Who Are You? On Being An American in America

It was once a matter of some pride to declare one's citizenship. In fact, it was the hope and dream of nearly every immigrant coming to this country to become an American citizen. Many would do everything they could to learn about their new home. They would even try to pick up every bit of English they could, either before leaving the "Old Country" or on the ship over. Of course, those were the days when America was seen as a "melting pot"; where we left our past behind and adopted the traditions, values, and, of course, the language of the place which many called the "Land of Second Chances".

Of course, those days seem condemned to another time as distant as Colonial America, the Old West, or the Roaring Twenties. Today we've become a land of "Multiculturalism" where immigrants are encouraged (even expected) to bring their religion, values and traditions, prejudices, hatreds, and languages with them.

It now commonplace to go into any store like a Wal-Mart or Meijer's at certain times and barely hear any English at all. Of course, it's just as common to see individuals walking around in their native dress. Nearly every grocery store now caters to their dietary demands, often while sacrificing space to more traditional foods.

But perhaps in some ways this is to be expected every time you have a large influx of immigrants, however, never (or if so, very rarely) has grocers pushed aside more popular items in favor of someone else's. What's worse is the fact that an increasingly number immigrant communities are demanding that stores, restaurants, and grocery stores stop carrying certain items out of their religious requirements. In other words, if they can't have it, you won't have it either.

We're starting to see demands that stores stop carrying liquor, tobacco, or pork products because it "offends" them. At the same time, there is a slow but growing demand that women stop wearing certain attire or going to certain public places---especially unescorted---for the same reason. Why is that? I am something of a amateur historian. I'm pretty well versed in most cultures, religions, and so forth. Never have I read or heard of any group in the US demanding that others follow their traditions. Never, and yet it appears to be here.

I have, however, often heard of various groups going to other countries and being told that they have to conform to the laws and values of the native population (including learning the native language). In fact, that's quite common. They usually call it an invasion. Speaking of laws, since when does an immigrant population go to another country and demand that their laws be accept along side or in lieu of the host country's? But, in Europe that's exactly what has happened in numerous places such as the UK, Germany, France, Belgium, and Holland. It's also starting to show up in America with many on the Left actually supporting it, which, to be perfectly honest, I find to be both amusing and at the same time, rather naive. Why you ask?

Well, those on the Left who seem to support these infringements on our society in the name of solidarity or whatever would actually find themselves in a rather difficult (at best) position should their efforts succeed. For instance, take the gay community in this country. Many support the Muslim community in this country, which is perfectly fine. However, they also support the extremists within the Muslim community, which is the most active and vocal.

It is this a particularly virulent strain which is deeply opposed to everything about gays. In the Middle East, they routinely throw gays off rooftops, impale them, burn them at the stake, and all sorts of other nasty means of torture and murder of both gay men and lesbian women (bisexuals included). Meanwhile, women who've been raped are the ones punished and more often than not themselves murdered for committing the "crime" of being raped. At worse, the rapist may be expected to "marry" the individual he violently raped. Doesn't that bring up images of marital bliss?

Women, to them, are no better than second class citizens. They don't believe women should drive, vote, or have any other commonly accepted rights. That includes the ability to speak freely or openly, to dress as they please, to drink, smoke, or go anywhere they want when they want. Girls, as young as 9 years old, are sometimes made to marry men decades older then themselves. Why? Religious tradition. As an aside, this tradition also includes sexual relations with young boys too. But should we allow that "tradition", which is a form of pedophilia, to be practiced in this country? Not to do so could be seen as impinging on their 1st Amendment rights.

Want a career ladies? Forget it. Women aren't even supposed to attend school beyond an elementary level. Those who do often run the risk of being publicly beaten, scared, or even having acid thrown on their faces. Meanwhile, those who dare teach these young girls are beaten or even murdered while their school books are burned, sometimes along with the schools. Can you imagine what could happen if this strain should become the dominant force in this country the way it has elsewhere? Is that what "feminist" in this country want? Is any of this what the average American woman wants?

However, I want to make clear that this isn't all or even majority of Islam. Many have adopted much of Western Civilization, including full and equal rights for women, tolerance for homosexuality, and other standards, which is as it should be. However, these are the moderates who tend to be quiet and stay in the background. The few who support this backwards 9th century way of thinking, are also the ones most engaged in terrorism throughout the world, and they tend to be the most vocal and activist of the groups in the West.

While I generally don't care what any group says, does or believes, I draw the line at being told that I or anyone else has to comply lest they become "offended". I've never been known for kowtowing to any person, group, belief, or ideology. Nevertheless, no one should ever be forced to conform to another's traditions, values (including religious) or anything else. If someone wants to voluntarily and willingly conform adapt, or adopt some belief system, political ideology, or cultural traditions, that's their business. But to be compelled, bullied, or threaten into it, then there's a critical issue that we as nation need to address.

Personally, I have literally no problems with someone's race, sexual orientation, ethnic group, religion, or whatever. Frankly, I don't need to know nor do I really care. If they treat me and mine with respect and courtesy, then I'll do the same. I don't think I'm unique in that regard. I think most, perhaps the overwhelming majority, of people in this country feel the same way. However, to be told that we have restrict what we're doing, wearing, saying eating, or coerced into removing historical objects and symbols in order to make someone else feel better about themselves else be called a "bigot" or a "racist", I don't think so (not that name calling ever meant anything to me anyway). This is especially true when these restrictions work one way.

To be told that I can't go to the grocery and buy something only to find that it's been discontinued because someone or some group complained about it, then we have a problem. To be told by my waiter at a restaurant that I can't order a BLT and beer because they've been removed from the menu to avoid "offending" some group, there is going to be a problem. To be told I can't watch a certain TV show on a cable or satellite channel that I'm paying for because someone else "disapproves" of it, then we have a problem. If they don't like the show, then switch the channel. There are literally hundreds of other choices for them to pick from.

When I try to call some business I need to speak with and being told that I have to press "1" for English, they're likely to hear some words in English they weren't expecting. In fact, I flat out refuse to press anything. The call will be ran through automatically if you do nothing anyway! If someone wants to speak with someone in their native language, then let them press some number...or go to where that language is spoken. I don't care which.

To be told that there are 24 or 57 or whatever genders and I have to play along or I get sanctioned somehow, then we've got a problem. It's just like having to worry about using the proper pronoun when speaking to someone so you don't hurt their feelings (or worse, get fined in some places), then there's going to be a problem. The last time I worried about using the proper pronoun I was in the 4th grade (I've learned a few adjectives since then by the way).

