shelters or transports illegal immigrants. The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the law applies only to people who do it for money.All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico's immigration practices versus its American immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government's agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.
The Mexicans actively encourage illegal immigration to the United States,
In 2005 the government of Yucatan produced a handbook and DVD about the risks and implications of crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. The guide told immigrants where to find health care, how to get their kids into U.S. schools, and how to send money home. Officials in Yucatan said the guide is a necessity to save lives but some American groups accused the government of encouraging illegal immigration
In 2005 the Mexican government was criticized for distributing a comic book which offers tips to illegal aliens emigrating to the United States.[39] That comic book recommends to illegal immigrants, once they have safely crossed the border, "Don't call attention to yourself. ... Avoid loud parties. ... Don't become involved in
fights." The Mexican government defends the guide as an attempt to save lives. "It's kind of like illegal immigration for dummies," said the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, Mark Krikorian. "Promoting safe illegal immigration is not the same as arguing against it." The comic book does state on its last page that the Mexican Government does not promote illegal crossing at all and only encourages visits to the U.S. with all required documentation.
On the other hand Mexico has totally similar laws, and far heavier,much more draconian laws as well internally, and these are issues Barack Obama takes fright from, and won't dare to offer any criticize or objection to, Look now,Mexico’s Hypocritical President is upset because Arizona wants to enforce immigration laws, and help stop illegal immigration into the US. This is quite ironic, and disturbing, considering Mexico has the toughest immigration laws on the continent.
From Newsmax:
Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s office said in a statement Saturday that “the Mexican government condemns the approval of the law” and “the criminalization of migration, far from contributing to collaboration and cooperation between Mexico and the state of Arizona, represents an obstacle to solving the shared problems of the border region.”
Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants and is the state with the most illegal border crossings, with the harsh, remote desert serving as the gateway for thousands of Mexicans and Central Americans.
From Canada Free Press:
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
in the country legally;
have the means to sustain themselves economically;
not destined to be burdens on society;
of economic and social benefit to society;
of good character and have no criminal records; and
contributors to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:
immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry,but in having the same,and even yet more Draconian laws, Mexico is manifesting racism and bigotry, and even yet, Nazism amongst it's fascism.
We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution.Now let’s look at Mexico’s main immigration law.
Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.”
(Article 32)
Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)
Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)
The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.
Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
“A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)
Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States The stark contrast between Mexico’s immigration practices versus its American immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government’s agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.
As for the illegal immigrants in America, the government of Barack Obama Our government has no plan for these people to to ever return to their homeland. To make matters worse, the Federal Government is threatening to grant amnesty to millions of ex-guest workers who apparently forgot to go home once their visas expired, and to others who simply crossed our border illegally.
Amnesty has already been granted in 1986 to over 4 million illegal aliens who had managed to evade our justice system for four or more years. The same thing is happening all over again, only this time it's over 20 million illegals and we're calling it Guest Worker Program. The amnesty offered in 1986 was supposedly the last amnesty to be. Since then, the rate of illegal immigration has exploded to it's current level. Granting amnesty this time is a guarantee that the exact same thing will continue to happen over and over again. By rewarding lawlessness, we
are simply inviting more of the same.Again the Mexican President, encourages,and cajoles Obama into providing amnesty for his illegal Mexican immigrants.
AMNESTY means never having immigration enforcement!
Let's call Mexico's bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy,let all nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico's own law as a model.So by law, we see he,Calderon, does the same,as the state laws of America, as the laws of America, and thence also very much worse.Yet Obama does not criticize him,Obama, does not dare,Obama lives in fear of Calderon, and his remarks,and his criticism.Yes,Calderon defies Obama in criticism of him,berates,belittles, and treats him like a pinata,something he could never ever do to a man, to men, like The Bush.But yet also the Arizona governor,and the governors of other states,hurl defy at Barack Obama, with responsive,effective,tough new anti-immigration laws,right and proper laws,necessary laws, laws THEY are willing to enforce,men (and women),of action,men( and women), of strength,and resolve. Will Obama solve America's woes, America's problems with illegal immigration?No!He's there.But like genitals on a priest, he's just there for the show.If Obama won't enforce his own federal illegal immigration laws,as he doesn't,laws he's sworn to enforce and uphold,if he won't allow the States to enforce them,if he can't stand up to a ridiculous impotent Mexican President,as he, Obama,doesn't, he,Obama,doesn't merit being President, and next election, the American people those of all the states, must stand and be counted, counted in the numbers who cast a vote, a scream that says, "Hell No! Obama Must Go!"Americans,all Americans, must at least do that much.Things can't get worse.
government of Barack Obama, being sworn to uphold and enforce the same, won't do,the federal laws of America.It seems Obama and the courts are irritated that States should parallel their laws, and then also,imagine, actually follow and enact them,and heavens forbid,enforce them.Squirrel also has found that whilst the government of Mexico objects to these laws,the government of Mexico itself has utterly and completely similar laws in effect, enacted, enforced laws, and even laws far greater in efforts, being in fact, thence, utterly Draconian,even yet Hitlerite by comparison.Squirrel also found that whilst Obama stands fast as a pinata for the Mexicans, and takes the criticism provided by the Mexican President, he does not attack the Mexican President for having similar laws and yet more Draconian laws, behaviour indicative of a man,of Barack Obama, being there for ineffectual,inadequate,sub standard,below par, as a President of the United States,the wrong man, not at any time, but for all time.But let's look now at the enacted laws which the Mexican President objects to,and Obama as well, and thence also peruse the laws of the Mexican President,himself,of Mexico, and let's then draw our conclusions as to all things having passed,and things which yet should be.
The governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer,was said to have defied Barack Obama to sign into law the toughest anti-immigration legislation in the US.
It is a bill that requires immigrants to carry documents to prove they are citizens, and will penalize employers taking on day workers who are illegal immigrants,among other things,however most of the provisions were blocked by
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton included one requiring a police officer to determine the immigration status of a person detained or arrested if the officer believed the person was not in the country legally.Bolton also halted provisions requiring immigrants to carry their papers at all times and making it illegal for
people without proper documents to tout for work in public places.Effectively this pulls the teeth of the bill,and effectively protects the many illegal immigrants in Arizona. Brewer's lawyers said the federal government hasn't effectively enforced immigration law and that the state law will assist federal authorities.
"I remain steadfast in my belief that Arizona and other states have a sovereign right and obligation to protect their citizens and enforce immigration law in accordance with federal statute," Brewer said in a statement.
The Governor's Office said Brewer, Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne and their legal team — in conjunction with counsel for the Arizona Legislature — will be considering their legal options including appealing to a larger 9th Circuit panel or seeking an immediate petition for the U.S. Supreme Court to lift the injunction.
The bill's author, state Sen. Russell Pearce, issued a statement saying the appeals court ruling was "utterly predictable."
"SB 1070 is constitutionally sound, and that will be proven when the U.S. Supreme Court takes up this case and makes the proper ruling," he said. "This battle is a battle of epic proportions. It is about a state's right to enforce the laws of this land and protect its citizens from those who break our laws."The Justice Department did not immediately comment.
Parts of the law blocked from taking effect while the case works its way through the courts include a provision requiring police to question people's immigration status while enforcing other laws if there is a reasonable
suspicion they're in the country illegally. Other provisions that are on hold include: requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers; making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job; and allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without a warrant.In a separate opinion concurring with the panel's ruling, Appeals Court Judge John T. Noonan noted the intent of the state statute is clear and goes beyond what federal law allows."If we read Section 1 of the statute, the statute states the purpose of providing a solution to illegal immigration in the United States. So read, the statute is a singular entry into the foreign policy of the United States by a single state," he wrote.
Judge Carlos Bea would uphold two of the provisions — those allowing police to question people about their immigration status and to make warrantless arrests — and wrote a pointed dissent."As I see it, Congress has clearly expressed its intention that state officials should assist federal officials in checking the immigration status of aliens," he wrote. He also included a footnote that quoted Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland" to criticize what he called the majority's convoluted reasoning.The passage of SB 1070 last year reignited an immigration debate that has simmered in Arizona and across the nation for years.Proponents called the law a long-overdue effort by a state that has been overburdened by illegal immigration and a lack of federal action on the issue.Others states, however, did follow Arizona's lead,and commenced similar legislation, tired of Barack Obama's do nothing government...The Alabama Senate on Thursday night
approved an Arizona-style immigration bill that would allow law enforcement officers to detain people they suspect of being in the country illegally.
Bill sponsor Sen. Scott Beason, R-Gardendale, said the state needs to address illegal immigration because the federal government has been unwilling or unable to do so."I think the state is just letting people know we are going to do our best to aid in enforcement and try to begin to deal with the issue of illegal immigration," Beason said."With thousands of illegal immigrants in the state working, that's thousands of jobs Alabamians could be holding," Beason said.Beason and other supporters of the bill said the state needs to send a clear message that it will address illegal immigration. But opponents questioned the legality of the bill and said it would lead to racial profiling.The bill would make it illegal to employ, harbor, rent to or give a ride to an illegal immigrant with reckless disregard of the fact the person is in the country illegally.The bill would require police officers to verify a person's immigration status from anyone they stop for a traffic violation or other infraction if there is "reasonable suspicion" the person is in the United States unlawfully. The officer would have to make a reasonable attempt to verify a person's immigration status, and suspected illegal immigrants could be detained.Beason said those attempts would include tapping into state and federal databases to verify a person's identity -- such as verifying a person has a driver's license if they didn't have it with them.Georgia’s Senate also has followed suit,being fed up with Obama's do nothing policies and approach to illegal
immigration,and approved an Arizona-style crackdown on illegal immigration.Like Arizona’s law, Georgia’s bill would empower police to question certain suspects about their immigration status. HB 87 also would penalize people who transport or harbor illegal immigrants or use fake identification to get a job here.
Georgia lawmakers argue such a crackdown is necessary because illegal immigrants are burdening public schools, jails and hospitals here. Proponents frequently point to a recent Pew Hispanic Center estimate that says Georgia is home to more illegal immigrants than Arizona at 425,000.Georgia, meanwhile, is among 30 states that have considered omnibus legislation targeting illegal immigration this year, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In all, 52 such bills have been introduced nationwide. About three-quarters of them resemble Arizona's SB 1070. So far, 14 of these bills have failed. And two have passed, both in Utah. Democrat President Obama criticized the state's move as "misguided." He said full-blown immigration reforms are necessary but not just now.So when is full blown immigration reform necessary, when all the illegals have become legals and there are not more yet to come?Imbecile.........the federal government won't enforce existing anti-illegal immigration laws, does little to halt to continuing flow of illegal immigrants,and forces the states to pay a share for the illegal immigrants,effectively then introducing them in to the states, encouraging them to enter the states, and then charges the states for things being what they are,and
not applying the monies to halting the illegal immigrant flow.Illegals are just that, they don't belong in the country, they are illegal.........they are therefor criminal,felons.........
Ten million illegal immigrants live in the US, according to estimates by academic and government agencies, although Bear-Stearns investment firm analysts claim that the US illegal immigrant population "may be as high as 20 million people."
About 75% of undocumented immigrants arrive across the US southern border with Mexico, and hail from Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Colombia and other Central and South American countries. The bulk...about 50% of all illegals....are Mexican-born people.Time magazine stated in 2004 that illegal immigration accelerated under the Bush Administration, with the US gaining 3 million additional illegal immigrant residents in 2004. A third of all illegal immigrants in the US live in California. Other states with large illegal populations are, in descending order, Texas, New York, Illinois, Florida and Arizona.Arizona illegal immigration law mirrors Federal law.One of the mast flagrant and sickening lies being circulated right now is that the new Arizona illegal immigration crackdown law is something new and unheard of. Thus, critics have cited it as being some kind of racist legislation aimed at anyone of “brown” skin.
However, taking this one step further to actually examine the legislation, which 99% of the critics have not, shows that the Arizona law mirrors existing federal law except that it finally gives it teeth at the state level.
The Washington Times reports the truth:
MSNBC host Joe Scarborough has an odd obsession for criticizing conservatives for calling Mr. Obama a “Nazi” all the time, yet he has no problem comparing the newly signed Arizona immigration law to “Nazi guards asking to see your papers.” Even President Obama did not go that far, but he did call the new law “misguided.”
