I have, on occasion, successfully rescued legitimate comments from the spam filter and am very concerned that I may have deleted some when I hit that delete button. If your comment was, indeed, deleted I sincerely apologize and invite you to come back and repeat it or, at the very least, chastise me for my carelessness…I deserve it. It shouldn’t happen again as I have resolved to check my spam content on the minimum of a daily basis. Once a comment is approved, the spam filter “learns” and you should have no further problems.

Again, my sincerest apologies.

Anke Cheney

As recently as last month there were as many civilian support personnel in Iraq as there were military personnel – approximately 190,000 of each for a 1 to 1 ratio. This also occurred during the Balkan missions but not on such a large scale.

During the Korean War there was 1 civilian per every 2.5 military to provide support. During the Vietnam conflict the ratio was 1 civilian per every 5 military.

Record number of US contractors in Iraq

Up until the latest Iraq war these civilians provided support services and, except for a few that were hired to guard other civilians, were not expected to face combat situations on a regular basis and even the guards would not be expected to face the types of attacks that have been seen in Iraq.

Because of the limited number of ground combat forces available in the U.S. military the government could not afford to assign military personnel to perform protective functions for all of the non military functions taking place in Iraq, whether by government agencies or private companies that were hired to assist in the rebuilding efforts. This is where Blackwater and other private protective services companies became so involved.

Unfortunately the Coalition Provisional Government put a law in place prior to its being disbanded that puts all such companies out of the reach of the Iraqi government:

“A law drawn up in 2004 by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) – the now-defunct interim body set up by the US-led coalition in the wake of the fall of Saddam Hussein – grants such firms immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law.” BBC report, Monday, 8 October 2007, Profile: Blackwater USA

Therefore these companies are allowed to act outside the control of all local management as well as, apparently, the control of any U.S. government agency. This can lead to instances such as the following:

Use of gas by Blackwater leaves questions

Blackwater most often shoots first, congressional report says

Things do seem to be coming to a head though with both the Iraq and U.S. governments finally starting to ask questions as to who is responsible for controlling these organizations and who can bring their personnel to justice when the commit illegal acts.

Contractor ‘command center’ recommended in Iraq, sources say

Iraq: ‘Blackwater must go’

For a current list of stories from CNN about Blackwater go here: Blackwater

Of course, there are also other private security contractors operating in Iraq as well, such as the British firm AEGIS…

However, maybe I’m odd, but I’m not “rich” and I like to know what I pay for things…whether I can do without it or not. For example, I can’t do without groceries, but when I go to the store to buy, I know how much I pay for potatoes, milk, peas, hamburger and steak. Then, if I decide to pick up a six-pack of beer on top of all that, I know how much that will cost me. I might ask myself if I can afford it or not? Then, deciding yes, after I check-out, I know the total cost, the cost of each item and I even know how much tax I had to pay on my purchases. Similarly, I am curious as to how many tax dollars are spent educating those who are in this country illegally…not that I can do anything about it, I can’t, but just as I like to know how much I pay for potatoes, I like knowing how my tax dollars are spent, and in particular, I’d like to know what I’m paying to educate those who shouldn’t be here in the first place.

It has been estimated that nationally, $12 Billion is spent each year on primary and secondary education of children who are in this country illegally, and another $17 Billion is spent educating “anchor babies,” American-born children of illegal aliens.
LOU DOBBS TONIGHT, The Debate Over Immigration & Border Security Continues, Aired April 1, 2006 – 18:00 ET.

Well, being the curious one that I am, I thought I’d go to the Prince William Schools website (Prince William County Approved School Board Budget Fiscal Year 2009 ) to see how much of OUR tax dollars support education of illegal alien children and those children born in this country of illegal aliens. Now, before you try this, let me warn you, it’s not something to be done while waiting for your wife to finish putting on her make-up.

This 426 page document doesn’t read exactly like a novel, and in addition to documenting the outstanding accomplishments of the school system and its teachers and staff, it outlines every credit and expenditure in the approved budget. Just to give you an idea of the detail, it includes the big-ticket items such as the Superintendent’s salary ($248,865) and the salary of ten associate superintendents ($1,515,600 ) — let’s see, if my math is correct, that’s an average of $151,560 per. It goes on to give a great deal of clarity into education finances, for example the Executive Administration department has budgeted $8,739 for printing services during FY2008 – FY2009. During this same time frame, the Communications Services Department has budgeted $500 for rental equipment. So, suffice it to say, if you want to know what our school system pays for something, you’ll find it there!

Well, at least that’s what I thought, but when it comes to my original question, “How much do we pay for the education of illegal alien children,” I couldn’t find it. OK, well, that’s a sizable expenditure, I’m sure, and in all those 426 pages, I must have just missed it, so I asked my school board representative. In short order, my request for information was forwarded to the Superintendent, who forwarded it to the Assistant Superintendent, who forwarded it to one of the Associate Supervisors for a response. Well, I recognize that this is a very busy time of the year for the school system, so I was patient and finally received a response concerning the question of how many illegal alien children, or children of illegal alien parents attend PWC schools.