When some individual or group tells my wife, sister, mother, niece, or whomever that they disapprove of what they're wearing or doing because it "offends" them, we're going to have words. When someone tells me that some Y chromosome carrying dude who has "chosen" to be a female is going into the restroom with my wife, my mother, or any of the other naturally born females in my family or who are friends, there is a very serious problem and I'm absolutely positive that I'm not the only one who feels the same way.

On a related issue, when people choose to come to this country, great. We, as Americans, welcome them with open arms, especially if they're bring some badly needed skill with them. However, all we ask is that they do so legally; that they respect our laws and do it the right way. It would be demanded of us if we wanted to immigrate to their native country right? Those who seek to enter this country illegally are first and foremost showing their contempt for our national sovereignty and to our laws.

Secondly, they are thumbing their noses at all those who are trying to come here the right way; the legal way. Think of it this way. You've been standing in line for hours to see a movie you've been waiting to see for weeks. Then a bunch of people come along and cut in line way ahead of you. Then get to go in without having to pay for a thing, while you have to pay full price, assuming they don't run out of tickets and tell you they're sold out and you'll have to come back tomorrow...or next week.

Then, after having to wait a few hours longer than you would have, you find out that these individuals got free drinks, snacks, and preferred seating. Worse yet, you're told that you have to pay a portion of their tickets, drinks, and everything else they get. Sound fair to you? But wait, there's more. Since they don't speak English (even though you took the time to at least learn some), the film will be shown in their native language. If you're lucky, you may get subtitles. Maybe.

Well, that's a pretty good example of how our current immigration system works, or at least how the Left would like to work. Meanwhile, they apply the same idea to these so-called "sanctuary" states and cities, then have the audacity to demand more federal funding to pay for the problems they've created. It doesn't seem exactly fair to me, especially when they aid these individuals with the ways and means to spread throughout the country, making them more difficult to apprehend. But then that's the idea isn't it? When you complain or speak out they call you a "xenophobe" or some other name they'd likely have to go look up to understand the meaning of.

Of course, we're not even touching on the consequences of these individuals coming into the country not just illegally, but without ever having been inoculated against diseases that we had eliminated from this country like TB, measles, whooping cough, mumps, and a whole range of other highly contagious diseases. The result could be catastrophic for this country. Perhaps causing thousands of preventable deaths. Who should be held responsible then?

Meanwhile, liberal churches and religious groups act as if they're exempt from our laws by encouraging, aiding, and protecting these individuals; showing them how to cheat taxpayers out of money by manipulating the system. Sleazy business owners take advantage of them by working them in substandard conditions for next to nothing. So, who's the real criminal here? The ones who knowingly broke the law or those who exploit them for god or profit?

America used to be a country where people came to shed their past; to start over. They were proud to become Americans. People were free to live out their lives, so long as they didn't try to impose their religions, values or hatred on others. We valued the individual, but we were always willing to offer a helping hand, but don't expect others to do it for you; don't expect to be given something for nothing. No one owes you anything.

We were created as a nation of laws, and we expect others to follow those same laws, regardless of origin, faith, income bracket or elected office. Period. There was and remains no room for competing legal systems. While people spoke the tongue of their past, often in private or within their communities, they strove to learn and speak the language of their adopted home---English.

A common language is the fabric which weaves a single nation. But those days appear to be fading. In its place are those who are planting the seeds to create a multicultural and divided nation; a nation with different values, traditions, languages, and even laws. Others who've experienced this have quickly fallen; splintered into dozens of separate and unique pieces; the ancient Persian Empire, the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, not to mention Austro-Hungary, Spanish, French or British empires. Even as recently as Yugoslavia, the USSR, or Czechoslovakia in the 1980's and 90's. Do not expect that we will not share their fate if we continue along the same path.

Free Speech and Citizens United: How to Save America

As just about every school kid knows, the American Revolution was fought over taxes. Specifically, over a lack of representation in the British Parliament (although given the quality of our public school system in this country, I wouldn't bet the farm on it). Great Britain was trying to recoup some of its money for coming to our aid in the French and Indian War a few years earlier. The tax was also a concession to the East India Company for lost profits as well. So, in effect, this was a corporate tax sanctioned by His Majesty, King George III's Government, to be levied on us colonialists. Therefore, one could argue that our revolution was waged against a corporation which was defended by the British Empire and foreign mercenaries (Hessians). Kind of reminds me of the Citizens United misruling a few years back by the no-so-supreme Supreme Court.

As hopefully many of you will remember, this ruling established that money was, in reality, a symbol for free speech, which is protected under the First Amendment, but it went further. Much further. This "supreme blunder" also said that corporations were, in effect, individuals just like you and I and therefore, should be protected just like every ordinary flesh and blood Joe and Jane. Well, with a slight exception. You see, federal and state campaign finance laws restrict how much "free speech" you and I can give to a campaign. After all, no one wants somebody else being able to "out talk" them. That wouldn't be fair would it? However, when it came to these new "Frankenstein" corporate/people, an exception was needed. Whereas you and I remain restricted in our "free speech", these soulless creations and legalistic fictions were free to donate to their artificial heart's content all the money they want. It seems that they were suddenly entitled to have more of a say than us mere mortals as ordained by those nine black robed high priests on the hill.

Not only that, but their financial "free speech" also serves as a defacto endorsement of a campaign. An endorsement made not just in the name of the corporation, but by implication also of its employees and stakeholders---with or without their approval. I guess that isn't too surprising since corporations aren't democracies. They are by their very nature, "kingdoms" of a sort with a quasi feudalist form of governance. What the President/CEO and board decide usually goes regardless of what the employees think or support. So, what's an employee to do? Well, one could complain but that would just tag you as a "troublemaker" or make you standout in a highly unflattering way to management, which could damage or even kill a career. Another option would be simply to quit. However, given the lack of well paying jobs these days makes that option pretty unlikely. The only other realistic alternative would be to simply make your own small donation to the campaign of your choice. You also have the option of volunteering to help out, however, you'll most likely need to separate the two in order to avoid ruffling any feathers.

While the Citizens United ruling can make independent donations from it general treasury without the need to create a separate political action committee, it cannot donate directly to the candidate or the candidate's committee. It was also disclose its name if it sponsored any advertising on behalf of the particular campaign or "PAC". Previously, under the "McCain-Feingold" Act or "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2003 (BCRA for short), neither unions or corporations could make any direct contributions to campaigns, and as a result, had to set up a specific political action committee. The Supreme Court ruling also removed the cap for contributions while still restricting us ordinary voters. Obviously, this gave corporations an unfair advantage.