On both accounts Mr. Scarborough is wrong. One day he will hopefully realize that LaRouche Democrats who attend various protests with Nazi images of Mr. Obama are not conservatives and Arizona’s new immigration enforcement law is designed to mirror federal immigration laws already in place.Federal law mandates that aliens register and carry their documentation. Arizona’s new law functions the same
way. Why hasn’t the MSNBC host called the federal law “Nazi” in nature?
“Let’s clarify what isn’t in the bill. The law does not give police officers any additional powers to stop or pull anybody over. You’re still going to have to abide by lawful contact,” said Bob Dane spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) , a Washington, D.C., based immigration nonprofit.
Mr. Dane made it clear that an officer of the law cannot simply walk up to an individual who is not committing a crime or traffic violation and ask the person for his or her legal status.This is nothing more than existing federal but giving the state of Arizona the right to enforce it. Therefore, the race-baiters and race-hustlers are dead wrong on this issue and should be clamoring about the federal statute if they have a real beef with it.
“Most police contact with the public happens [via motor-vehicle contact], so it’s not going to change the mechanical lawful process that a police officer goes through. He’s going to write you up if you are doing something wrong, like driving down the highway doing 90 miles on hour. He’s going to pull up and ask for license,
registration and documentation identity.Only after all of that are the police going to be required (he is now required under the law) to ask about immigration status, but then and only if the person has reasonable suspicion the person might be an illegal alien, and then, even then he can’t use as part of his reasonable suspicion, he can’t consider race, color, or national origin, as part of his suspicion.
President Obama has played the fear card as well as the race card on this issue to continue dividing the country as he’s been doing for months now. ABC News reports:
The president said, “you can try to make it really tough on people who look like they, quote, unquote look like illegal immigrants. One of the things that the law says is that local officials are allow to ask somebody who they have a suspicion might be an illegal immigrant for their papers — but you can imagine if you are a Hispanic American in Arizona, your great, great grandparents may have been there before Arizona was even a state. But now suddenly if you don’t have your papers and you took your kid out to get ice cream, you’re going to be harassed,
that’s something that could potentially happen.”
Perhaps you might get “harassed,” Mr. President, for taking your kid out for ice cream if you commit a crime while doing so. That’s about it. Law enforcement cannot stop someone on the street and demand papers or threaten to arrest them. So if you take your kids for ice cream and commit grand theft auto at the same time, yeah the police might “harass” you about some papers while they’re arresting you for an alleged crime.
However, if law enforcement catches an individual committing a crime, even as simple as speeding, they’re going to ask for a license and/or some form of identification. If you can’t produce such documentation within a reasonable time frame, then you can create a reasonable suspicion that perhaps you may be here illegally.President Obama’s criticism is unfounded and childish. He is purposely inciting fear among Hispanics with an aim toward the 2010 election. There is no basis for his criticism and he clearly has not read federal law which is what he took an oath to uphold.He complains about the carrying of documentation of ones person,.Hey here we're not only referring to "illegals" who may lack the same,and it is the Mexicans who complain about this, but just look at other Mexican laws,Mexico demands that US citizens traveling inside the country must carry documentation with them at all times:
Entry to Mexico: As of March 1, 2010, all U.S. citizens – including children — must present a valid passport, book or card, for travel beyond the “border zone” into the interior of Mexico. Entry by any means, for example by plane or car, is included in this requirement. The “border zone” is generally defined as an area between 20 to 30 kilometers of the border with the U.S., depending on the location. Stays of less than 12 hours within the border zone do not require a visa or tourist card.
U.S. citizens traveling as tourists beyond the border zone or entering Mexico by air must pay a fee to obtain a tourist card, also known as an FM-T, available from Mexican border crossing points, Mexican tourism offices, airports within the border zone and most airlines serving Mexico.
Upon arrival in Mexico, business travelers must complete and submit a form (Form FM-N 30 days) authorizing the conduct of business, but not employment, for a 30-day period. Travelers entering Mexico for purposes other than tourism or business or for stays of longer than 180 days require a visa and must carry a valid U.S. passport. U.S. citizens planning to work or live in Mexico should apply for the appropriate Mexican visa.
I could be harassed in Mexico if I take my kids to get ice cream if I don’t have my papers! President Obama, will you stand of me when I get my kids Mexican ice cream in Guadalajara? How dare Mexican law demand I be carrying my passport at all times, shame on those racist Mexicans!Surely also,in the spirit of reciprocity, the United States could demand and enact the same with respect to Mexicans or whoever thence entering the United States from and through Mexico?The Mexicans do it, American can't? Why not? Would Calderon scream if America enacted the same legislation,regulation?Yes! He does too,and,Obama,cowers in fear and caves in,But why?
The Mexicans have commented severely on these bills, with rhetoric and complaints to Obama, such as Mexico’s Foreign Ministry who said in a statement that it was worried about the rights of its citizens and relations with Arizona. Why whatever does Calderon do with his illegal immigrants? Well now,Mexican President Felipe Calderon denounced as “racial discrimination” an Arizona law giving state and local police the authority to arrest suspected illegal immigrants and vowed to use all means at his disposal to defend Mexican nationals against a law he called a “violation of human rights.”But the legislation, signed April 23 by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, is similar to Reglamento de la Ley General de Poblacion — the General Law on Population enacted in Mexico in April 2000, which mandates that federal, local and municipal police cooperate with federal immigration authorities in that country in the arrests of illegal immigrants.
Under the Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.The law also says Mexico can deport foreigners who are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” violate Mexican law, are not “physically or mentally healthy” or lack the “necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents.“This sounds like the kind of law that a rational nation would have to protect itself against illegal immigrants — that would stop and punish the very people who are violating the law,” said Rep. Steve King of Iowa, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, citizenship, refugees, border security and international law.“Why would Mr. Calderon have any objections to an Arizona law that is less draconian than his own, one he has pledged to enforce?” Mr. King said.
Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on terrorism and homeland security, described Mr. Calderon’s comments as “hypocritical to say the least.”“I would have expected more from Mr. Calderon,” said Mr. Kyl, who serves as the Senate minority whip. “We are spending millions of dollars to help Mexico fight the drug cartels that pose a threat to his government, and he doesn’t seem to recognize our concerns. He ought to be apologizing to us instead of condemning us.” Rep. Ted Poe, Texas Republican and a member of the House Judiciary and Foreign Affairs committees, described Mr. Calderon’s criticism as “arrogant and hypocritical.” He said Mexico’s immigrations laws are “even tougher than those in the United States” and it was inappropriate to denounce the Arizona law when “Mexico does the very same thing.”
Rep. John Culberson, a Texas Republican who has advocated for stricter border enforcement policies, said the Arizona law was enacted as a result of the nation’s “failed immigration policies.”“We should focus our time and resources on enforcing policies that work, like zero tolerance, which has reduced crime and illegal immigration dramatically along our southern border,” he said.Ricardo Alday, a spokesman at the Mexican Embassy in Washington, did not return calls for comment.
But the embassy has said the Mexican government is “deeply concerned by the potential dire effects” that the Arizona law will have on the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States — about 450,000 of them in Arizona.Indeed, because, from Arizona, they'd be getting them back,no thanks to Obama, from Arizona for that,nor from Mexico for them.What does Calderon do with his illegals....
Mexican President Felipe Calderon has accused Arizona of opening the door “to intolerance, hate, discrimination and abuse in law enforcement.” But Arizona has nothing on Mexico when it comes to cracking down on illegal aliens.Well now, the dark pot has commented on the white enamel kettle, indeed, Arizona having much softer,milder laws with respect to illegal immigrants, than does,indeed, Mexico have.Does Obama mention this in defense of Arizona, in efforts to rid Arizona, and America, of the illegal immigrants?No, he doesn't.
While open-borders activists decry new enforcement measures signed into law in Arizona last week, they remain deaf, dumb or willfully blind to the unapologetically restrictionist policies of our neighbors to the south.The Arizona law bans sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration laws, stiffens penalties against illegal alien day laborers and their employers, makes it a misdemeanor for immigrants to fail to complete and carry an alien registration document, and allows the police to arrest immigrants unable to show documents proving they are in the U.S. legally. If those rules constitute the racist, fascist, xenophobic, inhumane regime that the National Council of La Raza, Al Sharpton, Catholic bishops and their grievance-mongering followers claim, then what about these regulations and restrictions imposed on foreigners?
– The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” How’s that for racial and ethnic profiling?
– If outsiders do not enhance the country’s “economic or national interests” or are “not found to be physically or mentally healthy,” they are not welcome. Neither are those who show “contempt against national sovereignty or security.” They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam and prove they can provide their own health care.Imagine,America's is much easier as in, "Do you know what the American national anthem is?", "Si." "Eh?" "Si", "You're in".It seems maintaining the high standard the Mexicans do, would be and is too much for America, too Nazi,too cruel,too restrictionist?The Mexicans would say so were it so.
– Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years’ imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years’ imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama’s illegal alien aunt — a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is
awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim)All of these provisions are enshrined in Mexico’s Ley General de Población (General Law of the Population) and were spotlighted in a 2006 research paper published by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Security Policy. There’s been no public clamor for “comprehensive immigration reform” in Mexico, however, because pro-illegal alien speech by outsiders is prohibited.But under the Mexican constitution, such political speech by foreigners is banned. Noncitizens cannot “in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.” In fact, a plethora of Mexican statutes enacted by its congress limit the participation of foreign nationals and companies in everything from investment, education, mining and civil aviation to electric energy and firearms. Foreigners have severely limited private
property and employment rights (if any).
As for abuse, the Mexican government is notorious for its abuse of Central American illegal aliens who attempt to violate Mexico’s southern border. The Red Cross has protested rampant Mexican police corruption, intimidation and bribery schemes targeting illegal aliens there for years. Mexico didn’t respond by granting mass amnesty to illegal aliens, as it is demanding that we do. It clamped down on its borders even further. In late 2008, the Mexican government launched an aggressive deportation plan to curtain illegal Cuban immigration and human trafficking through Cancun.
At the same time, Article 67 of Mexico's immigration law requires that all authorities "whether federal, local or municipal" demand to see visas if approached by a foreigner and to hand over migrants to immigration authorities.Mexican law calls for six to 12 years of prison and up to $46,000 in fines for anyone who shelters or transports illegal immigrants. The Supreme Court ruled in 2008 that the law applies only to people who do it for money.All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico's immigration practices versus its American immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government's agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.
The Mexicans actively encourage illegal immigration to the United States,
In 2005 the government of Yucatan produced a handbook and DVD about the risks and implications of crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. The guide told immigrants where to find health care, how to get their kids into U.S. schools, and how to send money home. Officials in Yucatan said the guide is a necessity to save lives but some American groups accused the government of encouraging illegal immigration
In 2005 the Mexican government was criticized for distributing a comic book which offers tips to illegal aliens emigrating to the United States.[39] That comic book recommends to illegal immigrants, once they have safely crossed the border, "Don't call attention to yourself. ... Avoid loud parties. ... Don't become involved in
fights." The Mexican government defends the guide as an attempt to save lives. "It's kind of like illegal immigration for dummies," said the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, Mark Krikorian. "Promoting safe illegal immigration is not the same as arguing against it." The comic book does state on its last page that the Mexican Government does not promote illegal crossing at all and only encourages visits to the U.S. with all required documentation.
On the other hand Mexico has totally similar laws, and far heavier,much more draconian laws as well internally, and these are issues Barack Obama takes fright from, and won't dare to offer any criticize or objection to, Look now,Mexico’s Hypocritical President is upset because Arizona wants to enforce immigration laws, and help stop illegal immigration into the US. This is quite ironic, and disturbing, considering Mexico has the toughest immigration laws on the continent.
From Newsmax:
Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s office said in a statement Saturday that “the Mexican government condemns the approval of the law” and “the criminalization of migration, far from contributing to collaboration and cooperation between Mexico and the state of Arizona, represents an obstacle to solving the shared problems of the border region.”
Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants and is the state with the most illegal border crossings, with the harsh, remote desert serving as the gateway for thousands of Mexicans and Central Americans.
From Canada Free Press:
Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:
in the country legally;
have the means to sustain themselves economically;
not destined to be burdens on society;
of economic and social benefit to society;
of good character and have no criminal records; and
contributors to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:
immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry,but in having the same,and even yet more Draconian laws, Mexico is manifesting racism and bigotry, and even yet, Nazism amongst it's fascism.
We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution.Now let’s look at Mexico’s main immigration law.
Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.”
(Article 32)
Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)
Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)
The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.
Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
“A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)
Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States The stark contrast between Mexico’s immigration practices versus its American immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government’s agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.
As for the illegal immigrants in America, the government of Barack Obama Our government has no plan for these people to to ever return to their homeland. To make matters worse, the Federal Government is threatening to grant amnesty to millions of ex-guest workers who apparently forgot to go home once their visas expired, and to others who simply crossed our border illegally.
Amnesty has already been granted in 1986 to over 4 million illegal aliens who had managed to evade our justice system for four or more years. The same thing is happening all over again, only this time it's over 20 million illegals and we're calling it Guest Worker Program. The amnesty offered in 1986 was supposedly the last amnesty to be. Since then, the rate of illegal immigration has exploded to it's current level. Granting amnesty this time is a guarantee that the exact same thing will continue to happen over and over again. By rewarding lawlessness, we
are simply inviting more of the same.Again the Mexican President, encourages,and cajoles Obama into providing amnesty for his illegal Mexican immigrants.
AMNESTY means never having immigration enforcement!
Let's call Mexico's bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy,let all nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico's own law as a model.So by law, we see he,Calderon, does the same,as the state laws of America, as the laws of America, and thence also very much worse.Yet Obama does not criticize him,Obama, does not dare,Obama lives in fear of Calderon, and his remarks,and his criticism.Yes,Calderon defies Obama in criticism of him,berates,belittles, and treats him like a pinata,something he could never ever do to a man, to men, like The Bush.But yet also the Arizona governor,and the governors of other states,hurl defy at Barack Obama, with responsive,effective,tough new anti-immigration laws,right and proper laws,necessary laws, laws THEY are willing to enforce,men (and women),of action,men( and women), of strength,and resolve. Will Obama solve America's woes, America's problems with illegal immigration?No!He's there.But like genitals on a priest, he's just there for the show.If Obama won't enforce his own federal illegal immigration laws,as he doesn't,laws he's sworn to enforce and uphold,if he won't allow the States to enforce them,if he can't stand up to a ridiculous impotent Mexican President,as he, Obama,doesn't, he,Obama,doesn't merit being President, and next election, the American people those of all the states, must stand and be counted, counted in the numbers who cast a vote, a scream that says, "Hell No! Obama Must Go!"Americans,all Americans, must at least do that much.Things can't get worse.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Secret Squirrel Examines The Ridiculous Mexican Attempts To Sue US Gun Manufacturers.
Secret Squirrel has learned, through perusal of a CBS News item, that the Mexican Government,of it's present President,one Felipe Calderon, has retained an American law firm to explore filing civil charges against U.S. gun manufacturers and distributors over the flood of guns crossing the border into Mexico.Not that it matters any but there is a law in America, in effect,a law which has been applied
several times, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,and this law, brought in under the Bush era,would bar that kind of lawsuit from the start. The law, passed in 2005 has resulted in several lawsuits against gun makers being dismissed.Sources familiar with the case say the law firm retained by Mexico - New York based Reid Collins & Tsai - believes the federal law won't stand in the way of their case.Mexico’s actions are a “novel approach,” in reality, such lawsuits have been used for decades as a tactic by anti-gun groups and governments in their attempts to bankrupt gun manufacturers and circumvent the political process.
That’s why Congress passed the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” in 2005. This act protects firearms manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers from suits brought about as a result of “the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.” The outlook for a Mexican government suit looks dim; since the PLCAA was signed into law by President George W. Bush on Oct. 26, 2005, no federal court has allowed such a suit by a government plaintiff to go forward against a U.S. firearms manufacturer.
The Mexican government’s plans for a lawsuit extend at least back to November 2, 2010, when a contract with the law firm was signed. Unfortunately for the Mexican government, the possible lawsuit has come to light at the same time as diplomatic cables newly made available by Wikileaks, which have shown that drug cartels obtain much of their weaponry from Central American arsenals.
One such cable, recently publicized by Mexico City newspaper La Jornada, addresses a frequently heard claim about the origin of guns used in Mexico’s crime wave. The cable’s author writes, “Claims by Mexican and U.S. officials that upwards of 90 percent of illegal recovered weapons can be traced back to the U.S. is based on an incomplete survey of confiscated weapons. In point of fact, without wider access
to the weapons seized in Mexico, we really have no way of verifying these numbers.”
This information comes to light only weeks after another cable publicized by La Jornada revealed that 90 percent of the drug cartels’ “heavy armament,” such as grenades and rocket launchers, originates in Central America and enters Mexico through its Southern border with Guatemala. Bolstering these claims, IHS Global Insights reported on April 6 that the head of U.S. Southern Command, General Douglas Fraser, testified before the Senate that over 50 percent of the military grade weapons in the region originated from Central America.Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar, with fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers.La Hora, a Guatemalan newspaper, reported that police seized 500 grenades and a load of AK-47s on the border. Police say the cache was transported by a Mexican drug cartel operating out of Ixcan, a border town.Russian crime organizations. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.
Many of the fully automatic weapons that have been seized in Mexico cannot be found in the U.S., but they are not uncommon in the Third World.The Mexican government said it has seized 2,239 grenades in the last two years -- but those grenades and the rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) are unavailable in U.S. gun shops. The ones used in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey in October and a TV station in
January were made in South Korea. Almost 70 similar grenades were seized in February in the bottom of a truck entering Mexico from Guatemala.
"Most of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semi-automatic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California," according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.
Christopher Renzulli of New York, who has represented U.S. gun makers for fifteen years, says he believes this would be a difficult case for the Mexican government to win.It would make sense that the Mexicans and their legal friends couldn't win, not only due to the law being in place not even yet allowing suit, but,it is fundamental logic that the gun makers can't prevent somebody from selling or giving said guns to the Mexicans.But then Mexicans are hardly logical, and the law firm being what it is,will take anybody's money,for any case,obviously,considering they are taking up a case for the foreign government of Mexico,against America and American firms.Indeed, if the gun firms could and did,refuse to sell guns to Mexicans, the Mexican president would be suing claiming it was discrimination against Mexicans in America,and that Mexicans had the same rights as Americans in procuring guns, and whatever else could come to his mind,being what he is,intelligent,perhaps, or not, as is most certainly likely.Recall The Mexicans complained when America started building a high fence to prevent Mexicans from illegally entering the US.At that time they claimed this was discrimination against the Mexicans, in effect keeping them in Mexico,and illegally out of America,this was under then Mexican President, Vincente Fox.But we of course,see things differently, the fence would be a grand idea to continue round and about as it would keep Mexicans from illegally entering the United States, and of course, it would much more handily keep guns from getting to the Mexicans, which may irritate the Mexican President at this point.It seems that Calderon believes the guns enter Mexico from across the Mexican American border, either across in a reverse wetbacking fashion, or through in reverse fashion, the drug infiltration tunnels, or flown in by air seemingly passing any Mexican security to prtevent such things.The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the firearms industry, issued a statement saying it “respects the work of President Calderon to willingly take on his country’s powerful drug cartels. However, we are
disappointed that he would seek to hold law-abiding American companies responsible for crime in Mexico.”The association also denied that most of the guns used for crime in Mexico come from the United States.
In either case, the drug lords,and gangs, are getting their hands on a great many guns, and using them as well in the pursuit of their favorite pass time in Mexico, the drug trade which they then pedal in to the United States,across the border. Calderon is not prepared to believe that the guns enter from,say, the sea ports, but it is known that many of the guns are actually European in origins, Soviet AK 47's,Belgian guns, even yet Israeli guns have shown up,guns of all kinds and types. Mexican authorities have investigated reports that some were supplied by arms dealers in Israel and Belgium.
The plot thickens,however, and here we do have an interesting development.In a related legal move, Mexico’s Attorney General is demanding the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives turn over the names of its agents who participated in its “Operation Fast and Furious.”During the covert operation last year, ATF agents allowed smugglers to sneak about 2,000 guns into Mexico so they could be traced to suspected criminals and drug cartels.Although the operation helped U.S. law enforcement agents identify criminals, it also resulted in some of the guns being used for murders and other crimes, according to Mexican police.Mexico’s Attorney General did not say why he wanted the names of participating law officers, but the Mexican news media is speculating he will try to sue them or press charges against them.So far, the U.S. Justice Department has refused to reveal the names of Fast and Furious agents.President Felipe Calderon expressed his frustration to CBS News correspondent Peter Greenberg: "We seized more than 90,000 weapons...I am talking like 50,000 assault weapons, AR -5 machine
guns, more than 8,000 grenades and almost 10 million bullets. Amazing figures and according to all those cases, the ones we are able to track, most of these are American weapons."Unquestionably some of the guns do come from America, the great majority of the traceable ones, as Americans guns are just that, traceable, the rest are not, not being American guns, and the vast majority of the guns are not American guns.Indeed, the grenades were not America,and as for Armalite, this was and is a weapon supplied, oddly enough, to many revolutionaries, by one Fidel Castro, and no doubt, a tradition continued by his brother,they're in to the more modern AR-10, but for Mexicans the Ar-5 will just have to do.They've also
seized many of the famous and prolific AK 47's. In short, the Mexicans have a problem, a problem which is beyond them,but it is not a problem of the Mexican selected American arms manufacturers,but rather those of foreign manufacturers whom the Mexican President does not choose to sue, nor blame.He's the American
equivalent of the Mohamed Al Fayed the British have, in short, perhaps if they give the Mexican President American citizenship, perhaps he will withdraw his ridiculous attempts to sue,for what ever.
several times, The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,and this law, brought in under the Bush era,would bar that kind of lawsuit from the start. The law, passed in 2005 has resulted in several lawsuits against gun makers being dismissed.Sources familiar with the case say the law firm retained by Mexico - New York based Reid Collins & Tsai - believes the federal law won't stand in the way of their case.Mexico’s actions are a “novel approach,” in reality, such lawsuits have been used for decades as a tactic by anti-gun groups and governments in their attempts to bankrupt gun manufacturers and circumvent the political process.
That’s why Congress passed the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act” in 2005. This act protects firearms manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers from suits brought about as a result of “the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended.” The outlook for a Mexican government suit looks dim; since the PLCAA was signed into law by President George W. Bush on Oct. 26, 2005, no federal court has allowed such a suit by a government plaintiff to go forward against a U.S. firearms manufacturer.
The Mexican government’s plans for a lawsuit extend at least back to November 2, 2010, when a contract with the law firm was signed. Unfortunately for the Mexican government, the possible lawsuit has come to light at the same time as diplomatic cables newly made available by Wikileaks, which have shown that drug cartels obtain much of their weaponry from Central American arsenals.
One such cable, recently publicized by Mexico City newspaper La Jornada, addresses a frequently heard claim about the origin of guns used in Mexico’s crime wave. The cable’s author writes, “Claims by Mexican and U.S. officials that upwards of 90 percent of illegal recovered weapons can be traced back to the U.S. is based on an incomplete survey of confiscated weapons. In point of fact, without wider access
to the weapons seized in Mexico, we really have no way of verifying these numbers.”
This information comes to light only weeks after another cable publicized by La Jornada revealed that 90 percent of the drug cartels’ “heavy armament,” such as grenades and rocket launchers, originates in Central America and enters Mexico through its Southern border with Guatemala. Bolstering these claims, IHS Global Insights reported on April 6 that the head of U.S. Southern Command, General Douglas Fraser, testified before the Senate that over 50 percent of the military grade weapons in the region originated from Central America.Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar, with fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers.La Hora, a Guatemalan newspaper, reported that police seized 500 grenades and a load of AK-47s on the border. Police say the cache was transported by a Mexican drug cartel operating out of Ixcan, a border town.Russian crime organizations. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.