The long and the short of it is, they don’t know. From the Director for the Office of Student Services, Prince William County Public Schools, here’s the response I received:

“School Division staff does not ask students or parents about their citizenship or visa status. The Virginia Department of Education provided specific information regarding such inquiries in Superintendent’s Memo No. 140 dated July 27, 2007. This information indicates that “Pursuant to a decision by the United States Supreme< Court, school divisions are not permitted to inquire into a prospective student’s citizenship or visa status in order to enroll the student. School divisionsare required to accept students who meet residency requirements under * 22.1-3 of the Code of Virginia and may not deny free public education to undocumented school-age children who reside within their jurisdiction because they do not hold valid United States citizenship or a student visa.” Therefore, if parents provide school staff with appropriate documentation (per Regulation 346-1, Tuition) proving residency in PWC, their students are enrolled in school.”

Well now, doesn’t that seem a bit odd — we know what the school system pays for printing services, athletics, and the music department…and we know how many children are categorized as having learning disabilities, but we’re not allowed to know how many students being educated at taxpayer expense are in this country illegally.

So, I guess that until we can get the Supreme Court “fixed” or the Virginia Department of Education “fixed” — and that’s not likely to happen soon — I’ll just have to be content with knowing what I pay for those things that they want me to know about. Oh well, what comes next, an “international flag” over our state house?

Si Senor….

This film was shot in November of 2003 in and around the city of Juarez, Mexico in the Mexican State of Chihuahau, formerly known as El Paso del Norte. The estimated numbers of dead girls/women, most between the ages of 16 to 23 (although an average age of 16 has been cited) has ranged from 380 to 550 since 1993…and there are still an estimated 4000 girls and young women missing in this area (Amnesty International’s estimates are far lower than those of the local citizens). A great deal of attention has focused on the problem in Juarez, given its proximity to El Paso, Texas, as well as the large number of “NAFTA” factories which have located there. As a matter of fact, the draw of these factories for young women seeking work is often attributed as a major reason that this area provides such a fertile hunting ground for the predators who are perpetrating these crimes.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/pdf/Juarez_Guatemala_Action_kit.pdf

Excerpt from Amnesty International report from 2006:

“Since 1993, almost 400 women and girls have been murdered and more than 70 remain missing in Ciudad Juárez and Chihuahua, Mexico. All the evidence seems to indicate that these young women are chosen by their killers because they are women who have no power within Chihuahuan society, itself characterized by high crime rates and public insecurity due to the fact that drug trafficking and organized crime operate in the area. The women are often workers from the maquilas, or export factories, set up by the multinational companies that control the economy of Ciudad Juárez as well as waitresses, workers in the informal economy, or students. Many of them live in poverty, often with children to support. They are women who have few options but to travel alone on the long bus journeys that take them from the poor suburbs surrounding Ciudad Juárez to their place of work or study.”

The greatest difficulty in attempting to determine the TRUE numbers of dead and missing girls is a direct result of the corruption of the state authorities in Juarez and Chihuahua, who are believed by most to actually be complicit in not only the cover-up, but the crimes themselves.

http://www.mujeresdejuarez.org/EUversion.htm

“Critics say investigations have ground to a halt because of corruption, incompetence and witness intimidation. Activists say what is going on in Juárez is a national outrage. And when the FBI was brought in to help at times, Chihuahua state officials rejected its findings. Former FBI profiler Robert Ressler believes at least one of the killers has access to both sides of the border.”

Since the initial video, considerable international attention has focused on the plight of the women and girls of Juarez, with the commensurate pressure applied to the Mexican government. Some investigation and reforms of local government corruption have been attempted, but accountability is still very low on the government’s agenda.

http://mexidata.info/id577.html

“Viewed as test cases for both the state and federal governments, Amnesty International and other activists are monitoring authorities’ actions in punishing former and current government officials identified as engaging in negligent and even criminal behavior in previous murder investigations. So far, none of the 130 Chihuahua state authorities deemed negligent in reports by former federal prosecutor Maria Lopez Urbina have been punished. Several of the officials argued they were just following orders, but no known investigation of their superiors is underway.”

Although the femicide in Juarez has stirred considerable attention from the international community and the media, the practice is very common throughout Mexico…as well as many other Latin American countries. As a matter of fact, Juarez is FAR from the worst:

http://www.globalpolitician.com/21654-latin-america-feminism

“(Femicide) is not only present in Ciudad Juarez and most of Mexico, it’s a regional problem,” warns Marimar Monroy, a representative of the non-governmental Mexican Commission for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights and one of the delegates to the IACHR.

And…

“Incomplete murder rates cited in the NGO report mention 373 murders of women in Bolivia from 2003 to 2004, 143 in Peru during 2003, and more than 2,000 in Guatemala. In Colombia , a woman is reportedly killed every 6 days by her partner or ex-partner. Ciudad Juarez and Chihuahua City , Mexico , two cities where the femicide trend was first widely noticed, have suffered the murder of more than 500 women from multiple causes since 1993, according to press and other sources. Dozens more remain missing.”