So, what to do? The American Voter can demand an amendment which redefines the nature of corporations and thus circumvent their protection under the First Amendment, which is unlikely since all campaigns run on money and whoever saw a politician willingly walk away from money? Those types are as rare as unicorns! Nevertheless, if you could somehow corral one of those "unicorns" and persuade him or her to sponsor such an amendment or introduce a bill which would restrict the flow of money into campaigns, they would still likely be unsuccessful since there are few politicians who would support serious campaign finance reform despite any public statements to the contrary. The next best thing would be term limits. While the money would still flow, at least their term in office would be briefer and we'd stand a better chance at getting some fresh ideas back into the mix. However, other than the few challengers looking for a rhetorical "hook" into office, few if any would willingly limit their time at the public trough.

Gerrymandering, as most of us know, has made it all but impossible to remove an incumbent since the districts are drawn to the advantage of the office holder. There was a rather famous observation made about gerrymandering back in the 1980's which stated that there was a higher rate of turnover in the old Soviet Politburo than in the US Congress (I wonder, dear friends, who ended up with the better representation). In fact, did you know that the United States was alone of all democratic nations in allowing self-serving politicians to solely govern the redistricting process? It's just one more factor in why the US ranks in the second tier of the most personally "free" nation (as of 2015, the US ranked 20th in the world). Nevertheless, a few states have sought to create a fairer system by reassigning the redistricting process to non-partisan commission; states like California, Washington, and Arizona while Rhode Island and New Jersey have created ad hoc committees for that purpose. Meanwhile, the remaining states continue allow the state legislatures control of redistricting. How quaint.

So, there you have it friends. We fought one revolution over the issue of taxation without representation (which benefited a corporate entity as much as a national government), and now we have corporate dominance over our political system and a political system which doesn't reflect the best interests of a majority of its citizens thanks to the flow of corporate money, unlimited terms of office and stacking the deck through gerrymandering (and none of this even takes into consideration the influence of corporate lobbyists over politicians. When was the last time voters were represented by a lobbyist? The answer is never). Of course, there are many more issues to consider such as government and corporate surveillance and inroads corroding 2nd Amendment rights, personal freedom of speech, our loss of national sovereignty and control over our borders, the usurping of our national traditions, culture, or even our acceptance of English as our accepted language, or even who "owns" the rights to our own DNA among others. Something has gone wrong with America. I'm not naive enough to believe that America was ever "Mayberry", but we have lost our collective sense of national identity, not that there wasn't some truth to image of the "Ugly American". We, as a nation, have stuck our nose where it wasn't wanted or welcomed all because we disagreed with the outcome (such as overthrowing popularly elected governments because the winner was a socialist and install brutal military juntas who went on to torture and murder millions or provided the muscle for corporations who stripped nations of their natural resources), but we have also done a lot of good too like providing food, medical aid, technology, schools, and so forth.

Schools are for education and teachers are there to teach, not as overpaid babysitters. They should not have to deal with misbehavior and they should never be afraid of being in their students. If a student doesn't want to learn, great. Then let's create public work projects which requires nothing but a strong back and put them to work doing something constructive and away from gangs, drugs, and violence. Of course, there's always the military. They're always in need of "cannon fodder". We need less focus on sports and more on critical learning skills as well as civics. Not every job requires a college education. Let's re-emphasis technical, trade and vocational education which prepared students for the workplace, and there's nothing wrong with blue collar jobs. Blue collar men and women---union and non-union---built this nation from ground up.

It's time that we find our national roots again and reassert our right to self-governance and economic fairness. Political correctness has run amuck. Enough with what divides us. Let's emphasis what unites us for a change. Not everything we do or think is the government's business, and certainly not the business of corporations. We need to re-establish our borders and re-affirm English as our national language. Corporations are not people. They are artificial entities---legal fictions. As such, they should not be treated as flesh and blood people. Politicians should be subject to immediate recall when they fail to follow public mandates (like opposing the bailout of banks and other financial institutions due to their greed and mismanagement, and then using public bailout money for pay raises and bonuses). We should ensure public representation through publicly financed elections and/or prohibiting corporate funding of campaigns, as well as through term limits. No more military ventures for the benefit of corporate greed or political influence. We need to get back to basics; to what made us strong in the first place. That's how we will save this country of ours.


History Channel: Tea Act
http://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/tea-act


Thanks to the Roberts Court, Corporations Have More Constitutional Rights Than Actual People
https://www.thenation.com/article/thanks-roberts-court-corporations-have-more-constitutional-rights-actual-people/


End Gerrymandering
http://www.endgerrymandering.com/

Having the Stones to Take on Goliath

As readers of Another Opinion know, I've been engaged in a battle Kynect (Kentucky's "model" insurance exchange) and with Humana, to which I've been assigned. Just to briefly recap, my wife and I applied for insurance through the Kentucky insurance exchange known as "Kynect" (we have the distinction of being the second applicants to register when it went operational in August 2013). Somehow we managed to find every computer glitch and SNAFU in the system despite repeated assurances to the world by Governor Beshear that program was working without any hitches. By early October, our status had been elevated to the highest tier and I found myself dealing with programmers, systems analysts, and systems designers as they attempted to create "work arounds" in their programming and a host of other corrections.

Finally, by February 2014, things had settled down. Since we were enrolled in the system at the end of 2013, we were permitted to pick our start date for coverage to begin. We could chose from January, February or March. Since January had past and we had no medical bills worth any note, and as February was about over, we opted from March. However, "someone" at Kynect decided, when entering the information, that we really meant to say April instead of March, and changed our start date so we ended up absorbing medical bills for March (in all fairness, the senior manager at Kynect with whom we had been working gave us the option of correcting it back to March, however, the time required would have put us well into April anyway, so we opted just to "eat" the costs). Nevertheless, we ended up with some pretty good insurance, but no good deed goes unpunished, especially when dealing with the government.

At the end of 2014, we started getting notices from Kynect saying our coverage was changing (and apparently without our consent). I called our insurance provider several times over the next 45 or so days and was "assured" that our coverage was not changing and we should ignore the notices received from Kynect; we would keep our existing coverage we were repeatedly told. Finally, in early February 2015, I phoned Kynect to see what was going on. Well, it seems that their income calculation formula had changed and we were being removed from our insurance provider and transferred to Humana. Despite my protestations, we were moved in mid-February. At the same time, we received notices from our (now) former provider that our premiums were about to expire (Kynect paid a portion and we paid the balance). Although I repeatedly explained what had happened and offered to fax or email our notices from Kynect, I was advised that my offer (and my explanation) were appreciated but not acceptable. They needed "official" notice direct for Kynect. "Okey dokey" I said, and promptly contacted Kynect to (again) express my frustration and relay their request. I was told that an official notice will be sent, however, an "advisement" had already been issued.