Many of the fully automatic weapons that have been seized in Mexico cannot be found in the U.S., but they are not uncommon in the Third World.The Mexican government said it has seized 2,239 grenades in the last two years -- but those grenades and the rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs) are unavailable in U.S. gun shops. The ones used in an attack on the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey in October and a TV station in
January were made in South Korea. Almost 70 similar grenades were seized in February in the bottom of a truck entering Mexico from Guatemala.
"Most of these weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semi-automatic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California," according to a report in the Los Angeles Times.
Christopher Renzulli of New York, who has represented U.S. gun makers for fifteen years, says he believes this would be a difficult case for the Mexican government to win.It would make sense that the Mexicans and their legal friends couldn't win, not only due to the law being in place not even yet allowing suit, but,it is fundamental logic that the gun makers can't prevent somebody from selling or giving said guns to the Mexicans.But then Mexicans are hardly logical, and the law firm being what it is,will take anybody's money,for any case,obviously,considering they are taking up a case for the foreign government of Mexico,against America and American firms.Indeed, if the gun firms could and did,refuse to sell guns to Mexicans, the Mexican president would be suing claiming it was discrimination against Mexicans in America,and that Mexicans had the same rights as Americans in procuring guns, and whatever else could come to his mind,being what he is,intelligent,perhaps, or not, as is most certainly likely.Recall The Mexicans complained when America started building a high fence to prevent Mexicans from illegally entering the US.At that time they claimed this was discrimination against the Mexicans, in effect keeping them in Mexico,and illegally out of America,this was under then Mexican President, Vincente Fox.But we of course,see things differently, the fence would be a grand idea to continue round and about as it would keep Mexicans from illegally entering the United States, and of course, it would much more handily keep guns from getting to the Mexicans, which may irritate the Mexican President at this point.It seems that Calderon believes the guns enter Mexico from across the Mexican American border, either across in a reverse wetbacking fashion, or through in reverse fashion, the drug infiltration tunnels, or flown in by air seemingly passing any Mexican security to prtevent such things.The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for the firearms industry, issued a statement saying it “respects the work of President Calderon to willingly take on his country’s powerful drug cartels. However, we are
disappointed that he would seek to hold law-abiding American companies responsible for crime in Mexico.”The association also denied that most of the guns used for crime in Mexico come from the United States.
In either case, the drug lords,and gangs, are getting their hands on a great many guns, and using them as well in the pursuit of their favorite pass time in Mexico, the drug trade which they then pedal in to the United States,across the border. Calderon is not prepared to believe that the guns enter from,say, the sea ports, but it is known that many of the guns are actually European in origins, Soviet AK 47's,Belgian guns, even yet Israeli guns have shown up,guns of all kinds and types. Mexican authorities have investigated reports that some were supplied by arms dealers in Israel and Belgium.
The plot thickens,however, and here we do have an interesting development.In a related legal move, Mexico’s Attorney General is demanding the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives turn over the names of its agents who participated in its “Operation Fast and Furious.”During the covert operation last year, ATF agents allowed smugglers to sneak about 2,000 guns into Mexico so they could be traced to suspected criminals and drug cartels.Although the operation helped U.S. law enforcement agents identify criminals, it also resulted in some of the guns being used for murders and other crimes, according to Mexican police.Mexico’s Attorney General did not say why he wanted the names of participating law officers, but the Mexican news media is speculating he will try to sue them or press charges against them.So far, the U.S. Justice Department has refused to reveal the names of Fast and Furious agents.President Felipe Calderon expressed his frustration to CBS News correspondent Peter Greenberg: "We seized more than 90,000 weapons...I am talking like 50,000 assault weapons, AR -5 machine
guns, more than 8,000 grenades and almost 10 million bullets. Amazing figures and according to all those cases, the ones we are able to track, most of these are American weapons."Unquestionably some of the guns do come from America, the great majority of the traceable ones, as Americans guns are just that, traceable, the rest are not, not being American guns, and the vast majority of the guns are not American guns.Indeed, the grenades were not America,and as for Armalite, this was and is a weapon supplied, oddly enough, to many revolutionaries, by one Fidel Castro, and no doubt, a tradition continued by his brother,they're in to the more modern AR-10, but for Mexicans the Ar-5 will just have to do.They've also
seized many of the famous and prolific AK 47's. In short, the Mexicans have a problem, a problem which is beyond them,but it is not a problem of the Mexican selected American arms manufacturers,but rather those of foreign manufacturers whom the Mexican President does not choose to sue, nor blame.He's the American
equivalent of the Mohamed Al Fayed the British have, in short, perhaps if they give the Mexican President American citizenship, perhaps he will withdraw his ridiculous attempts to sue,for what ever.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Secret Squirrel Opposes McNulty Increasing Rail Fares
Secret Squirrel has had his attention drawn to a certain,Sir Roy McNulty,who,in a leaked document is to encourage a rise in train fares, unfairly, favoring the rail owning companies and will be highly detrimental to the railroad traveling Englishman.There are other recommendations of course,always best to attempt to hide the bitter pill. But Squirrel was for many years a member of the Canadian Railway Historical Association, (CRHA),and we,especially those of the sadly now defunct, St. Lawrence Valley Division of the same,of which I was a Director and yet also thereafter the Director and Vice-President for many years,cry foul,most foul, as it was our area of endeavor to study,improve and yet encourage passenger rail travel as well.Let's first ponder the actual bone of contention, the stated gist of the
leaked report here found in a news article from the Daily telegraph, and here viewable on the internet at.......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/8471811/Rail-companies-should-be-able-to-increase-fares.html
Now,to continue, the headline reads.......sadly,and unnecessarily.....and here the quote of the article commences..
And I quote.......
"Rail companies 'should be able to increase fares'
Rail companies should be allowed to introduce “airline-style fares” that could see them charging hundreds of pounds for tickets during peak times and banning passengers without pre-booked seats from traveling, a Government review is set to recommend.
By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor
Leaked documents disclose that the review will say that train companies must either be allowed to charge significantly more for some travel or that the Government will have to dramatically increase the capacity on trains.
The recommendations, from Sir Roy McNulty, the former chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, are due to be delivered next month to ministers.
The study is expected to warn that fare structures are too complex, over-subsidised and do not manage peak demand.
It will say the railways are subject to too much state involvement and a growth in services has not been matched by efficiency savings.
The documents say costs are a major problem and need to be cut by 35 per cent to match European counterparts.
They will set out plans to cut staff and propose decentralising or breaking-up Network Rail. They recommend loosening franchise terms to allow operators to respond better to demand.
The report will urge ministers to review fares policies and allow train operators to “take a more commercial approach” to ticket prices by lifting caps on fares and removing saver tickets from long-distance services."
And here ends the quote of the article.
So, now let us consider the factors involved in train versus aircraft, with a smattering of comparison versus bus as well......
Firstly for the greens, let's examine the carbon imprint,the environmental impact.By train a trip of any kind works out at 80-90% less carbon emissions.When a student at the Saarland University Of Applied Sciences stated that the plane was the best way to go to London, her geography lecturer Werner Ried, unconvinced, proposed to compare both journeys - by train and by plane - for real... The actual race took place on June 15: two teams, one going by train, the other via a low-cost airline. The journey started at St. Ingbert (Saarland, Germany), and the destination: London Piccadilly Circus.The results clearly favour train travel. Once the teams tallied their results, rail bested air clearly on travel time (6h 25min vs. 6h 45min by plane), price (€101,58 per person vs. €105,96 by plane), and environmental impact (only 22kg/person of CO2 rejection by train against 144kg/person by plane).
Rail comfort is enormously greater, detraining/baggage and getting on way home or where ever, is vastly superiour with respect to,and obviously in favor rail,but comparable with bus.
Now, let get down to fuel costs, and consumption.Fuel costs per passenger mile, aircraft versus train, are utterly miniscule with respect to the train, enormous profitability,efficiency,use of fuel, a vastly smaller quantity of fuel is consumed for the same number of passengers.Aircraft simply cannot compete in any way shape nor form, and it is utterly ridiculous to attempt to compare the two.Passenger Rail returned the equivalent of 94 (1995 figure) passenger miles per gallon.Aircraft figures, all things considered, are about 50 passenger miles per gallon............train 50% saving in fuel,and,consider,Jet fuel kerosene, runs now at $3.25/US gallon.Diesel is now more expensive, at $4.25 per gallon,but taking in to account the passenger miles/gallon, at 50% less, therefor it works t0 $2.12 per gallon equivalent,so,of course, fuel consumed costs less than a comparable aircraft journey /mile/passenger/passenger mile/passenger gallon.Train is more efficient and far less expensive to operate, and thence returns a far greater profit per passenger/mile already.In short with train we're looking at $$$$$$$ PROFITS PROFITS PROFITS.In terms of people cost, crew numbers, train once again has a vastly reduced crew number as compared with aircraft for the same number of passengers, or any number for that matter, again vastly reduced costs to operator.
Now in terms of bus travel for the same distance, train emits,in terms of gaseous waste emissions a lot less than the buses(20 mile trip into the next county on a train would emit about 7 lbs of CO2, while in a bus it would emit about 13 lbs of CO2.), singly,remember, a bus, now in terms of moveable passengers per mile,in quantity, however, the same train is pulling hundreds of passengers, now the bus can accommodate, what,say 80? Well, to get the 400 passengers at a
time(or yet more), we thence have say 5 buses, and so the train comes out at a tremendously better figure...in terms of Green emissions.Aircraft by comparison to either is utterly ridiculous,No matter how you cut it, flying is the most carbon-intense option.
Let's look now at America,for example,as we know, and so too shall you.......
For a round-trip airplane ride to Boston from DC and back, the carbon emissions are .242 Tons of CO2. The plane ticket would cost about $220 and would take about 3 hours each way.For a round-trip train ride to Boston from DC and back, the carbon emissions are 0.085 Tons of CO2. The train ticket would cost about $200 and would take about 8 hours each way.Train for the passenger comes out a touch cheaper, $20 is $20, vastly reduced carbon emissions(less taxing on atmos etc),but fuel consumption passenger miles is a tremendous saving to the train operator, as well as reduced crew costs, ,and also maintenance factors,so profits are far greater for the same trip for the TRAIN OPERATOR, hence a far higher profit margin is achieved for the TRAIN OPERATOR.
Now to suggest an increase in fares,comparable to that of airlines, is quite pointedly ridiculous, and Squirrel smells a rat, a political rat, a rat forging increased profits and price gouging by train operators for an already obviously
profit intensive rail operation as compared with airline.Recall now train fares are also not set as airline fares.The setting of fares to be,as they wish,"increased airline style fares", is, in point of fact, an increase in set fares.
You see, "airline style fares", encompass at times what? SURPRISE! Seat sales, yes, from time to time, there are MASSIVE seat fares, cheap rate,extremely cheap rate.Will the plan of McNulty introduce that?So very very not!No let us also consider the structure of airline fares.........they incorporate hidden fees, such as landing fees,baggage handling fee, airport tax, and other such items and taxes, and THESE go to the airports used.Trains don't require such fees but yet fares are almost comparable, exactly, not by far cheaper yet, and yet,as expounded above, a train is very much yet cheaper to operate.The actual working cost per seat passenger mile is ridiculously lower than that for
aircraft, and so to the actual profit the airlines make, versus the massive,by comparison, profit,that the train makes. So there it is, the long and the short of it..........an increase in fares is NOT necessary,it's only really price gouging of the public. They may, as they choose, choose to reduce staff and other operating costs etc,through various cuts, as is their right to do, but in no way shape nor for is any such fare increase as suggested by Sir Roy McNulty,necessary, beyond a feeding of the simple fare gouging greed of the Train Operators.
leaked report here found in a news article from the Daily telegraph, and here viewable on the internet at.......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/8471811/Rail-companies-should-be-able-to-increase-fares.html
Now,to continue, the headline reads.......sadly,and unnecessarily.....and here the quote of the article commences..
And I quote.......