As noted, these are “incomplete murder rates,” according to a report issued in 2006. According to the same report:

“Guatemala: Ciudad Juarez South
Angelica Gonzalez, a member of Guatemala’s Network to Oppose Violence against Women, says more than 2,400 women have been murdered in Guatemala since the year 2000. Killings have occurred throughout the Central American nation, with most concentrated in and around Guatemala City, Escuintla, and San Marcos, a department bordering Mexico. Despite the establishment of a special prosecutor’s office for women’s homicides, statistics compiled by WOLA indicate the slaughter is worsening. According to Adriana Beltran, more than 300 women were murdered in 2003, 527 in 2004, and 624 in 2005. Often portrayed in the press as faceless statistics, the victims had names and lives like Claudia Isabel Velazquez, a 19-year-old law student raped and shot to death, or 15-year-old Maria Isabel, a retail shop employee who was found raped with her hands and feet bound together with barbed wire.”

A frightening element of this culture of “Machismo” was touched upon in the previous link to the Global Politician report (source of previous quotes) from 2006, “Femicide On the Rise in Latin America:”

“At the same time, killers now frequently jump borders. Jose Manuel Torres Yake, a Peruvian national, was arrested in Hiroshima , Japan , last year for raping and murdering a 6-year-old girl. The suspect had a previous criminal record in Peru for raping two other minors.”

A single example among a multitude. In fact, this is particularly a problem for the United States because of our porous shared border with Latin America, and the seeming lack of enforcement of our laws which gives the appearance to these multitudes that our own authorities will likely be as indifferent to these crimes as the authorities in their home countries:

http://www.drdsk.com/articles.html#ImportingViolence

From the article by Dr. Deborah Shurman-Kauflin (expert criminal behavioral profiler specializing in serial crimes of a sexual nature) for the Violent Crimes Institute, “Importing Violence: The Danger of Immigration from Violent Cultures.”

“Over the past several years, the U.S. has seen a large influx of immigrants, both legal and illegal, from countries whose values are opposed to the rights guaranteed by the U.S. constitution. Specifically, there are large numbers of immigrants coming from countries that are misogynistic. These societies accord women little to no rights, and the idea of violence committed by men against women and children is not unusual.

First, take the concept of ‘rapto.’ This comes from Mexico where in some areas, it is socially acceptable for a man of any age to abduct a female of any age as long as long as he intends to marry her...”

And…

“The fact is that South American male attitudes toward females are often archaic and misogynistic. Thus it is not surprising that the U.S. is seeing more attacks against women and little girls committed by these immigrants.”

Although the number of victims seem small in these Latin American countries relative to the crime in our own, one must consider how relatively small the populations of these nations are to our own; the accepted customs demeaning the value of women; and the societal acceptance of violence against them…all of which suggest femicide to be a disturbing element of their very culture:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/03/30/unsolved_killings_terrorize_women_in_guatemala/

“In a country of 14 million people with one of the worst murder rates in Latin America — 427 people were killed in January alone — Guatemalan authorities are quick to blame gang violence and prostitution for the unsolved crimes involving both men and women.”

And…

“Gang violence is certainly one factor in the killings — some victims have been young women who refused to join gangs or tried to leave them. But families of students, domestic workers, and other victims with no ties to gangs or the sex industry blame a culture of impunity in which police often fail to investigate slayings and killers believe they will go free.

Guatemala’s culture and laws may also encourage the devaluation of women’s lives. A man who rapes a minor can escape punishment by marrying his victim if her father consents. Domestic violence cannot be prosecuted unless signs of injury are still apparent 10 days later. Marital rape is not a criminal offense. A law empowering men to prohibit their wives from working outside the home was revoked only in 1999.

According to the Public Prosecutor’s files, though more than 1,500 women have been slain since 2003, only 14 cases have ended in a prison sentence.”

An excellent source for information on various aspects of the Initiative is to be found at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars website, Merida Initiative Portal:

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=5949&fuseaction=topics.item&news_id=407349

For instance, according to the overview of the Initiative…

“Congress is currently considering a proposal to provide $1.4 billion in equipment, software, and technical assistance to Mexico over three years as well as a smaller but still unspecified amount to Central America over the same period. The first year of the initiative is part of the Iraq Supplemental, while the second and third years will be discussed as part of the regular FY09 and FY10 appropriations process.

The Merida Initiative is actually more than an assistance package—rather it is one element in a broader strategy of growing cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico to address a shared threat presented by organized crime involved in drug trafficking. The U.S. and Mexican governments have increased joint efforts significantly in recent years in order to protect communities on both sides of the border. Moreover, both countries recognize the need to engage Central America in broader regional efforts.”

…which confirms those “rumors” mentioned by Glenn Beck of CNN in the previous video.