Meanwhile, I discovered that despite Kynect's repeated promises (parroting Obama's) that I could keep my doctors, that in the event I

couldn't, my new carrier would pay for any prescriptions and tests. I, however, would be responsible for paying the office visit. Needless to say, I was dismayed when my primary doctor of 32 years (and who is the area's only known sub-specialist) wouldn't see me when I showed up for my scheduled appointment. I was told that I couldn't even pay cash money for the visit, and to jab the knife a little deeper, my doctor could not write me any more prescriptions while I searched for his replacement. Once my refills ran out, I was, to use the proper medical terminology, screwed. As soon as I got home, I immediately phoned Kynect. Again, they offered their heartfelt and most sincere apologies, but there was nothing that could do about changing the insurer. It was suggested to connect my new provider, Humana, to see if they could locate a doctor for me. "Fat chance" I thought as I said "thank you" as politely as I could muster and hung up the phone.

So I contacted Humana's Customer Service Department. After going through a battery of options to select from (which included what language I wanted---I will never ever press a button for English as long as I live in this country), and a ten minute wait, I finally spoke with a living breathing person. After explaining my situation (while listening to timely interjections of "we're sorry for your inconvenience), I was given a list of six doctors for me to call. I quickly learned that none of these were specialist of the type I needed, but it didn't matter. None were accepting Humana. So, for the next two months, I made my daily calls with the latest of doctors Human had given me, but I jump ahead of myself.

Somewhere along the third week, I managed to get lucky. One of the customer representatives I spoke with (and whose first language was apparently English), blurted out near the end of one of my frustrated phone calls that I could submit a "Continuing Patient Care Request" and then almost as an afterthought, asked if I would like to do so. "Hell yeah" I said. So together---her writing out the synopsis while I provided my medical history, prescriptions, and reason for my request. When we ended, she said it would take approximately 7 to 10 days to get a decision (really? That was like a sleepover by this time). So while I waited, I continued to make my calls and get my daily rejections only to call Humana and get my next list of six doctors with the names sounding less and less familiar by the day from the ever changing representatives (after, of course, having to repeat my story). Some of the rejections were due to the physician winding down their practice; moved out of state; or were simply located in the wrong part of the state; wrong specialty; or simply was not accepting Humana any longer.

Finally, the tenth day came and I was on the phone for what I hoped would be my approval. However, as if to throw salt on the previously mentioned proverbial knife wound, I was told that no decision had been reached yet, so in addition to calling for my list of six, I now had to ask for status updates (as an aside, I was also providing them with updates on the doctors whose names they had given me. Evidently their list hadn't been updated in quiet awhile). Then it came.

I had been reading when the phone rang. I started to ignore the call, figuring it was another solicitor calling, despite my being on the "No Call" list, when I noticed it was my (now) former primary doctor's office calling. So I answered, expecting to hear some other piece of bad news. I don't know if I can correctly express my emotion or thoughts as I was informed that they had just concluded a series of conference calls with my current provider and given my medical needs and length of time I've been with their office, my request was approved. She was calling as quickly as possible to let me know and schedule an appointment as soon as I wanted. I remember being instantly relieved; excited; angry at having been put through the hoops; the corporate and government bureaucracy, that I must of had her repeat herself two or three times (I don't she minded. She knew me from all these years and how much I had fought this).

So, we scheduled an appointment and she explain that my efforts also resulted in a change in policy, both for their offices as well

as for Humana's that would allow longstanding patients to remain with their primary care physician provided the physician was willing to keep the patient on. I didn't feel the need to gloat but I was quietly pleased to know that my efforts may also be helpful to others in a similar position as mine. Most people would have given up I realize, but I not one of those people. I don't believe in giving up the fight if the cause is just, be it for me or for someone else. I've been a community and political activist for well over 35 years. I've also helped countless numbers of individuals take on their own "Goliath" over the decades (while "Goliath" is a good, if not common, analogy, I'm reminded more of Odysseus and the Cyclops, Polyhemus, and in particular Odysseus's response as he sailed away; having outwitted this son of Poseidon). I did it from elementary school on; while in the military; in college; and in every job I ever had. It's simply my nature I guess.

As an comical aside, remember those notices I had been receiving from my the original insurance provider mentioned above? Well, I continue to receive them, advising me that my premium remain due while I continue to advise them that I was removed by Kynect at the end of January. Meanwhile, I've checked with Kynect and have been assured that they have been repeatedly notified of my removal from their policy (I was even provided a reference number which I had sent on). Despite their disinterest in my notices from Kynect, I faxed of copies to them all the same. Just a few days ago, I received a new set of membership cards. You just have to love corporate bureaucracy.


Greek Myths & Greek Mythology
http://www.greekmyths-greekmythology.com/odysseus-and-cyclops-myth/

Aztlan Anyone?

I’m willing to bet most of you have never heard of “Aztlan” and know even less about the Chicano or Aztlan Movement. As most everyone knows, Hispanics are now the largest minority in the United States; comprising approximately 15% of the total population (which is expected to rise to 29% by 2050). This dramatic increase in numbers has made the Hispanic population a potential power player in American politics at all levels. This may explain the foot dragging of those in Washington to quietly impede the building a fence along our Southern border, or provide adequate funding of border security. It may also explain why there is private distain by those inside Washington’s beltway to any efforts to establish English as our national language while allowing Spanish to become the de facto “co-language” much as French is in Canada. This brings me to question regarding Aztlan.

Aztlan was the mythical home of the Nahua people, the original inhabitants of Southwest America and ancestors of today’s Latin American populations. The Aztlan or Chicano Movement, which began in the late 1960’s, is aimed at nothing less than the “reconquista” or “reconquest” of land lost during the Westward expansion, beginning in the 1840’s and creation of a Spanish speaking “Republica del Norte” or Republic of the North. Included in this “reconquest” are Arizona, New Mexico, California, Colorado, and Texas, along with the Mexican States of Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo León and Tamaulipas.

So, who supports the creation of this new Hispanic State? Well funded groups like the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the National Council of La Raza (“the race”), Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, and the National Immigration Forum just to name a few (http://www.mayorno.com/WhoIsMecha.html , http://www.diversityalliance.org/docs/Chang-aztlan.html, and http://www.atzlan.net/).