"Rail companies 'should be able to increase fares'
Rail companies should be allowed to introduce “airline-style fares” that could see them charging hundreds of pounds for tickets during peak times and banning passengers without pre-booked seats from traveling, a Government review is set to recommend.
By Robert Winnett, Deputy Political Editor
Leaked documents disclose that the review will say that train companies must either be allowed to charge significantly more for some travel or that the Government will have to dramatically increase the capacity on trains.
The recommendations, from Sir Roy McNulty, the former chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority, are due to be delivered next month to ministers.
The study is expected to warn that fare structures are too complex, over-subsidised and do not manage peak demand.
It will say the railways are subject to too much state involvement and a growth in services has not been matched by efficiency savings.
The documents say costs are a major problem and need to be cut by 35 per cent to match European counterparts.
They will set out plans to cut staff and propose decentralising or breaking-up Network Rail. They recommend loosening franchise terms to allow operators to respond better to demand.
The report will urge ministers to review fares policies and allow train operators to “take a more commercial approach” to ticket prices by lifting caps on fares and removing saver tickets from long-distance services."
And here ends the quote of the article.
So, now let us consider the factors involved in train versus aircraft, with a smattering of comparison versus bus as well......
Firstly for the greens, let's examine the carbon imprint,the environmental impact.By train a trip of any kind works out at 80-90% less carbon emissions.When a student at the Saarland University Of Applied Sciences stated that the plane was the best way to go to London, her geography lecturer Werner Ried, unconvinced, proposed to compare both journeys - by train and by plane - for real... The actual race took place on June 15: two teams, one going by train, the other via a low-cost airline. The journey started at St. Ingbert (Saarland, Germany), and the destination: London Piccadilly Circus.The results clearly favour train travel. Once the teams tallied their results, rail bested air clearly on travel time (6h 25min vs. 6h 45min by plane), price (€101,58 per person vs. €105,96 by plane), and environmental impact (only 22kg/person of CO2 rejection by train against 144kg/person by plane).
Rail comfort is enormously greater, detraining/baggage and getting on way home or where ever, is vastly superiour with respect to,and obviously in favor rail,but comparable with bus.
Now, let get down to fuel costs, and consumption.Fuel costs per passenger mile, aircraft versus train, are utterly miniscule with respect to the train, enormous profitability,efficiency,use of fuel, a vastly smaller quantity of fuel is consumed for the same number of passengers.Aircraft simply cannot compete in any way shape nor form, and it is utterly ridiculous to attempt to compare the two.Passenger Rail returned the equivalent of 94 (1995 figure) passenger miles per gallon.Aircraft figures, all things considered, are about 50 passenger miles per gallon............train 50% saving in fuel,and,consider,Jet fuel kerosene, runs now at $3.25/US gallon.Diesel is now more expensive, at $4.25 per gallon,but taking in to account the passenger miles/gallon, at 50% less, therefor it works t0 $2.12 per gallon equivalent,so,of course, fuel consumed costs less than a comparable aircraft journey /mile/passenger/passenger mile/passenger gallon.Train is more efficient and far less expensive to operate, and thence returns a far greater profit per passenger/mile already.In short with train we're looking at $$$$$$$ PROFITS PROFITS PROFITS.In terms of people cost, crew numbers, train once again has a vastly reduced crew number as compared with aircraft for the same number of passengers, or any number for that matter, again vastly reduced costs to operator.
Now in terms of bus travel for the same distance, train emits,in terms of gaseous waste emissions a lot less than the buses(20 mile trip into the next county on a train would emit about 7 lbs of CO2, while in a bus it would emit about 13 lbs of CO2.), singly,remember, a bus, now in terms of moveable passengers per mile,in quantity, however, the same train is pulling hundreds of passengers, now the bus can accommodate, what,say 80? Well, to get the 400 passengers at a
time(or yet more), we thence have say 5 buses, and so the train comes out at a tremendously better figure...in terms of Green emissions.Aircraft by comparison to either is utterly ridiculous,No matter how you cut it, flying is the most carbon-intense option.
Let's look now at America,for example,as we know, and so too shall you.......
For a round-trip airplane ride to Boston from DC and back, the carbon emissions are .242 Tons of CO2. The plane ticket would cost about $220 and would take about 3 hours each way.For a round-trip train ride to Boston from DC and back, the carbon emissions are 0.085 Tons of CO2. The train ticket would cost about $200 and would take about 8 hours each way.Train for the passenger comes out a touch cheaper, $20 is $20, vastly reduced carbon emissions(less taxing on atmos etc),but fuel consumption passenger miles is a tremendous saving to the train operator, as well as reduced crew costs, ,and also maintenance factors,so profits are far greater for the same trip for the TRAIN OPERATOR, hence a far higher profit margin is achieved for the TRAIN OPERATOR.
Now to suggest an increase in fares,comparable to that of airlines, is quite pointedly ridiculous, and Squirrel smells a rat, a political rat, a rat forging increased profits and price gouging by train operators for an already obviously
profit intensive rail operation as compared with airline.Recall now train fares are also not set as airline fares.The setting of fares to be,as they wish,"increased airline style fares", is, in point of fact, an increase in set fares.
You see, "airline style fares", encompass at times what? SURPRISE! Seat sales, yes, from time to time, there are MASSIVE seat fares, cheap rate,extremely cheap rate.Will the plan of McNulty introduce that?So very very not!No let us also consider the structure of airline fares.........they incorporate hidden fees, such as landing fees,baggage handling fee, airport tax, and other such items and taxes, and THESE go to the airports used.Trains don't require such fees but yet fares are almost comparable, exactly, not by far cheaper yet, and yet,as expounded above, a train is very much yet cheaper to operate.The actual working cost per seat passenger mile is ridiculously lower than that for
aircraft, and so to the actual profit the airlines make, versus the massive,by comparison, profit,that the train makes. So there it is, the long and the short of it..........an increase in fares is NOT necessary,it's only really price gouging of the public. They may, as they choose, choose to reduce staff and other operating costs etc,through various cuts, as is their right to do, but in no way shape nor for is any such fare increase as suggested by Sir Roy McNulty,necessary, beyond a feeding of the simple fare gouging greed of the Train Operators.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Secret Squirrel On The Sale Of Court Orders.
Secret Squirrel has seen a development in England.of a disorder in the court, where it seems judges have misadapted contra mundum orders and issued them in such a fashion that they are useable by, and favor only, those of substantial financial means,virtually exclusively.In short rendering selling legalities,through the judiciary.Originally these orders were meant for cases of national security,wherein the nation did not wish disclosure,agents names,activities,official secrets,secret technologies etc etc et all.Also it was applied to those beneath legal age for whatever crimes they perpetrated,participated in, or witnessed.However, in those cases,it is believed THEY were not specifically charged for these orders.But this was suddenly evolved,by the judges,and applied,in all their wisdom,or whatever one prefers to call it, and they used it,sold it actually,to apply to cases where the
lives of particular court "luminaries" or various sorts, savory or not,such as Footie(soccer) players,actors and actresses,such as, say, Lindsay Lohann, or the baglady of music,Amy Winehouse, would otherwise have had their lives threatened with disclosure of their participation in necessary specific court events.I short, we're being deprived,we the public,of the juicy tidbits or their lives and doings affecting that and any other specific court case,should they decide to buy,purchase as it were, at their level, the contra mundum orders,unaffordable by those of lesser means. However, it seems some disorder that has emerged concerning these
much more prolific orders,which it seems, spawned yet more and more, emerged and were mutated in the light of the courts and the day, such that they are becoming illuminated by those members of Parliament such that they are considering wresting the abilities to issue such orders from the judges and placing said ability to issue, firmly in the hands of Parliament,in the hands of the people,where it most directly belongs, out of specific necessity.In short judicial equality may emerge at all levels, such that it can be enjoyed in the courts by all,fairly, or thence by none, in interesting civil and other issues.
The Telegraph,and the Daily Mail,reveal that David Cameron is himself 'uneasy' about creeping use of these injunctions to gag press and has said he feels 'uneasy' about judges increasingly using these so called super-injunctions to create privacy law in Britain.David Cameron has voiced his concern at the increasing use of injunctions,actually misuse.His comments follow a number of recent injunctions which have prevented the press from reporting the identification of celebrities.
Mr Cameron said it should be up to Parliament not judges to decide the extent of press freedom and said recent judgements had left him feeling 'a little uneasy.'
On Wednesday, High Court judge Mr Justice Eady agreed to issue a "contra mundum" order - effectively a worldwide ban - in the case of a man who sought to prevent publication of material about his private life.It is thought to be the first time such an order has been issued in a privacy case.However,there is the right to privacy, but also the right for the public to know,the right to a public trial,totally open and above board,there must be open justice, and evidence presented open to all,the trial entirely being recorded and on the public record.What is effectively occurring is that the rich and famous can openly buy their way out of scandal, while the common everyman,Joe The Plumber,cannot,and the law shouldn't be just for the rich and famous.The entire event as the judges are running things, is utterly and completely unfair to the average citizen,the true peers of the realm,of whom there is the very greatest of majority,and much more so to those of extremely limited means.The law should be accessible to,in it's entirety, to all, in all fairness and equality,both judicial and financial.It must not consist of court orders only to those who can afford them,judgements for those who can afford them.The British judiciary must be open to, and affordable by all, in all equity,baring inequity, and inequality.
The latest 'contra mundum' decision marks yet another step in the move by the courts to extend protections for the right to respect for privacy and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.However such an order is
accessible only at cost, not free to all, only those of greater financial means can enjoy such a freedom, whereas the European convention is in the spirit of things and the law, supposedly available and accessible to all equally, in equality and equity, and not at cost, not a right available to those of financial means by the abilities to purchase said right in order to secure it.)The gagging order is also preventing miscarriages of justice from being investigated, according to an MP campaigning against secrecy in Britain's courts.John Hemming said the rising tide of injunctions granted by the courts threatened to contravene the Magna Carta.It has the effect of preventing journalists from speaking to people subject to this injunction without a risk of the journalist going to jail. That is a recipe for hiding miscarriages of justice.They are not compliant with the rules of a fair
trial"The rich and famous can pay their way out of scandal. But it also marks a further advance in the steps the courts are prepared to take in restricting the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention.Most assuredly this order as it is is thence a violation of the right to freedom of expression, particularly with respect to actual disclosures in a free and open trial, or judicial proceeding.
A contra mundum order is intended to apply forever, and it applies to all those who might come to know of it - as opposed to forbidding the publication of details by a specific newspaper or journalist.The cost of obtaining an order varies but can run
into the tens of thousands of pounds.It's not something that the man on the street can do without any thought.These things are still few and far between. There was a rash of them but they're still comparatively rare.
In short the order provides "privacy of disclosure", for those who can afford it,and incorporates the hidden land mine of affecting all those who might come to know of it,or in a sense over hear details of it, in a rather unfair manner as they become subject to suits.The order is also only really accessible to those of means, not to all regardless of financial statures and abilities.In short an order by purchase,justice can be purchased, thence,at least in part.It is wrong to have a system whereby people can buy the sort of justice they want. That is a contravention of the Magna Carta." Clause 29 of the Magna Carta states that "we will sell to no man ... either justice or right".
Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming has voiced concern over the process, pointing out that if the gagged party wishes to contest an order they risk incurring a large cost.This particularly unbalances the judicial process further, making justice
accessible,achievable, and purchasable, by those only who can afford it,not an equality for those who can't, those of meagher means."It's a very unbalanced system won by the force of money and not by the force of arguments," he said. "The system is weighted in favour of those with the money.
"I'm not a big fan of kiss-and-tell but I'm not in favour of 'if you tell you go to jail'."Will the Government have a debate or a statement on freedom of speech and whether there’s one rule for the rich and one rule for the poor?”
"What we've got in this country now is a privacy law that wasn't brought in by Parliament but the judges have decided what they want and that's what they've achieved.Sometimes the privacy of the rich and famous - or anyone - does deserve to be protected but only the rich can afford this, so it's purely a law to protect the rich and in a democracy that's not right."