Although I am unable to link directly to H.R.6028, the various versions of the Merida Initiative bill can be reached by a search for “Merida Initiative” at the following link:

http://thomas.loc.gov/

In a very abbreviated nutshell, the Merida Initiative is to provide aircraft, high tech equipment and infrastructure, technical support, and training to the government of Mexico for its military and law enforcement agencies to enhance its “War On Drugs” and internal security. Although Congress has included a number of “declarations” (Sense of Congress) regarding corruption, human rights, transparency, and “rule of law” programs, those provisions are dependent upon enforcement by a government which has allowed its military and law enforcement to misbehave with virtual impunity:

http://www.forbes.com/2008/05/23/xico-drugs-violence-cx_0527oxford.html

“Recent killings of senior police and army officials in Mexico suggest that the government of President Felipe Calderón has managed to significantly hurt drug cartels and that corruption is common among police and other government bodies.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11226144

WASHINGTON — Armed men in Mexican military uniforms have illegally crossed into the United States to provide cover for drug smugglers, and have fired upon U.S. Border Patrol agents on several occasions, a congressional panel was told Tuesday.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/06/soldiers-cross-into-us-hold-guns-to-agent/

“A U.S. Border Patrol agent was held at gunpoint Sunday night by members of the Mexican military who had crossed the border into Arizona, but the soldiers returned to Mexico without incident when backup agents responded to assist.”

http://www.infowars.net/articles/may2008/150508Commando.htm

“Two representatives have urged Congress to take action to address the worsening situation on the southern border which has been described by reporters and activist groups as “an all out war.”

And…

“The Houston-area Republican told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that members of Mexico’s elite counter-narcotics teams, trained at Fort Benning, Ga., have defected and are now in the pay of drug cartels.

Poe highlighted the fact that the guerrilla-style commandos are regularly crossing the border into the U.S. and have been involved in violence and killings as far north as Dallas.”

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,321547,00.html

MEXICO CITY — The U.S. Border Patrol confirmed 29 recorded incursions into the U.S. by Mexican military or other government agents in the last 12 months, according to a report made public Wednesday by a watchdog group.

Judicial Watch, a conservative, U.S.-based public interest group, said in a news release that Mexican officials were armed in 17 of the 29 incursions during the fiscal year between October 2005 to October 2006.

The group obtained the information through a request under the Freedom of Information Act. The report includes a description of a January 2006 confrontation between Texas officials and several armed men in military uniforms who were seen in a military Humvee near Fort Hancock, Texas. No shots were fired and the suspects fled back into Mexico.

http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/6666879/detail.html

“Just a week ago a caravan of three vehicles were spotted on I-10 by Hudspeth Deputies and chased to the same area of the border. One vehicle was captured, a second made it across the Rio Grande safely and a third vehicle became stuck in the river. As deputies converged on the scene, they say a Humvee approached from the Mexican side, and heavily armed men in military clothing crossed into the United States to rescue the smugglers. The vehicle was burned on the Mexican side of the river bank.

After this latest incident on Tuesday night, the U.S. Border Patrol reports that they were contacted by Mexican authorities who admitted the men were Mexican soldiers. Border Patrol Assistant Chief Robert Boatright told KFOX “Mexican officials got in touch with our Mexican liaison unit to advise us that they had requested the assistance of the Mexican military and that they were down in Hudspeth County.” But he tells us this contact only occurred after the Mexican soldiers had been spotted by the Sheriff’s Deputy.”

…and the incidents go on and on, as the Mexican government turns a blind eye.

On February 7, 2008 a hearing was held by the House of Representatives Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the Committee of Foreign Affairs regarding the Merida Initiative:

http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/40659.pdf

One of the individuals offering testimony in support was Marisa R. Lino, Assistant Secretary of the Office of Policy/International Affairs of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Within that testimony was the following statement:

“On March 3, 2006, a bi-national action plan to combat border violence and improve public safety was signed by Secretary Chertoff and his counterpart in Mexico. This action plan set forth goals and objectives to ensure the appropriate law enforcement agencies of the respective governments would work together to provide an effective comprehensive joint response to incidents of cross-border violence and crime. In response to this plan, CBP created a headquarters bi-national working group to oversee the development and implementation of Border Violence Protocols (BVP) along the southwest border. These protocols serve as a mechanism to facilitate operational response to incidents, with CBP, ICE and their Mexican counterparts coordinating together. The US government and the Mexican government have incorporated state and local police activities into the protocols. The Border Violence Protocols have now been instituted along the entire US-Mexico border and are working efficiently and effectively. The Border Violence Protocols are another example of how the United States and Mexico are working closely together to create a safer and more secure border region.“

Given that “their Mexican counterparts” seem to be participating in the violence, that would seem to be a rather naive statement which does not bode well for the perspective offered by the agency charged with the protection of, not only our borders, but of our nation.

And what will this technological enhancement of Mexican military and law enforcement for purposes of internal security mean for the Mexican people?:

…and how deep, and high up, does the corruption we will be financing run?:

This video is a must see and a shocker!