While there is no doubt that those who support the creation of Aztlan are quite serious in efforts, there are just as many Hispanics who oppose the idea. These are primarily Hispanics who have come to America legally, and established themselves within their respective communities throughout America. In short, they’ve assimilated into the tapestry of America just as countless immigrants have done over the centuries. If we allow our government officials to continue along the same path of ignoring the issues of illegal immigrations, unsecured borders (including prosecuting our border agents for doing their jobs), and protecting our national heritage by adopting English as our official language, we play into the hands of those who seek to destroy America. Nothing less than a strong secure America bound by a common language and shared culture will do in my opinion.


I’m not a big fan of talk radio, and I rarely listen to Rush Limbaugh. But that does not diminish my concern when a federal agency tries to impede someone’s right of free speech, as guaranteed to each of us under the Bill of Rights. The following article was sent to me by Jim Boulet of English First, an organization I support, and whose aim is to make English our official national language. You will also find a link to a petition asking that the FCC reverse campaign to ban radio talk shows like Limbaugh, Beck, Ingraham and others from public airwaves.

FCC Rule to Drive Rush Limbaugh off the Radio

Do you want the government to drive Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Dr. James Dobson and other conservatives off your radio dial? This month, the FCC will end its review of a "Notice of Proposed Rule making" which, if ultimately adopted, would impose a back-door version of the discredited "Fairness Doctrine" upon America's airwaves.

Our opponents determination to take Rush and the others off the air demonstrates the critical importance of talk radio .Rush and the others allow us to know what is going on in Congress in time to do something about it. Had the FCC's stealth "Fairness Doctrine" been in place in 2006, amnesty for illegal aliens would have passed easily.

The FCC's stealth Fairness Doctrine regulations seek "to ensure that broadcasters serve their communities, especially traditionally underserved audiences," such as non-English speakers, whether or not these people actually exist.

The FCC's proposed regulations also contain a new requirement that all "licensees should convene and consult with permanent advisory boards." These advisory boards "should include representatives of all segments of the community."

Such a requirement would empower self-appointed "community leaders," such as representatives of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) or the Center for American Islamic Relations (CAIR), to discourage commercial radio stations from airing discussions of controversial matters such as the costs of illegal immigration or the meaning of jihad.

Fans of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Dr.James Dobson and other syndicated radio talk shows need to stand up against these proposed FCC regulation or watch our favorite hosts taken off the air in the name of encouraging "cultural diversity."

English First has established a web site, http://www.keeprushontheair.com,
containing the relevant FCC documents and a citizen's petition to the FCC
that I hope you will sign. If you have already signed our petition (over 1,000 Americans have done so), please ask your friends and neighbors to sign our petition as well. Thank you for your time and for doing your part. Your comments or complaints are welcome. E-mail them to me at jbouletATenglishfirst.org (replace AT with @).

You can donate to support the work of English First at https://www5.clearlight.com/english/join.htm.

Jim Boulet, Jr.
Executive Director
English First
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102,
Springfield, VA 22151
(703) 321-8818 (voice)
http://www.englishfirst.org (web)

Poll Results

I asked you if enough was being done to stop illegal immigration. Your response came through loud and clear! 86% of you said you wanted stopped now. 10% of didn’t think it was an important issue, and the remaining 4% thought we were already doing enough. Now, only if our so-called “leaders: in Washington would listen to us.

English Language--The Candidate's Position

There are a lot of serious issues facing America these days. It like we’re coming apart at our seams. However, as in most crises, there’s safety and strength in numbers. Every time America has been threatened, we’ve pulled together, rolled up our sleeves and got busy. These days, however, the threat is a much internal as it is external. Chief among the key threats is illegal immigration as I’ve so often written about, and our unsecured borders. Despite an overwhelming majority of Americans who demand that our government put an end to open borders and stem the invasion of illegals, our so-called leaders in Washington choose to either give their usual lip service or outright ignore us; both at their political peril I should add.

Closely tied to illegal immigration is the steep decline of English being spoken immigrants. How many times have you called a service provider and was either greeted with a message in Spanish or had to “push 1 for English”? Heck, I even had one service provided in Indiana ask me to “press 2 for English”—it wasn’t even a first choice! How often have you’ve gone to a store (like Wal-Mart) at night and except for the cashier, not heard a word of English?

The failure of a nation to adopt a common language will lead to the failure of the nation. As I’ve often said, language is the thread that binds the fabric of a nation together. It allows us to develop common values and integrate our cultures into this grand melting pot that we call home. It creates strength out of diversity. However, in the name of politically correct “multiculturalism” immigrants are encouraged to “preserve” their heritage by opting out of society. The children of immigrants in many school systems across the nation aren’t even require to take their taxpayer based classes in English. Instead, taxpayers have to pay for them to have in class translators. Driver’s license tests and other public services and documents are now provided in languages other than English. How do we survive as a county and not run the risk of devolving into a balkanized nation if everyone is allowed to opt out of this most basic of requirements? The short and direct answer is we don’t.

With this in mind, and having examined in the last issue where the candidates stand on illegal immigration, I thought I’d see where they stood on English. None of the candidate’s camps would agree to answer my question “Where does your candidate stand on making English the national language of America”. So, I was left with researching their position online.

First up was Hillary Clinton (D). Her comment was the making English the national language would have “negative consequences”. She went on to state “That means in a place like New York City you can’t print ballots in any other language. That means you can’t have government pay for translators in hospitals so when somebody comes in with some sort of emergency there’s nobody there to help translate what their problem is for the doctor.” http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/immigration/entries/2007/06/04/democratic_hopefuls_reject_off.html

Next was the Junior Senator from Illinois, Barak Obama. During the New Hampshire Presidential debate in June of 2007, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked each of the candidates about making English our national language. Senator Obama’s commented with “this is the kind of question that is designed precisely to divide us. You know, you're right. Everybody is going to learn to speak English if they live in this country. The issue is not whether or not future generations of immigrants are going to learn English. The question is: How can we come up with both a legal, sensible immigration policy?” (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/03/se.01.html)

Republican Senator John McCain responded to the issue by stating, “I think the most practical value is to make English used by all Americans and all citizens, and all who come here. The only way we move up the economic ladder from the bottom rung is to know English. And I would emphasize the importance of every person who comes to this country to become a citizen and enjoy its liberties & beauty is to learn English. And I will do everything I can to help them do that." (2007 Republican primary debate on Dec 9, 2007)

It should be pointed out that both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama did not support a resolution to make English our official language while Senator McCain voted “yea”. You can see their vote, along with that of the other Senators by visiting US Senate Roll Call Votes 109 Congress—2nd Session site at: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00131

Finally, I found it interesting that, according to a Rasmussen Reports poll taken in June of 2006, Eighty-five percent of Americans believed English should be our official language (www.rasmussenreports.com). With that said, the obvious question is why are our elected officials so blatant in ignoring the will of the American People?