Over the past few years, British courts have been strangely eager to grant these gagging orders, whose basis supposedly lies in human rights legislation inspired by Europe,but it is hard to avoid the view that judges are forging a privacy law on the hoof,as pleases them ,with privilege for some,for a fee, a large fee,available and affordable by only a very elite few,hardly justice and equality, and civil and human rights for all,which is as it should be,but so very sadly, isn't.
lives of particular court "luminaries" or various sorts, savory or not,such as Footie(soccer) players,actors and actresses,such as, say, Lindsay Lohann, or the baglady of music,Amy Winehouse, would otherwise have had their lives threatened with disclosure of their participation in necessary specific court events.I short, we're being deprived,we the public,of the juicy tidbits or their lives and doings affecting that and any other specific court case,should they decide to buy,purchase as it were, at their level, the contra mundum orders,unaffordable by those of lesser means. However, it seems some disorder that has emerged concerning these
much more prolific orders,which it seems, spawned yet more and more, emerged and were mutated in the light of the courts and the day, such that they are becoming illuminated by those members of Parliament such that they are considering wresting the abilities to issue such orders from the judges and placing said ability to issue, firmly in the hands of Parliament,in the hands of the people,where it most directly belongs, out of specific necessity.In short judicial equality may emerge at all levels, such that it can be enjoyed in the courts by all,fairly, or thence by none, in interesting civil and other issues.
The Telegraph,and the Daily Mail,reveal that David Cameron is himself 'uneasy' about creeping use of these injunctions to gag press and has said he feels 'uneasy' about judges increasingly using these so called super-injunctions to create privacy law in Britain.David Cameron has voiced his concern at the increasing use of injunctions,actually misuse.His comments follow a number of recent injunctions which have prevented the press from reporting the identification of celebrities.
Mr Cameron said it should be up to Parliament not judges to decide the extent of press freedom and said recent judgements had left him feeling 'a little uneasy.'
On Wednesday, High Court judge Mr Justice Eady agreed to issue a "contra mundum" order - effectively a worldwide ban - in the case of a man who sought to prevent publication of material about his private life.It is thought to be the first time such an order has been issued in a privacy case.However,there is the right to privacy, but also the right for the public to know,the right to a public trial,totally open and above board,there must be open justice, and evidence presented open to all,the trial entirely being recorded and on the public record.What is effectively occurring is that the rich and famous can openly buy their way out of scandal, while the common everyman,Joe The Plumber,cannot,and the law shouldn't be just for the rich and famous.The entire event as the judges are running things, is utterly and completely unfair to the average citizen,the true peers of the realm,of whom there is the very greatest of majority,and much more so to those of extremely limited means.The law should be accessible to,in it's entirety, to all, in all fairness and equality,both judicial and financial.It must not consist of court orders only to those who can afford them,judgements for those who can afford them.The British judiciary must be open to, and affordable by all, in all equity,baring inequity, and inequality.
The latest 'contra mundum' decision marks yet another step in the move by the courts to extend protections for the right to respect for privacy and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.However such an order is
accessible only at cost, not free to all, only those of greater financial means can enjoy such a freedom, whereas the European convention is in the spirit of things and the law, supposedly available and accessible to all equally, in equality and equity, and not at cost, not a right available to those of financial means by the abilities to purchase said right in order to secure it.)The gagging order is also preventing miscarriages of justice from being investigated, according to an MP campaigning against secrecy in Britain's courts.John Hemming said the rising tide of injunctions granted by the courts threatened to contravene the Magna Carta.It has the effect of preventing journalists from speaking to people subject to this injunction without a risk of the journalist going to jail. That is a recipe for hiding miscarriages of justice.They are not compliant with the rules of a fair
trial"The rich and famous can pay their way out of scandal. But it also marks a further advance in the steps the courts are prepared to take in restricting the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Convention.Most assuredly this order as it is is thence a violation of the right to freedom of expression, particularly with respect to actual disclosures in a free and open trial, or judicial proceeding.
A contra mundum order is intended to apply forever, and it applies to all those who might come to know of it - as opposed to forbidding the publication of details by a specific newspaper or journalist.The cost of obtaining an order varies but can run
into the tens of thousands of pounds.It's not something that the man on the street can do without any thought.These things are still few and far between. There was a rash of them but they're still comparatively rare.
In short the order provides "privacy of disclosure", for those who can afford it,and incorporates the hidden land mine of affecting all those who might come to know of it,or in a sense over hear details of it, in a rather unfair manner as they become subject to suits.The order is also only really accessible to those of means, not to all regardless of financial statures and abilities.In short an order by purchase,justice can be purchased, thence,at least in part.It is wrong to have a system whereby people can buy the sort of justice they want. That is a contravention of the Magna Carta." Clause 29 of the Magna Carta states that "we will sell to no man ... either justice or right".
Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming has voiced concern over the process, pointing out that if the gagged party wishes to contest an order they risk incurring a large cost.This particularly unbalances the judicial process further, making justice
accessible,achievable, and purchasable, by those only who can afford it,not an equality for those who can't, those of meagher means."It's a very unbalanced system won by the force of money and not by the force of arguments," he said. "The system is weighted in favour of those with the money.
"I'm not a big fan of kiss-and-tell but I'm not in favour of 'if you tell you go to jail'."Will the Government have a debate or a statement on freedom of speech and whether there’s one rule for the rich and one rule for the poor?”
"What we've got in this country now is a privacy law that wasn't brought in by Parliament but the judges have decided what they want and that's what they've achieved.Sometimes the privacy of the rich and famous - or anyone - does deserve to be protected but only the rich can afford this, so it's purely a law to protect the rich and in a democracy that's not right."
Over the past few years, British courts have been strangely eager to grant these gagging orders, whose basis supposedly lies in human rights legislation inspired by Europe,but it is hard to avoid the view that judges are forging a privacy law on the hoof,as pleases them ,with privilege for some,for a fee, a large fee,available and affordable by only a very elite few,hardly justice and equality, and civil and human rights for all,which is as it should be,but so very sadly, isn't.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Secret Squirrel On Fukushima,And The Shape Of Things To Come.
Secret Squirrel noticed that they,TEPCO and The Government, said they were trying to save the Fukushima reactors, yes, save the reactors, ,save the reactors,that was what they said, they were trying to save to reactors............not the people.Not the people, from the radiation spewing forth, contaminating,poisoning the earth, entering the water, inundating,invading, entering the very food they'd eat, the vegetables, and also the farm animals, the farm animals to be eaten for meat,cows,pigs and chickens et all, and the milk that they'd drink...........the reactor blew, we saw, the column, the white column, and............the ring....the nuclear ring.......I imagine they'd prefer the heavenly term halo, for that is where the radiation so released, the caesium that comes from inside the reactors,comes from,that and when the meltdown,and so the Fukushima nuclear plant, turned Japan,and the life for the Japanese, in to a living Hell.....life under the Heavenly nuclear halo.There are claims that other reactors won't do the same thing, as occurred in Japan, the reactor DID blow open, and spew radiation, and the dreaded poisonous, long lasting cesium in to the air and round and about, and it to the water and in to the soil, and in to the food,animal and vegetable,and on to the people.They say that other reactors won't do that,they're encased, but the Japanese ones haven't been encased, and we have to ask why they weren't, when encased ones were being built at the same time,by the same source designers, with safety in mind, as they were in Japan, as they are in Japan. They say the encased ones won't blow open.Well, place a stick of dynamite on a stump,light it, it blows, but that's about it, negligible damage to the stump. Place the same stick of dynamite on the stump, light it, cover it with a can, and it can and will obliterate the stump.The containment of an explosive release at the moment of explosion, concentrates, and magnifies many times the blast. The encased concrete reactor is safe?Chernobyl blew a 2000 TON metal lid, right off and up,enormously in to the air, releasing the radiation, and poisonous caesium in to the air, and in to the water, and in to the soil and in to the food, and on to the people,and it remains for many many years.
They released radioactive steams in to the air, with associated radioactive particles.They said they were containing the water they were pouring on to the reactors, which was becoming horrifically radioactive, and they found humungous amounts of radiation in the sea, where it was contaminating and entering,the fish, which as you know live beneath the surface of the water.Amazing! There it is, think now,ponder, assess.And where did that humungous amount come from?Well, they seemed to indicate thence, the small leaks? Or were they lying, TEPCO, AND The Government..........and just releasing it all willy nilly in to the sea.They DID show imagines of a leak, they said was the source,but notice it is a rather small crack, a very small crack......so.then the smallest crack can release a massive quantity of radiation in to the water to contaminate the sea,the fish,and render them, unsafe to eat,unless you wish to risk death,in the short term, and cancerous death in the long,slow term.
Well, you know the effects of radiation in the short term, the burns(recall the workers were burned by contact with radioactive water,they told you that much it was found out when the made it to hospital),you know the effects of radiation, the hair falling out,etc etc etc.But what is a cancerous death due to radiation, in the long slow term,the very slow term.Well, I know,you see when I was ten, they had these "phosporous" glow in the dark material on watches,and, what should happen, but one of these tiny balls fell off somebodies watch, the girl, in front of me, picked it up and swallowed it, just like candy.Well, I told her that wasn't such a good idea.On it went, I encountered her in high school, she complained of frequent stomach aches,I knew what from, that radioactive tiny ball was stuck in there.I encountered her again, 30 years after, in hospital,she had stomach cancer, a mass
had grown over the years.She died, slowly,painfully.Yes, there it was, the tiny round glow in the center of the mass,I told them, they found it,there it was, the cause of death............cancer of course, but a cancer induced by that radioactive tiny ball that had lodged in her stomach, triggered the cells to surround it and try protect the body, and then mutate to cancerous cells, and
cancer, due to the effects of the radiation,death forty years later,due to a tiny radioactive ball, and something not that massively radioactive, just trapped, within the body, sitting there,emitting it's tiny level of radioactivity,to the cells it rested on,was lodged on.That's what it does,that's how it happens, and that's what it will do, and is doing, to the Japanese, and anybody else, who ingests the materials, or inhales the materials.The nuclear particles from the nuclear plant, are higher levels
than that tiny ball, even yet they being so very much smaller,but so very much yet more,radioactive.
If TEPCO, and The Government,had THEY not lied to the people of Japan, if they had not tried to ridiculously save the reactors, far less Japanese would have suffered,and WILL suffer, the effects and fates similar, as expounded immediately preceding.What you have read above is the shape of things to come for a great many of the Japanese who lived close to the reactors,who will eat the food,animal and vegetable, who will eat the fish,who breathed in and swallowed and/or inhaled, the radioactive particles spewed forth by the reactor plant's explosions and radioactive water leaks.We salute you, you who are about to die, slowly, you
who suffered the TEPCO,The Government,The Nuclear Lie.
They released radioactive steams in to the air, with associated radioactive particles.They said they were containing the water they were pouring on to the reactors, which was becoming horrifically radioactive, and they found humungous amounts of radiation in the sea, where it was contaminating and entering,the fish, which as you know live beneath the surface of the water.Amazing! There it is, think now,ponder, assess.And where did that humungous amount come from?Well, they seemed to indicate thence, the small leaks? Or were they lying, TEPCO, AND The Government..........and just releasing it all willy nilly in to the sea.They DID show imagines of a leak, they said was the source,but notice it is a rather small crack, a very small crack......so.then the smallest crack can release a massive quantity of radiation in to the water to contaminate the sea,the fish,and render them, unsafe to eat,unless you wish to risk death,in the short term, and cancerous death in the long,slow term.
Well, you know the effects of radiation in the short term, the burns(recall the workers were burned by contact with radioactive water,they told you that much it was found out when the made it to hospital),you know the effects of radiation, the hair falling out,etc etc etc.But what is a cancerous death due to radiation, in the long slow term,the very slow term.Well, I know,you see when I was ten, they had these "phosporous" glow in the dark material on watches,and, what should happen, but one of these tiny balls fell off somebodies watch, the girl, in front of me, picked it up and swallowed it, just like candy.Well, I told her that wasn't such a good idea.On it went, I encountered her in high school, she complained of frequent stomach aches,I knew what from, that radioactive tiny ball was stuck in there.I encountered her again, 30 years after, in hospital,she had stomach cancer, a mass
had grown over the years.She died, slowly,painfully.Yes, there it was, the tiny round glow in the center of the mass,I told them, they found it,there it was, the cause of death............cancer of course, but a cancer induced by that radioactive tiny ball that had lodged in her stomach, triggered the cells to surround it and try protect the body, and then mutate to cancerous cells, and
cancer, due to the effects of the radiation,death forty years later,due to a tiny radioactive ball, and something not that massively radioactive, just trapped, within the body, sitting there,emitting it's tiny level of radioactivity,to the cells it rested on,was lodged on.That's what it does,that's how it happens, and that's what it will do, and is doing, to the Japanese, and anybody else, who ingests the materials, or inhales the materials.The nuclear particles from the nuclear plant, are higher levels
than that tiny ball, even yet they being so very much smaller,but so very much yet more,radioactive.