For now, at any rate, the debate is irrelevant because the Merida Initiative passed and President Bush signed both the Initiative and the Iraq Supplemental Bill which included the financing:

http://www.usembassy-mexico.gov/eng/eborders_Merida_Initiative.html

June 30, 2008

Message from Ambassador Garza on the signing of the Merida Initiative by President Bush
“The Merida Initiative represents a new era of cooperation which will amplify and strengthen existing law enforcement cooperation, intelligence sharing, and training programs. It will also provide new equipment for Mexican forces to use to better confront the common threat of drug trafficking and other transnational organized crime.”

President Bush Signs H.R. 2642, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008, which includes the Merida Initiative.

There IS one bright spot, however…the Merida Initiative “sunsets” in three years. For the optimistic amongst us, perhaps our Congress and new President will learn from their mistakes by then…but I really doubt it.

]]> http://scheney.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/the-merida-initiative/feed/ 3 AWCheney http://scheney.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/nafta-part-1-free-trade-agreements/ http://scheney.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/nafta-part-1-free-trade-agreements/#comments Sat, 16 Aug 2008 11:10:06 +0000 AWCheney http://scheney.wordpress.com/?p=211 ]]> I had originally planned to do my first NAFTA post on the impact upon Mexico, however, one of my sources required permission for publication, to which I applied but have not yet heard back. Therefore, I thought I would start with an examination of Free Trade Agreements in general and NAFTA in particular so that we may form a foundation for what is to come.

As a long-time advocate of Free Market economics, I am not totally averse to the concept of Free Trade Agreements. On the contrary, I can see where, if properly negotiated with countries with whom we share similar economies and cultures, bilateral agreements of that sort could be highly beneficial to both trading partners. However, an examination of our growing list of Free Trade partners shows a serious lack of economic common sense…and NAFTA is the worst of them.

Probably the least informative government site to utilize for an investigation of Free Trade Agreements is the very site which would most likely be the first traversed for information on these agreements:

The International Trade Administration of the Department of Commerce

http://trade.gov/index.asp

This site is largely devoted to the promotion of FTA’s, and tends to skew the facts toward its own end. As an example, their front page actually heralds a SURPLUS in the trade balance between the U.S. and those trading partners with whom we have implemented agreements:

This couldn’t be further from the truth! Let’s take a look at the reality.

http://www.tradeagreements.gov/

According to the government site Trade Agreements.gov, to date we have ten Free Trade Agreements, including NAFTA, with two of those (Oman and Peru) pending implementation as is Costa Rica, which is actually part of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States FTA (CAFTA-DR). It would seem logical to assume that only actual trade data from IMPLEMENTED agreements would be utilized to determine whether a surplus, in fact, exists between us and our trading partners (which is why I did not include those pending agreements in my own factoring). This doesn’t necessarily hold true when it comes to the ITA. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics (which is tasked with providing the most accurate statistics possible for the U.S. government as well as its citizenry, and is actually cited as the source for THEIR information), the reality is that, for the same period in 2008 (January thru May) for which the International Trade Administration is claiming a surplus, we are actually running a NEGATIVE trade balance of $51,649,600,000 with our ACTUAL FTA partners in a single quarter:

http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/

January-May, 2008 Trade Balance Between U.S. and FTA Partners

Australia: Positive $5,238,900,000

Bahrain: Positive $133,700,000

CAFTA-DR:

• Dominican Republic: Positive $1,170,600,000
• El Salvador: Positive $182,300,000
• Guatemala: Positive $412,200,000
• Honduras: Positive $466,800,000
• Nicaragua: Negative $315,500,000

Chile: Positive $1,096,700,000

Israel: Negative $4,217,400,000

Jordan: Negative $93,300,000

NAFTA:

• Canada: Negative $31,502,300,000
• Mexico: Negative $30,012,200,000

Singapore: Positive $5,789,900,000

You might also want to note that NAFTA alone represents a $61,514,500,000 negative trade balance deficit…without that, it might have been easier for them to make their case.

These numbers are based upon the ACTUAL trade figures…you know, the ones which help keep our National Debt climbing to infinity. You may have also noticed that the ITA, although they say their numbers are based upon the data provided by the Bureau of Census, also note that they are only using that portion of the data which is defined as “all products that fall under NAICS classifications 31-33.” This is a very limited number of narrowly defined manufactured products:

http://www.epa.gov/tri/lawsandregs/naic/ncodes.htm#q31

It would actually be far easier to list the products included in that classification than it would be all the exceptions. They have definitely cooked the books here. They have also included the PENDING Free Trade partners in their “facts:”

http://trade.gov/fta/Final%20FTA%20Manu%20Trade%20Balance%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf

“For the first time, the U.S. trade balance in manufactured goods with our 14 FTA partners is in a surplus. In the first five months of 2008, the trade balance in manufactured goods with our FTA partners rose to a $2.7 billion surplus, from a $12.3 billion deficit during the same period last year.”