Parkland Hospital

Speaking of illegal immigration and language issues, a friend of mine sent me this article about Parkland Hospital in Dallas Texas. For those of you old enough to remember, Parkland is where President Kennedy was taken when he was shot. It was later where his assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was taken. I’ve check the story out on Snopes.com. It’s true. I’ve also include the address at the bottom article for Snopes.com so you can check it out too.

Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, Texas is a fairly famous institution and for a variety of reasons:
1. John F. Kennedy died there in 1963
2. Lee Harvey Oswald died there shortly after
3. Jack Ruby-who killed Lee Harvey Oswald, died there a few years later by coincidence.

On the flip side, Parkland is also home to the second busiest maternity ward in the country with almost 16,000 new babies arriving each year. (That's almost 44 per day---every day).

A recent patient survey indicated that 70 percent of the women who gave birth at Parkland in the first three months of 2006 were illegal immigrants. That's 11,200 anchor babies born every year just in Dallas.

According to the article, the hospital spent $70.7 million delivering 15,938 babies in 2004 but managed to end up with almost $8 million dollars in surplus funding. Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million, Dallas County taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds tossed in another $9.5 million.

The average patient in Parkland 'S maternity wards is 25 years old, married and giving birth to her second child.

She is also an illegal immigrant.

By law, pregnant women cannot be denied medical care based on their immigration status or ability to pay. OK, fine. That doesn't mean they should receive better care than everyday, middle-class American citizens. But at Parkland Hospital, they do. Parkland Memorial Hospital has nine prenatal clinics. That's right- NINE.

The Dallas Morning News article followed a Hispanic woman who was a patient at one of the clinics and pregnant with her third child---her previous two were also born at Parkland. Her first two deliveries were free and the Mexican native was grateful because it would have cost $200 to have them in Mexico. This time, the hospital wants her to pay $10 per visit and $100 for the delivery but she was unsure if she could come up with the money. Not that it matters, the hospital won't turn her away. (I wonder why they even bother asking at this point.). How long has this been going on? What are the long-term affects?

Well, another subject of the article was born at Parkland in 1986 shortly after mother entered the US illegally - now she is having her own child there as well. That’s right; she's technically a US citizen.

These women receive free prenatal care including medication, nutrition, birthing classes and child care classes. They also get freebies such as car seats, bottles, diapers and formula. Most of these things are available to American citizens as well but only for low-income applicants and even then, the red tape involved is almost insurmountable.

Because these women are illegal immigrants, they do not have to provide any sort of legitimate identification - no proof of income. An American citizen would have to provide a social security number which would reveal their annual income - an illegal immigrant need only claim to be poor and the hospital must take them at their word.
Parkland Hospital offers indigent care to Dallas County residents who earn less than $40,000 per year. (They also have to prove that they did not re fuse health coverage at their current job. Yeah, the 'free' care is not so easy for Americans).

There are about 140 patients who received roughly $4 million dollars for un-reimbursed medical care. As it turns out, they did not qualify for free treatment because they resided outside of Dallas County so the hospital is going to sue them! Illegals get it all free! But U. S citizens who live outside of Dallas County get sued! How stupid is this?

As if that isn't annoying enough, the illegal immigrant patients are actually complaining about hospital staff not speaking Spanish. In this AP story, the author speaks with a woman who is upset that she had to translate comments from the hospital staff into Spanish for her husband. The doctor was trying to explain the situation to the family and the mother was forced to translate for her husband who only spoke Spanish. This was apparently a great injustice to her.

In an attempt to create a Spanish-speaking staff, Parkland Hospital is now providing incentives in the form of extra pay for applicants who speak Spanish. Additionally, medical students at the University of Texas Southwestern for which Parkland Hospital is the training facility will now have a Spanish language requirement added to their already jammed-packed curriculum. No other school in the country boasts such a ridiculous multi-semester (multi-cultural) requirement. (Sorry for the length, but this needs wide circulation particularly to our 'employees' in Congress.)
Remember that this is only ONE hospital is Dallas, Texas. There are many more hospitals across our country that also has to deal with this.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/parkland.asp

Illegal Immigration: The Candidate's Positions

As you all know, and as I’ve made very clear in this blog, I oppose illegal immigration. I see it as a threat to our national interest. It’s a threat to our economy. It’s a threat to our social safety net and our healthcare system. It’s a threat to law and order. It’s also a threat to our jobs. But, if you’re like me, you’re confused as to where the presidential candidates stand. Well, I’m going to eliminate some of that confusion for you. Below, you will find their positions--Republican and Democrat--on illegal immigration taken straight from their websites. I’ve also included their webpage if you want to learn more. I hope you’ll find this as eye-opening as I did.

First is the Republican, Governor Mike Huckabee:

On January 16, 2008 Governor Huckabee signed the Numbers USA: No Amnesty Pledge.

Governor Huckabee believes:

Securing our borders must be our top priority and has reached the level of a national emergency.
I support the $3 billion the Senate has voted for border security. This money will train and deploy 23,000 more agents, add four drone planes, build 700 miles of fence and 300 miles of vehicle barriers, and put up 105 radar and camera towers. This money will turn "catch and release" into "catch and detain" of those entering illegally, and crack down on those who overstay their visas.

In this age of terror, immigration is not only an economic issue, but also a national security issue. Those caught trying to enter illegally must be detained, processed, and deported. As Governor, I ordered my state troopers to work with the Department of Homeland Security to arrest illegals and enforce federal immigration law.

I oppose and will never allow amnesty. I opposed the amnesty President Bush and Senator McCain tried to ram through Congress this summer, and opposed the misnamed DREAM Act, which would have put us on the slippery slope to amnesty for all.

I oppose and will not tolerate sanctuaries for illegals. The federal government must crack down on rogue cities that willfully undermine our economy and national security.

I oppose giving driver's licenses to illegals and supports legislation to prevent states from doing so. In 2005, I signed legislation that prevents illegals in Arkansas from getting driver's licenses.
I will stop punishing cities which try to enforce our laws and protect the economic well-being, physical safety, and quality of life of their citizens.

I oppose and will not tolerate employers who hire illegals. They must be punished with fines and penalties so large that they will see it is not worth the risk.

I oppose the economic integration of North America that would create open borders among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. I will never yield one iota or one inch of our sovereignty.

I will take our country back for those who belong here. No open borders, no amnesty, no sanctuary, no false Social Security numbers, no driver's licenses for illegals.