If TEPCO, and The Government,had THEY not lied to the people of Japan, if they had not tried to ridiculously save the reactors, far less Japanese would have suffered,and WILL suffer, the effects and fates similar, as expounded immediately preceding.What you have read above is the shape of things to come for a great many of the Japanese who lived close to the reactors,who will eat the food,animal and vegetable, who will eat the fish,who breathed in and swallowed and/or inhaled, the radioactive particles spewed forth by the reactor plant's explosions and radioactive water leaks.We salute you, you who are about to die, slowly, you
who suffered the TEPCO,The Government,The Nuclear Lie.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Secret Squirrel On The Effects Of Radiation On Man In The Way Of It.
Secret Squirrel has found,on investigation,that while nuclear advocates tell us nuclear is safe, we obviously have ourselves learned that it isn't,and will adversely affect the human bodies it lands on,or is inhaled by,burning,mutilating,mutating,killing,diseasing,quickly,or slowly,and similarly the farm animals in and after the same fashion, and thence also landing on farm soils,where it will and does and is, coating vegetables and farm animals which will be in contact with and ,eaten by humans, where it will cause yet more significant damage over a period of time after ingestion,even yet reaching in to the next generation.Many of us now look at what has been made public,specifically Chernobyl, and from Fukushima,ongoing, with obviously much of the reality hidden from the public by the nuclear agency involved and the Japanese government itself. Other disasters went before, and the radiation and its effects were hidden from the public by governments best described as draconian.So what are the general effects of radiation of a population, on the human body?Well....
(1) Hair
The losing of hair quickly and in clumps occurs with radiation exposure at 200 rems or higher.
(2) Brain
Since brain cells do not reproduce, they won't be damaged directly unless the exposure is 5,000 rems(rems/rads equate) or greater. Like the heart, radiation kills nerve cells and small blood vessels, and can cause seizures and immediate death.
(3) Thyroid
The certain body parts are more specifically affected by exposure to different types of radiation sources. The thyroid gland is susceptible to radioactive iodine. In sufficient amounts, radioactive iodine can destroy all or part of the thyroid. By taking potassium iodide, one can reduce the effects of exposure.
(4) Blood System
When a person is exposed to around 100 rems, the blood's lymphocyte cell count will be reduced, leaving the victim more susceptible to infection. This is often referred to as mild radiation sickness. Early symptoms of radiation sickness mimic those of flu and may go unnoticed unless a blood count is done.According to data from Hiroshima and Nagaski, show that symptoms may persist for up to 10 years and may also have an increased long-term risk for leukemia and lymphoma.
(5) Heart
Intense exposure to radioactive material at 1,000 to 5,000 rems would do immediate damage to small blood vessels and probably cause heart failure and death directly.
(6) Gastrointestinal Tract
Radiation damage to the intestinal tract lining will cause nausea, bloody vomiting and diarrhea. This is occurs when the victim's exposure is 200 rems or more. The radiation will begin to destroy the cells in the body that divide rapidly. These including blood, GI tract, reproductive and hair cells, and harms their DNA and RNA of surviving cells.
(7) Reproductive Tract
Because reproductive tract cells divide rapidly, these areas of the body can be damaged at rem levels as low as 200. Long-term, some radiation sickness victims will become sterile.
So Fukushima presents a medical problem of very large dimensions. Events have proven this observation to be true despite the nuclear industry's campaign about the "minimal" health effects of so-called low-level radiation. That billions of its dollars are at stake if the Fukushima event causes the "nuclear renaissance" to slow down appears to be evident from the industry's attacks on its critics, even in the face of an unresolved and escalating disaster at the reactor complex at Fukushima.
There are differences between external and internal radiation,the former being what populations were exposed to when the atomic bombs were detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945; their profound and on-going medical effects are well documented.
Internal radiation, on the other hand, emanates from radioactive elements which enter the body by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption. Hazardous radionuclides such as iodine-131, caesium 137, and other isotopes currently being released in the sea and air around Fukushima bio-concentrate at each step of various food chains (for example into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish,
then humans; or soil, grass, cow's meat and milk, then humans). After they enter the body, these elements – called internal emitters – migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone, and brain, where they continuously irradiate small volumes of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation, and over many years, can induce uncontrolled cell replication – that is, cancer. Further, many of the nuclides remain radioactive in the environment for generations, and ultimately will cause increased incidences of cancer and genetic diseases over time.
The US National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report has concluded, no dose of radiation is safe, however small, including background radiation; exposure is cumulative and adds to an individual's risk of developing cancer.Chernobyl,1986, a 2009 report, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment", published by the New York Academy of Sciences, three scientist authors – Alexey V Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V Nesterenko They
estimate the number of deaths attributable to the Chernobyl meltdown at about 980,000.
In the early days of nuclear power, WHO (World Health Organization) issued forthright statements on radiation risks such as its 1956 warning: "As experts, we affirm that the health of future generations is threatened by increasing development of the atomic industry and sources of radiation … We also believe that new mutations that occur in humans are harmful to them and their offspring."Genetic, or heritable effects appear in the future generations of the exposed person as a result of radiation damage to the reproductive cells. Genetic effects are abnormalities that may occur in the future generations of exposed individuals. They have been extensively studied in plants and animals, but risks for genetic effects in humans are seen to be considerably smaller than the risks for somatic effects.Delayed somatic effects are those that may occur years after radiation doses are received. Among the delayed effects thus far observed have been an increased potential for the development of cancer and cataracts. Since some
forms of cancer are among the most probable delayed effects, the established dose limits were formulated with this risk in mind.Prompt somatic effects are those that occur soon after an acute dose (typically 10 rad or greater to the whole body in a short period of time). One example of a prompt effect is the temporary hair loss which occurs about three weeks after a dose of 400 rad to the scalp. New hair is expected to grow within two months after the dose, although the color and texture may be different.This we've learned from benevolent anticancer therapies,however in the cases of nuclear reactors,those close to the plant and it's accident who've suffered these effects, have died.Even the lower doses of radiation, can and do result in, cataracts.Subtle doses have effects,over generations, and also, in the rather emmidate, pre-natla for example, the effects on the child pregnant females
carry........effects associated with prenatal radiation doses include:
Growth retardation,
Small head/brain size
Mental retardation
Childhood cancer
Larger doses,do more,faster,and are not very subtle in changes and effects on the humans,the human body that is,An acute radiation dose is defined as a large dose (10 rad or greater, to the whole body) delivered during a short period of time (on the order of a few days at the most). If large enough, it may result in effects which are observable within a period of hours to weeks.
Acute doses can cause a pattern of clearly identifiable symptoms (syndromes). These conditions are referred to in general as Acute Radiation Syndrome. Radiation sickness symptoms are apparent following acute doses >100 rad. Acute whole body doses of >450 rad may result in a statistical expectation that 50% of the population exposed will die within 60 days without medical attention.
As in most illnesses, the specific symptoms, the therapy that a doctor might prescribe, and the prospects for recovery vary from one person to another and are generally dependent on the age and general health of the individual.
Blood-forming organ (Bone marrow) syndrome (>100 rad) is characterized by damage to cells that divide at the most rapid pace (such as bone marrow, the spleen and lymphatic tissue). Symptoms include internal bleeding, fatigue, bacterial infections, and fever.
Gastrointestinal tract syndrome (>1000 rad) is characterized by damage to cells that divide less rapidly (such as the linings of the stomach and intestines). Symptoms include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration, electrolytic imbalance, loss of digestion ability, bleeding ulcers, and the symptoms of blood-forming organ syndrome.
Central nervous system syndrome (>5000 rad) is characterized by damage to cells that do not reproduce such as nerve cells. Symptoms include loss of coordination, confusion, coma, convulsions, shock, and the symptoms of the blood forming organ and gastrointestinal tract syndromes. Scientists now have evidence that death under these conditions is not caused by actual radiation damage to the nervous system, but rather from complications caused by internal bleeding, and fluid and pressure build-up on the brain
Other effects from an acute dose include:
200 to 300 rad to the skin can result in the reddening of the skin (erythema), similar to a mild sunburn and may result in hair loss due to damage to hair follicles.
125 to 200 rad to the ovaries can result in prolonged or permanent suppression of menstruation in about fifty percent (50%) of women.
600 rad to the ovaries or testicles can result in permanent sterilization.
50 rad to the thyroid gland can result in benign (non cancerous) tumors.
Well now, let's go on to a more appetizing aspect of nuclear radiation........the WHO says the impact of radiation on food depends on the type of food and exposed soil type, and amount of exposure and the amount of food consumed.The food experts from the Bogor Institute of Agriculture,on of whom is Dr. Ir Nuri Andarwulan, MSI states, the food is exposed to radioactive nuclear can loose all required nutrients, can even become toxic to the body such that it endangers health.Nuri explained, nuclear radiation can produce two parts, namely radioactive rays and radioactive compounds. “If food is exposed to radioactive rays, can damage the existing compounds in food. For example, the compound of vitamins in foods can be whole, or even that there are other compounds in foods can be toxic to the body,” he said when contacted VIVAnews, Wednesday, March 30, 2011.While the food is exposed to radioactive compounds, Nuri added that its effects can be deadly if consumed. “It also depends on which body part is exposed. For example, iodine, is one radioactive compound can attack the thyroid and can cause thyroid cancer.”
Radiation in particular affects the unborn also, and extremely.This can occur when the mother's abdomen is exposed to radiation from outside her body. Also, a pregnant woman who accidentally swallows or breathes in radioactive materials may absorb that substance into her bloodstream. From the mother's blood, radioactive materials may pass through the umbilical cord to the baby or concentrate in areas of the mother's body near the womb (such as the urinary bladder) and expose the fetus to radiation.Fetuses are particularly sensitive to radiation during their early development, between weeks 2 and 18 of pregnancy. The health consequences
can be severe, even at radiation doses too low to make the mother sick. Such consequences can include stunted growth, deformities, abnormal brain function, or cancer that may develop sometime later in life.Unborn babies are especially sensitive to the cancer-causing effects of radiation.Such damaging exposure can be directly,or else through ingestion of radiation through food and or water by the mother,affecting both her, and the child,much more so,the child.
Radioactive fallout comes from radioactive materials accidentally released into the atmosphere, such as from nuclear power plant accidents,explosions, release of gases,release of cooling and or other waters. Prevailing winds and water fall can contain radioactive waste and isotopes, leading to the deposit of these materials in places far from the accident,on persons,on soil,on vegetation,on food vegetables,on cattle and barnyard animals. The radiation is then deposited and absorbed by vegetation and grains used to feed animals for human consumption, as well as on fruits, vegetables and grain products used to feed humans, according.
Consuming radioactive materials can cause damage to your body. The European Food Safety Authority, or EFSA, states that the more soluble uranium is, the greater danger to the body upon exposure from food and water. Half-life of uranium in the body can last as long as 360 days, which means you still have uranium in your body long after your exposure to it.The World Health Organization states that absorption of uranium from foods is low, with 98 percent being excreted from your body unabsorbed and eliminated through feces. Uranium may accumulate in your nervous system, but according to WHO, firm conclusions can't be drawn as the results
are conflicting on the damage done to nerves from radiation exposure. The United States Environmental Protection Agency,however,states that ingested uranium from food and water can lead to kidney damage and cancer. This isn't due to the radioactivity of uranium but rather the toxic nature of the metal itself. Also, uranium found in your urine can still be traced inside your body for months after ingestion or exposure.