It is hardly surprising that our current administration is bound and determined to push through as many Free Trade Agreements as possible, particularly in the Americas. As pointed out in the International Relations Center (IRC) online newsletter (Volume 6, Number 12) dated April 2001 in the article, “Free Trade Area of the Americas:”

http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol6/v6n12ftaa.html

“As leaders of 34 Western Hemisphere countries gather in Quebec City, Canada in April 2001, President George W. Bush hopes that the third Summit of the Americas will mark a step toward fulfilling his father’s dream of creating a free trade area stretching from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego. For a variety of reasons, this goal seems increasingly out of reach.”

With the initial failure of President Bush to successfully negotiate an all-encompassing economic “NAFTA-type” partnership with the other nations of the Americas, it is rather obvious that the piecemeal approach has been taken. The ultimate goal is, of course, to build upon NAFTA to create this Free Trade Area of the Americas [the FTAA will be the subject of a future post] and establish our own “Common Market”…and precursor to the American version of the European Union.

A question which must be asked and answered is, “Who will actually benefit from this?”…which we’ll save for another time.

Officially, Blackwater International is a company that provides training, equipment and personnel to anyone, be it government or corporation, that is officially sanctioned by the U.S. State Department anywhere in the world. If you take a close look at their history and current contracts you will notice that while they started out mainly providing training they have expanded into an army for hire for anyone that can afford their price. It should be noted that Blackwater is not the only company that is operating this way, just the one with the highest profile due to several questionable incidences that have occured in Iraq. For a list of companies involved see here: PMCs

During their time in Iraq they have proven that they believe that they are above all laws as they have been hired to perform a mission of protection. They will perform this mission no matter what and do whatever they think they need to do to satisfy this mission.

Many of the personnel that Blackwater International have under contract are highly professional individuals with the best training and backgrounds. They should be – they were trained by the U.S. government either in the armed forces of the United States or in other government law enforcement agencies. Too bad these personnel cannot control the other people working with them.

Because these people are exempted from prosecution in Iraq due to Paul Bremmers decree, nothing will happen to those responsible for actions such as this. They are also under the protection of the U.S. Embassy in Iraq.

There are not enough U.S. Armed Forces personnel to meet the deployment requirements to both Iraq and Afghanistan in addition to all of its other commitments around the world. Blackwater International has been used by the U.S. State Department and other U.S. Government agencies to supplement the U.S. Armed Forces present in Iraq and Afghanistan. What a great opportunity for Blackwater!

Blackwater boasts that they have 14,000 people that they can contact to create a “protection force” at a moment’s notice. Some of these people are not U.S. nationals but personnel that were trained for other counties under contracts with Blackwater. If this isn’t an army for hire I don’t know what is.

Blackwater also appears to watch for opportunities to insert itself into activities within the United States. After hurricane Katrina hit the gulf coast, Blackwater sent one of its helicopters into New Orleans on a “rescue mission” without invitation from the U.S. or local governments.

“According to Blackwater’s government contracts, obtained by The Nation, from September 8 to September 30, 2005, Blackwater was paid $409,000 for providing fourteen guards and four vehicles to “protect the temporary morgue in Baton Rouge, LA.” That contract kicked off a hurricane boon for Blackwater. From September to the end of December 2005, the government paid Blackwater at least $33.3 million–well surpassing the amount of Blackwater’s contract to guard Ambassador Paul Bremer when he was head of the US occupation of Iraq. And the company has likely raked in much more in the hurricane zone. Exactly how much is unclear, as attempts to get information on Blackwater’s current contracts in New Orleans have been unsuccessful.”

For a more complete story on Blackwaters activity in New Orleans see: The Nation: In the Black(water)

Unfortunately it appears that some of the Blackwater employees think that they can treat U.S. citizens the same way they have become acustom to treating the citizens they encounter in Iraq where they are not accountable to the local government: Blackwater Eyes Domestic Contracts in U.S.

It is said that because we cannot maintain a large standing military force with sufficient combat forces that we need to outsource certain activities to civilians. My question is, is it actually cheaper to have civilians performing these missions rather than recruiting and training militaty personnel who are accountable to the Code of Military Conduct? With Blackwater and other civilian personnel in Iraq earning up to $1000 a day, don’t you think this money would be better spent recruiting, training, and properly equiping additional personnel for the U.S. Armed Forces?

As citizens and voters in a representative democracy, we have a responsibility to become informed of issues which face our country. Rarely will we find a candidate who represents our every view, and thus we must make compromises, and when the time comes, we have the responsibility to vote for those candidates whom we believe will best represent our views in the conduct of official government business. One hundred Senators, 435 Representatives, one President and nine Supreme Court Justices. Those 545 human beings represent you and they represent me. But do they really? Do they truly represent us or do they rely upon an ego-based infusion of super-human intelligence resulting from victory on election day to represent this country?