I know that securing our borders must be our top priority and has reached the level of a national emergency. I am as sick and tired as you are that it is harder for us to get on an airplane in our home town than it is for all these illegals to cross our international border unchallenged.

We cannot stem the tide of illegals until we turn the tide. Before you fix the damage to your house caused by a leaking roof, you have to stop the leak, which I am determined to do.

I supported the $3 billion Congress passed this summer for border security. This desperately-needed money will train and deploy 23,000 more agents, add four drone planes, build 700 miles of fence and 300 miles of vehicle barriers, and put up 105 radar and camera towers. This money will turn "catch and release" into "catch and detain" of those entering illegally and crack down on those who overstay their visas.

But where is this $3 billion? The President threatened to veto the bill it was part of! Now the Senate has again voted for this money as part of the Defense Bill. I will continue to fight until we get these funds.
In this age of terror, immigration is not only an economic issue, but also a national security issue. We must know who is coming into our country, where they are going, and why they are here. All those who are caught trying to enter illegally must be detained, processed, and deported. As Governor, I ordered my state troopers to work with the Department of Homeland Security to arrest illegals and enforce federal immigration law.

I oppose and will never allow amnesty. I passionately rejected the amnesty bill that President Bush and Sen. McCain tried to ram through Congress this summer after secret meetings of an under-the-radar cabal of amnesty-loving senators.

I opposed the misnamed DREAM Act, which was a nightmare because it would have put us on the slippery slope to amnesty for all. Because once we open that door even a crack, we'll never get it closed again.

I oppose and will not tolerate sanctuaries for illegals. The federal government must enforce our existing laws by cracking down on rogue cities and towns that willfully undermine our economy and our homeland security by giving benefits and protection to illegals. The consequences for illegal entry must be swift, certain, and uniform throughout our country.

I oppose giving driver's licenses to illegals, such as Governor Spitzer tried to do in New York. I support legislation that would prevent the states from granting this privilege to illegals. In 2005, I signed legislation that prevents illegals in Arkansas from getting driver's licenses.

I will stop punishing cities which are trying to enforce our laws. I will appoint judges who will uphold the law, not side with the ACLU against cities like Hazelton, Pennsylvania, which are trying to protect the economic well-being, physical safety, and quality of life of their citizens.

I will not tolerate employers who hire illegals - they must be punished by fines and penalties so large that they will understand it is not worth the risk. Once again, as with Hazelton, liberal judges are gumming up the works. Right now, a court in San Francisco -- Pelosiland - has delayed enforcement of the "no match" letters for Social Security numbers that the Department of Homeland Security will use to crack down on those who hire illegals. If illegals cannot find work, they will go back where they belong. I will do everything I can to hasten their trip home by denying them employment.

I strongly oppose the economic integration of North America that would have open borders among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. I know we must have closed and secure borders. I will never yield either one inch or one iota of our sovereignty. I will recognize no authority but our Constitution.
I will take our country back for those who belong here and those who are willing to play by the rules for the privilege to come here. No open borders, no amnesty, no sanctuary, no false Social Security numbers, no driver's licenses for illegals.

 
I will implement a broad-based strategy that commits the resources of the federal government to the enforcement of our immigration laws and results in the attrition of the illegal immigrant population. http://www.mikehuckabee.com/

Now, here’s Republican Senator John McCain’s position on illegal immigration:

Immigration is one of those challenging issues that touch on many aspects of American life.
I have always believed that our border must be secure and that the federal government has utterly failed in its responsibility to ensure that it is secure. If we have learned anything from the recent immigration debate, it is that Americans have little trust that their government will honor a pledge to do the things necessary to make the border secure.

 
As president, I will secure the border. I will restore the trust Americans should have in the basic competency of their government. A secure border is an essential element of our national security. Tight border security includes not just the entry and exit of people, but also the effective screening of cargo at our ports and other points of entry.

 
But a secure border will contribute to addressing our immigration problem most effectively if we also:
Recognize the importance of building strong allies in Mexico and Latin America who reject the siren call of authoritarians like Hugo Chavez, support freedom and democracy, and seek strong domestic economies with abundant economic opportunities for their citizens.

 
Recognize the importance of pro-growth policies -- keeping government spending in check, holding down taxes, and cutting unnecessary regulatory burdens -- so American businesses can hire and pay the best.
Recognize the importance of a flexible labor market to keep employers in business and our economy on top. It should provide skilled Americans and immigrants with opportunity. Our education system should ensure skills for our younger workers, and our retraining and assistance programs for displaced workers must be modernized so they can pursue those opportunities

 
Recognize the importance of assimilation of our immigrant population, which includes learning English, American history and civics, and respecting the values of a democratic society.

 
Recognize that America will always be that "shining city upon a hill," a beacon of hope and opportunity for those seeking a better life built on hard work and optimism.

 
Border security and our failed immigration system are more examples of an ailing Washington culture in need of reform to regain the trust of Americans. In too many areas -- from immigration and pork barrel spending to Social Security, health care, energy security and tax relief -- business-as-usual politics prevents addressing the important challenges facing our nation. http://www.johnmccain.com/

This is what Democrat Senator Hillary Clinton has to say:

Our immigration system is in crisis. The laws we currently have on the books are inadequate and no longer serve our best interests. As a nation, we place a premium on compassion, respect, and policies that help families, but our immigration laws don't reflect that.

Hillary has consistently called for comprehensive immigration reform that respects our immigrant heritage and honors the rule of law. She believes comprehensive reform must have as essential ingredients a strengthening of our borders, greater cross-cooperation with our neighbors, strict but fair enforcement of our laws, federal assistance to our state and local governments, strict penalties for those who exploit undocumented workers, and a path to earned legal status for those who are here, working hard, paying taxes, respecting the law, and willing to meet a high bar.

Hillary strongly believes we need to do more to know who is in our country by securing our borders and ensuring that employers comply with the law against hiring and exploiting undocumented workers. She supports deploying new technology that can help stop the flow of undocumented immigrants into the country and an employer verification system that is universal, accurate, timely, and does not lead to discrimination and abuse by employers.

Along with these changes, Hillary believes we need to repair those broken portions of our immigration system that irrevocably damage families and force citizens and lawful immigrants to choose between their newly adopted country and living with their spouse or children. We have a national interest in fostering strong families. This is why she introduced an amendment during consideration of the immigration reform bill that would have taken steps to protect the sanctity of families. Our American values demand no less.