Face it, whether you're holding it,breathing it,or ingesting it, radiation is just not safe for you.It WILL cause you damage,and in fact, through you, your as yet unborn children, or yet those who are in the process of getting there if you're a pregnant female.It damages,mutate, and kills, and you have no choice in the matter, the course of events for you will be determined by the exposure you receive from the nuclear accident,no matter what you local nuclear authority, or government tell you,their words are most often neither truth, and most definitely not a ridiculous shield for you from radiation's effects,the effects of radiations spewing,exploding, leaking out of, their nuclear plants, plants they want there,as they say, for your won good.Such is their benevolence,such is their malevolence.Radioactivity, is a maiming,mutilating,killer, s low killer due to the cancers it induces, a painful,ever torturing killer,brought to you by your government.They'll be the death of you, eventually,the horrible,horrific
death, nuclear death,a long slow painful death,and if you don't die, you'll wish you had, or perhaps, you'll wish you'd never have been born. The Russian suffered,the Japanese suffer, soon too you will suffer..........it's coming for you, it's going to happen,your happening.
(1) Hair
The losing of hair quickly and in clumps occurs with radiation exposure at 200 rems or higher.
(2) Brain
Since brain cells do not reproduce, they won't be damaged directly unless the exposure is 5,000 rems(rems/rads equate) or greater. Like the heart, radiation kills nerve cells and small blood vessels, and can cause seizures and immediate death.
(3) Thyroid
The certain body parts are more specifically affected by exposure to different types of radiation sources. The thyroid gland is susceptible to radioactive iodine. In sufficient amounts, radioactive iodine can destroy all or part of the thyroid. By taking potassium iodide, one can reduce the effects of exposure.
(4) Blood System
When a person is exposed to around 100 rems, the blood's lymphocyte cell count will be reduced, leaving the victim more susceptible to infection. This is often referred to as mild radiation sickness. Early symptoms of radiation sickness mimic those of flu and may go unnoticed unless a blood count is done.According to data from Hiroshima and Nagaski, show that symptoms may persist for up to 10 years and may also have an increased long-term risk for leukemia and lymphoma.
(5) Heart
Intense exposure to radioactive material at 1,000 to 5,000 rems would do immediate damage to small blood vessels and probably cause heart failure and death directly.
(6) Gastrointestinal Tract
Radiation damage to the intestinal tract lining will cause nausea, bloody vomiting and diarrhea. This is occurs when the victim's exposure is 200 rems or more. The radiation will begin to destroy the cells in the body that divide rapidly. These including blood, GI tract, reproductive and hair cells, and harms their DNA and RNA of surviving cells.
(7) Reproductive Tract
Because reproductive tract cells divide rapidly, these areas of the body can be damaged at rem levels as low as 200. Long-term, some radiation sickness victims will become sterile.
So Fukushima presents a medical problem of very large dimensions. Events have proven this observation to be true despite the nuclear industry's campaign about the "minimal" health effects of so-called low-level radiation. That billions of its dollars are at stake if the Fukushima event causes the "nuclear renaissance" to slow down appears to be evident from the industry's attacks on its critics, even in the face of an unresolved and escalating disaster at the reactor complex at Fukushima.
There are differences between external and internal radiation,the former being what populations were exposed to when the atomic bombs were detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945; their profound and on-going medical effects are well documented.
Internal radiation, on the other hand, emanates from radioactive elements which enter the body by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption. Hazardous radionuclides such as iodine-131, caesium 137, and other isotopes currently being released in the sea and air around Fukushima bio-concentrate at each step of various food chains (for example into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish,
then humans; or soil, grass, cow's meat and milk, then humans). After they enter the body, these elements – called internal emitters – migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone, and brain, where they continuously irradiate small volumes of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation, and over many years, can induce uncontrolled cell replication – that is, cancer. Further, many of the nuclides remain radioactive in the environment for generations, and ultimately will cause increased incidences of cancer and genetic diseases over time.
The US National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII report has concluded, no dose of radiation is safe, however small, including background radiation; exposure is cumulative and adds to an individual's risk of developing cancer.Chernobyl,1986, a 2009 report, "Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment", published by the New York Academy of Sciences, three scientist authors – Alexey V Yablokov, Vassily B. Nesterenko, and Alexey V Nesterenko They
estimate the number of deaths attributable to the Chernobyl meltdown at about 980,000.
In the early days of nuclear power, WHO (World Health Organization) issued forthright statements on radiation risks such as its 1956 warning: "As experts, we affirm that the health of future generations is threatened by increasing development of the atomic industry and sources of radiation … We also believe that new mutations that occur in humans are harmful to them and their offspring."Genetic, or heritable effects appear in the future generations of the exposed person as a result of radiation damage to the reproductive cells. Genetic effects are abnormalities that may occur in the future generations of exposed individuals. They have been extensively studied in plants and animals, but risks for genetic effects in humans are seen to be considerably smaller than the risks for somatic effects.Delayed somatic effects are those that may occur years after radiation doses are received. Among the delayed effects thus far observed have been an increased potential for the development of cancer and cataracts. Since some
forms of cancer are among the most probable delayed effects, the established dose limits were formulated with this risk in mind.Prompt somatic effects are those that occur soon after an acute dose (typically 10 rad or greater to the whole body in a short period of time). One example of a prompt effect is the temporary hair loss which occurs about three weeks after a dose of 400 rad to the scalp. New hair is expected to grow within two months after the dose, although the color and texture may be different.This we've learned from benevolent anticancer therapies,however in the cases of nuclear reactors,those close to the plant and it's accident who've suffered these effects, have died.Even the lower doses of radiation, can and do result in, cataracts.Subtle doses have effects,over generations, and also, in the rather emmidate, pre-natla for example, the effects on the child pregnant females
carry........effects associated with prenatal radiation doses include:
Growth retardation,
Small head/brain size
Mental retardation
Childhood cancer
Larger doses,do more,faster,and are not very subtle in changes and effects on the humans,the human body that is,An acute radiation dose is defined as a large dose (10 rad or greater, to the whole body) delivered during a short period of time (on the order of a few days at the most). If large enough, it may result in effects which are observable within a period of hours to weeks.
Acute doses can cause a pattern of clearly identifiable symptoms (syndromes). These conditions are referred to in general as Acute Radiation Syndrome. Radiation sickness symptoms are apparent following acute doses >100 rad. Acute whole body doses of >450 rad may result in a statistical expectation that 50% of the population exposed will die within 60 days without medical attention.
As in most illnesses, the specific symptoms, the therapy that a doctor might prescribe, and the prospects for recovery vary from one person to another and are generally dependent on the age and general health of the individual.
Blood-forming organ (Bone marrow) syndrome (>100 rad) is characterized by damage to cells that divide at the most rapid pace (such as bone marrow, the spleen and lymphatic tissue). Symptoms include internal bleeding, fatigue, bacterial infections, and fever.
Gastrointestinal tract syndrome (>1000 rad) is characterized by damage to cells that divide less rapidly (such as the linings of the stomach and intestines). Symptoms include nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dehydration, electrolytic imbalance, loss of digestion ability, bleeding ulcers, and the symptoms of blood-forming organ syndrome.
Central nervous system syndrome (>5000 rad) is characterized by damage to cells that do not reproduce such as nerve cells. Symptoms include loss of coordination, confusion, coma, convulsions, shock, and the symptoms of the blood forming organ and gastrointestinal tract syndromes. Scientists now have evidence that death under these conditions is not caused by actual radiation damage to the nervous system, but rather from complications caused by internal bleeding, and fluid and pressure build-up on the brain
Other effects from an acute dose include:
200 to 300 rad to the skin can result in the reddening of the skin (erythema), similar to a mild sunburn and may result in hair loss due to damage to hair follicles.
125 to 200 rad to the ovaries can result in prolonged or permanent suppression of menstruation in about fifty percent (50%) of women.
600 rad to the ovaries or testicles can result in permanent sterilization.
50 rad to the thyroid gland can result in benign (non cancerous) tumors.
Well now, let's go on to a more appetizing aspect of nuclear radiation........the WHO says the impact of radiation on food depends on the type of food and exposed soil type, and amount of exposure and the amount of food consumed.The food experts from the Bogor Institute of Agriculture,on of whom is Dr. Ir Nuri Andarwulan, MSI states, the food is exposed to radioactive nuclear can loose all required nutrients, can even become toxic to the body such that it endangers health.Nuri explained, nuclear radiation can produce two parts, namely radioactive rays and radioactive compounds. “If food is exposed to radioactive rays, can damage the existing compounds in food. For example, the compound of vitamins in foods can be whole, or even that there are other compounds in foods can be toxic to the body,” he said when contacted VIVAnews, Wednesday, March 30, 2011.While the food is exposed to radioactive compounds, Nuri added that its effects can be deadly if consumed. “It also depends on which body part is exposed. For example, iodine, is one radioactive compound can attack the thyroid and can cause thyroid cancer.”
Radiation in particular affects the unborn also, and extremely.This can occur when the mother's abdomen is exposed to radiation from outside her body. Also, a pregnant woman who accidentally swallows or breathes in radioactive materials may absorb that substance into her bloodstream. From the mother's blood, radioactive materials may pass through the umbilical cord to the baby or concentrate in areas of the mother's body near the womb (such as the urinary bladder) and expose the fetus to radiation.Fetuses are particularly sensitive to radiation during their early development, between weeks 2 and 18 of pregnancy. The health consequences
can be severe, even at radiation doses too low to make the mother sick. Such consequences can include stunted growth, deformities, abnormal brain function, or cancer that may develop sometime later in life.Unborn babies are especially sensitive to the cancer-causing effects of radiation.Such damaging exposure can be directly,or else through ingestion of radiation through food and or water by the mother,affecting both her, and the child,much more so,the child.
Radioactive fallout comes from radioactive materials accidentally released into the atmosphere, such as from nuclear power plant accidents,explosions, release of gases,release of cooling and or other waters. Prevailing winds and water fall can contain radioactive waste and isotopes, leading to the deposit of these materials in places far from the accident,on persons,on soil,on vegetation,on food vegetables,on cattle and barnyard animals. The radiation is then deposited and absorbed by vegetation and grains used to feed animals for human consumption, as well as on fruits, vegetables and grain products used to feed humans, according.
Consuming radioactive materials can cause damage to your body. The European Food Safety Authority, or EFSA, states that the more soluble uranium is, the greater danger to the body upon exposure from food and water. Half-life of uranium in the body can last as long as 360 days, which means you still have uranium in your body long after your exposure to it.The World Health Organization states that absorption of uranium from foods is low, with 98 percent being excreted from your body unabsorbed and eliminated through feces. Uranium may accumulate in your nervous system, but according to WHO, firm conclusions can't be drawn as the results
are conflicting on the damage done to nerves from radiation exposure. The United States Environmental Protection Agency,however,states that ingested uranium from food and water can lead to kidney damage and cancer. This isn't due to the radioactivity of uranium but rather the toxic nature of the metal itself. Also, uranium found in your urine can still be traced inside your body for months after ingestion or exposure.
Face it, whether you're holding it,breathing it,or ingesting it, radiation is just not safe for you.It WILL cause you damage,and in fact, through you, your as yet unborn children, or yet those who are in the process of getting there if you're a pregnant female.It damages,mutate, and kills, and you have no choice in the matter, the course of events for you will be determined by the exposure you receive from the nuclear accident,no matter what you local nuclear authority, or government tell you,their words are most often neither truth, and most definitely not a ridiculous shield for you from radiation's effects,the effects of radiations spewing,exploding, leaking out of, their nuclear plants, plants they want there,as they say, for your won good.Such is their benevolence,such is their malevolence.Radioactivity, is a maiming,mutilating,killer, s low killer due to the cancers it induces, a painful,ever torturing killer,brought to you by your government.They'll be the death of you, eventually,the horrible,horrific
death, nuclear death,a long slow painful death,and if you don't die, you'll wish you had, or perhaps, you'll wish you'd never have been born. The Russian suffered,the Japanese suffer, soon too you will suffer..........it's coming for you, it's going to happen,your happening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)