Some of us send our Congressmen E-Mails, letters, and even call them on the phone to express our views, but when was the last time that a seated politician came to your door, called you on the phone, or sent you a survey to ascertain your view on a particular issue pending in the House or the Senate? Their campaign workers call, asking for money, but to ask for your opinion and advice on issues? Rarely. I always thought our politicians were supposed to work for us and by that, I mean, represent us, ascertain and represent the major opinion. I don’t need them to wave as convertible-chauffered celebrities during the 4^th of July parade nor do I need them to show up at a community improvement work-day for a glad-hand photo-op in a business suit. No, I don’t want them to be reclusive either, but I see them as workers, not as movie star or the athlete-like celebrities. The ego trip associated with political success often leads to the conviction that by virtue of being theirs, their vote on issues is automatically the best for us commoners. If they do not know the view of their constituents, how can they represent their constituents? They don’t, they represent their own view.

There is no single issue facing our country where the failure of politicians to learn and represent is more glaring than in the area of immigration and the enforcement of our federal immigration laws.

The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007 is a prime example; it included a number of provisions concerning reporting, proof of residency, and payment of back taxes and fines that could never have been enforced, not even to mention being funded. Yet this piece of legislation was crafted by a few “experts” and presented as “here’s what’s best for America.” In response, millions of American citizens spoke up in horror and to the embarrassment of a few, the issue was tabled. But is the issue of amnesty for the 12 – 20 million illegal aliens in this country dead? Absolutely not! Is that what the American people want? No it’s not, and the sad part is that our Representatives and Senators know that full well…but for personal agendas, THEY do. Wait, I didn’t think that was how it was supposed to work.

Don’t misunderstand, I don’t expect our elected officials to seek opinion on every issue or even many issues, certainly not. However, the issue of excusing 12 – 20 million of those who entered this country in violation of federal law is no small issue. I believe that the vast majority of the American people do NOT want amnesty for illegal aliens. If that is true, there should be no amnesty – end of story. At least, this is one issue of such magnitude that it warrants a measure of the American will. If that measure were taken however, “it wouldn’t sit well in Peoria,” oops, Washington.

The issue of amnesty for illegal aliens is certainly not the only issue in which the federal government “represents” without knowing the will of those whom they theoretically represent. A case in point is the 24 June US Customs and Immigration Enforcement letter to the Mayor of Herndon, in which Jim Pendergraph, Executive Director, Office of State and Local Coordination, said that ICE must target “…serious criminal aliens and aliens of lesser offenses on a case-by-basis. ICE emphasized that removal proceedings would be initiated for illegal aliens processed under 287(g), but not all processed illegal aliens would be necessarily detained. The determining factor would be the available ICE resources.”

So, due to the success of the 287(g) program in identifying criminal illegal aliens within PWC and local municipalities, ICE has insufficient resources to accept them for deportation as originally agreed in the MOA. Henceforth, ICE will accept for deportation only those arrested and detained for having committed the most heinous crimes. Illegal aliens arrested for less serious crimes will presumably be released back into society following completion of their jail/prison term. Our elected congressional leaders fund pork-barrel projects at the drop of a hat, but can’t find the money to deport illegal aliens who have committed serious crimes in this country. Is that the kind of funding priority you supported when asked your view? I think not, in that we weren’t even asked.

Oh, here’s a suggestion. When you don’t have anything more productive to do, contact Senator Webb, Senator Warner or Representative Tom Davis, and explain to them your dismay with federal action on border security and the enforcement of federal immigration law. You’ll be amazed….as if being either an immigrant or the progeny of immigrants yourself, you just might not understand, they’ll first tutor you of how important immigration has been to the history and development of our country, conveniently forgetting the “illegal” part. Then, they’ll blame anything you perceive to be a failure of government on “the other guy.” Right on!!

]]> http://scheney.wordpress.com/2008/07/31/a-representative-democracy/feed/ 19 freedom6 http://scheney.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/north-american-union-part-4-the-canadians/ http://scheney.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/north-american-union-part-4-the-canadians/#comments Tue, 22 Jul 2008 05:23:23 +0000 AWCheney http://scheney.wordpress.com/?p=86 ]]> Although the vast majority of our own government and mainstream media persist in denying, and actually ridiculing, the strong evidence that a North American Union is in the future of our nation, the issue is quite openly, and seriously, being discussed, opposed, and promoted in Canada. Our neighbors to the north have been much more persistent in looking at the ramifications of the ties between NAFTA , the North American SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO), the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) toward the ultimate development of that North American Union.

Particularly since the Montebello (Canada) meeting of the SPP between Bush, Harper, and Calderon, large numbers of the members of the opposition parties, as well as an enormous number of Canadian citizens all across the country, have taken an active stand against the policies and the conspiratorial nature of the negotiations potentially leading to the establishment of a NAU in which they have absolutely no desire to participate. Unfortunately, it is also leading to a good bit of anti-American (U.S.) sentiment among people with whom we have gotten on exceptionally well for the greater part of our history.

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2284.shtml

“It won’t work. For one thing, the Canadian people will never accept that Canada become a colony of the United States, and the current minority government of Stephen Harper could pay dearly politically if it continues pushing in that direction. Canadians do not want their armed forces and their foreign policy to be de facto merged with those of imperial America. Moreover, they do not want their natural resources to be placed under U.S. control and exploited nearly completely by large American corporations, which have little regard for Canada’s sovereignty and little concern for the welfare of Canadians. Also, they do not want the Canadian dollar ditched in favor of a less and less attractive U.S. dollar, as some have suggested.”