 
And Hillary understands that our immigration policies have a direct impact on American workers. She opposes a guest worker program that exploits workers and creates a supply of cheap labor that undermines the wages of U.S. workers. Hillary believes all workers deserve safe conditions and decent wages. She supports an Ag Jobs program, which will keep our agricultural industry vibrant while enabling agricultural workers to receive the fair wages and labor protections they ought to receive.
When Hillary is president, comprehensive immigration reform will be a top priority.

Hillary has advocated for policies to help smooth the transition of legal immigrants once they arrive in the U.S. so that they can add to our economy and culture.

• She championed the Legal Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act, which would give states the option to provide federally funded Medicaid and SCHIP benefits to low-income legal immigrant children and pregnant women.

 
• She wrote the Access to Employment and English Acquisition Act to meet the growing demand for English language courses and other job skills.

 
• She strongly supports the DREAM Act, which provides a path to citizenship through military service or higher education for children who were brought to the U.S. by their parents.

 
• She offered an amendment to make family reunification the guiding principle of our immigration system. http://www.hillaryclinton.com/

Finally, Senator Barack Obama weighs in with his comments on illegal immigration:

Undocumented population is exploding: The number of undocumented immigrants in the country has increased more than 40 percent since 2000. Every year, more than a half-million people come illegally or illegally overstay their visas.

 
Immigration bureaucracy is broken: The immigration bureaucracy is broken and overwhelmed, forcing legal immigrants to wait years for applications.

Immigration raids are ineffective: Despite a sevenfold increase in recent years, immigration raids only netted 3,600 arrests in 2006 and have placed all the burdens of a broken system onto immigrant families.

Barack Obama's Plan:

Create Secure Borders: Obama wants to preserve the integrity of our borders. He supports additional personnel, infrastructure and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.

Improve Our Immigration System: Obama believes we must fix the dysfunctional immigration bureaucracy and increase the number of legal immigrants to keep families together and meet the demand for jobs that employers cannot fill.

Remove Incentives to Enter Illegally: Obama will remove incentives to enter the country illegally by cracking down on employers who hire undocumented immigrants.

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

Work with Mexico: Obama believes we need to do more to promote economic development in Mexico to decrease illegal immigration.

Barack Obama's Record

• Crack Down on Employers: Obama championed a proposal to create a system so employers can verify that their employees are legally eligible to work in the U.S..

• Fix the Bureaucracy: Obama joined Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) to introduce the Citizenship Promotion Act to ensure that immigration application fees are both reasonable and fair. Obama also introduced legislation that passed the Senate to improve the speed and accuracy of FBI background checks.

 
• Respect Families: Obama introduced amendments to put greater emphasis on keeping immigrant families together. www.barackobama.com/

I just finished reading a terrific book written by Mr. Douglas E. Schoen entitled “Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two Party System”. Here’s the review I wrote for the book. I strongly urge you to buy it, read it, share it, and most of all, implement his suggestions.

"Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two Party System" by Douglas E Schoen: A Review

Douglas Schoen has seen the political future of America, and it’s centrist. Americans are sick and tired of being sick and tired of partisan politics which has done nothing but produce gridlock and inefficient government while refusing to address the serious issues which affects average working Americans. If you think the Taliban is a threat to the average American household, take a look at Washington or our local legislatures.

 Mr. Schoen, a campaign consultant, not only presents well documented arguments, augmented with compelling examples, for the rise of (and indeed, the urgent need for) Independents and third parties in his book, “Declaring Independence”, but has also given us a roadmap in how to carry out nothing short of revolt by Common American.

 If you’re as tired of “do-nothing” politicians, special interests groups, and the decline of America, I urge you to read and share Mr. Schoen’s book “Declaring Independence: The Beginning of the End of the Two Party System”. This is the best book yet about how “We the People” can reclaim America. Thank you Mr. Schoen!

Our occasional guest writer, “Moderate Man” wants to talk about our public library system. See what you think:

Another Way

Let’s talk about the future of our library system in Louisville Metro. Louisville finds itself in a situation that is shared with many urban library systems-how to meet customer demands for access and materials with a shrinking budget that does not match rising costs and expectations. Louisville’s main building is 100 years old and has 16 branches plus two bookmobiles. I’ve been in many libraries around the country and several towns have impressive ones. Chicago has the new $144 million dollar, 10 floor Harold T. Washington Memorial main library building, that has plenty of shelve space, new books, computers everywhere and even a winter garden on the 9th floor. This is in addition to 79 satellite branches around the community. The Library of Congress in Washington D.C. has over 130 million items in its collection and is one of the largest libraries in the world. The Detroit Library has an aging 87 year old main building with 23 branches and a heavily used bookmobile service. This, in a town with a decreasing tax base. I’ve been in towns that have small privately funded libraries that charge for admittance and have a non circulation policy.

Our town and our children deserve a better library than we now have. With the expansion of merger, there is now a greater customer need for those citizens in the non urban service district. However, the voters of Louisville Metro have spoken on 3 different occasions, stating that they don’t want to pay for library expansion. The last time was to turn down a referendum to implement a 0.2% increase in the cities occupation tax rate for the $200 million master plan by a vote of 67% against and 33% for. Councilman Hal Heiner believed that merging of city and county government over 3 years age meant that no new taxes would ever be needed. Yes, efficiencies were met, personnel were reduced, and savings were achieved. But the councilman had other ideas, believing that bond money would be available after a couple project bonds were paid off. What’s the difference? Mr. Heiner claims that the tax would be permanent.

Well a council strong enough to increase a tax rate can be strong enough to remove it once the need is gone. This has happened several times before. Folks said times were bad and the economy is sinking. Just how much do we value our children’s education? It should be the primary priority in Louisville’s budget. The mayor says that other priorities will have to come first in the 08-09 budget. The children of this town have lost this battle. No wonder the youth leave to move to other towns, leaving Louisville Metro with only a 2% population growth in 25 out of the last 30 years. The mayor and the council must be held accountable. I suggest another way to increase library funding. It can be only accomplished with local and state political will, corporate pressure and another referendum by the voters.

In 1871, Louisville’s library raised money for the Free Public Library so books could be borrowed without charge, by creating a lottery at which the lucky ticket holders would win a portion of the funds, some as high as $35,000 which was awarded. Louisville needs a City Lottery for the sole purpose of raising funds for implementing the original $200 million Library Master plan and providing operating costs for it. This, along with an increased corporate participation in the Louisville Free Public Library Foundation, could realize Louisville Metro a 21st century library system that our leaders and children will be proud of, thus increasing the region's population and attracting employers.

                                                                       

                                                           ____________________________

There you have it. Let us know what you think, and thanks for reading Another Opinion. Please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you're using.