During and since the SPP meeting held in Canada in 2007 there have been protests the length and breadth of Canada…

Calgary:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8QW9KNlmn8

Vancouver:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ00rEmX3nw

Edmonton:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tnhrxu5latM&feature=related

Toronto:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seQeIPKCdlo&feature=related

Winnipeg:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9_M6tu0XgY

…and numerous other locations throughout the country organized by various groups, political parties, and activists sharing one common fear…loss of Canadian sovereignty. The Canadians have become VERY proactive.

Some of the major players in the “anti-NAU” coalition in Canada includes the Council of Canadians, the Canadian Action Party, and Vive Le Canada, as well as Canadian labor unions. Along with the Green Party, which has taken on the NAU as a major issue, they have created a sufficient stir to awaken a significant portion of the Liberal Party to question the lack of transparency in trilateral negotiations involved in the SPP, despite the fact that their Party’s two previous Prime Ministers are commonly looked upon as the original architects of Canada’s involvement in the original negotiations which precipitated all this, in the signing of the NAFTA Treaty (implemented by PM Jean Chrétien) and the SPP (PM Paul Martin).

Some links to these groups:

http://www.canadians.org/

http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/home.html

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/163939368-timeline-of-the-progress-toward-a-north-american-union

http://www.gp.org/press/pr_2007_08_15.shtml

http://www.liberal.ca/search_e.aspx?q=SPP&x=0&y=0

It might be interesting to note that, although the media and government in our country are touting the very idea of a North American Union as right-wing conspiracy paranoia, it is touted by the Canadian government as left-wing paranoia. Politics certainly does make strange bedfellows.

How is it, you might ask, that the Canadians have become so proactive on this issue while the citizens of the United States are still, by and large, totally oblivious? It might well have something to do with a preponderance of the elected representatives and officials of most, if not all, the political parties recognizing the issue and opening dialogues with the citizenry, whether it be for or against. They are not buying into the “nonexistence” or “conspiracy” theories and recognize that the North American Union is a very real possibility, so many resent being left out of the loop by their leadership. The media is also much more attentive to the goings-on than our mainstream media in this country. As you could see from the earlier video, a summit meeting between the Heads of State of Canada, the United States, and Mexico drew national media awareness, and the nation took notice. This is why so much attention has been focused on the SPP/NAU since that meeting took place last year in Canada. Even the potentially conspiratorial nature of the issue is not being ridiculed by the press, as in the incident at the Montebello demonstration where it was alleged that the only attempted violence was perpetrated by three undercover policemen:

There is also something else that we, in this country, have been experiencing for nearly a decade, whereas the Canadians have been spared…a palpable sense of fear, being exacerbated rather than diminished by the solutions offered by our government to address that fear. Homeland Security and the Patriot Act have done little more than appreciably limit the freedoms that had always been a very important part of the American character. The “War Against Terrorism” has taken us into an era of direct conflict which makes the Cold War years pale in comparison. The economy has been manipulated into a state which has actually begun to lead to comparisons to the Weimar Republic (also see “hyperinflation“) in Germany in the years prior to World War II. These enormous distractions could easily turn our attention away from their root cause, which is altering the very nature of our country.

The activities and inner workings of the United States government…CLASSIFIED!

UPDATE: For some reason (perhaps because the video is so telling) the preceding video is “no longer available” when you click on it to play. To summarize, for those who had not yet seen it, it depicted the reading of a Homeland Security bill before Congress to be voted upon at that time (C-SPAN excerpt), and the reactions of the Congressman reading it. Apparently most of the bill was marked “CLASSIFIED,” making the reading a bit difficult. At one point, the gentleman stopped dead in the reading, said “Oh my” with a long, embarrassed pause, and then again said “CLASSIFIED.” Thereupon the bill was announced for the vote, without the Congress having any idea upon that which they were voting. I bet it passed.

]]> http://scheney.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/north-american-union-part-4-the-canadians/feed/ 15 AWCheney http://scheney.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/open-discussion/ http://scheney.wordpress.com/2008/07/18/open-discussion/#comments Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:11:30 +0000 AWCheney http://scheney.wordpress.com/?p=91 ]]> I’ve put out a great deal of information over the past three weeks…and I’m having some computer difficulties again with my technical expert currently unavailable. It occurred to me that this might be a good time for readers to catch up on all this information (most of which ties together), and perhaps use it to do some of their own research, then come back here and do some brainstorming. Call it an open thread, open discussion, or whatever…it could prove interesting.

[UPDATE: I had intended to get a new post out today (actually, I should say "yesterday"), however, circumstances made that impossible. I hope to have one out, properly researched, by end of day (the 21st). This open discussion is definitely not getting a lot of interest, probably because everyone is looking for new information which takes a LOT of time to put together, so I also needed a break. By the way, if anyone has any suggestions for future posts I'm quite open to them.]