In a recent issue of the Morgan Hill Times, a column by Chuck Weber cautions people who plan to travel to Canada. In the aftermath of Sept. 11, the country of Canada implemented some rather draconian restrictions for people trying to enter their country. Weber mentions people are denied entry for a variety of reasons, such as being "unemployed, on welfare, looking unhealthy and the most common reason: having a criminal record." The article goes on to describe several extreme cases where a man was denied entry for possession of pot in 1975 and other gentleman in his 50s was denied entry for a college prank (30 years earlier) for stealing a mascot.
Perhaps the Canadians have overreacted a little, but certainly we here in the good old U.S. of A. could learn something from our neighbors in the north. Recently, our president's bosom buddy, admitted terrorist Bill Ayers, was denied entry into Canada for having a criminal record. (Obama downplays his relationship with Ayers, but it's a fact they lived in the same neighborhood, served on several committees together, and there is strong evidence Ayers was the ghostwriter for one of Obama's books.)
In my mind the Canadians got this one right. So what do we do in the U.S.? We make this clown Bill Ayers a professor at a prestigious university so he can preach his anti-American, anti-capitalist rhetoric to impressionable young college students. As if this isn't enough, one of our local institutions of higher learning, Saint Mary's College, recently invited Ayers to speak at their school. The college paid dearly for this screw-up as a lot of alumni donations dried up as a result of Ayer's controversial visit.
The point of all this is no country can survive without secure borders. The Canadians know this and just about every other country in the world except the U.S. knows it too.
As our state teeters on the brink of bankruptcy, it is pertinent to point out that women illegally in California are about 5 percent of the population, but consume 40 percent of the public funded births. The costs for delivery, c-sections and premature births for these illegals costs the California taxpayers between $2.8 and $3.5 billion annually. The amount goes even higher when adding heart valves and other required surgeries. This is all money we can't afford and don't have in a state like California which is "in the hole" for well over $20 billion.
So the next time you see someone in front of your local grocery store asking you to sign a petition to deny government benefits (food stamps, welfare, social security, etc.) to people who are in this country illegally, give it some serious consideration. We are the most generous country in the history of the world, but we just cannot continue to try and support everyone in the world who needs it.
California is broke and our whole country is well on its way thanks to the lying, incompetent, anti-American, empty suit we have in the White House.
Jim Becker, San Martin
Columnist remains firm: CMAP is the way to go
Dear Editor,
In his recent guest column, my friend and MHAT board member Marty Cheek tells only part of the story (and he tells parts of it inaccurately) about my efforts to get an answer to a simple, reasonable, and relevant question: "How many active participants does MHAT have?"
I left the backstory out of my column about Morgan Hill's public access provider because I didn't see the relevance, but now that Cheek has brought it into the public arena, I need to set the record straight with a complete and accurate story: It took four e-mail messages to one MHAT official who wanted to consult with the rest of the board before responding, an unsolicited phone call from Cheek, four more e-mail messages and another phone call with yet another MHAT official (Bob Snow) before I got an answer to that simple question. It all adds up to well more than the "two minutes" that Cheek estimates that we were on the phone (my telephone records indicate that Cheek and I alone spoke for five minutes).
In addition, Cheek claims I spoke with Bob Snow for "one minute" and implies that I hurriedly ended the call. To the contrary, my telephone records indicate my conversation with Snow lasted three minutes. I restated my e-mailed question, got a partial answer, asked a follow-up question, got an answer, thanked Mr. Snow for his time and politely ended the call.
I've been in and around journalism for a long time as a reporter, an editor, an editorial board member and a columnist. I've gotten less runaround after asking much touchier questions than that one.
For comparison, reaching the MHUSD superintendent for that column took one e-mail message to his assistant and a "call when it is convenient" response before I was speaking with him. A CMAP representative responded to one e-mail message from me with direct answers to my questions. I got a quick response to an e-mail request for documents from the city of Morgan Hill staff member who wrote the staff report that endorsed CMAP and quick, direct responses to my follow-up questions.
Most importantly, Cheek claimed in his guest column that I didn't listen to and didn't consider MHAT's explanations about its approximately 24 participants. Those claims are simply not true. In fact, I asked a question of CMAP based on a claim that Cheek made during our five-minute phone conversation. Just because I differ with Cheek's conclusion doesn't mean that I didn't listen to him and his fellow supporters and it doesn't mean I didn't consider their arguments.
The fact that Cheek and I disagree about who should be awarded Morgan Hill's $18,000 per year public access contract simply means that we have different priorities. As I've said repeatedly, getting the most for our money, especially in these economic times, is my top priority. I hope it is also City Council's top priority.
Lisa Pampuch, Morgan Hill
Green Party hears from candidates at General Assembly last weekend
Dear Editor,
The venue was San Jose's United Way Building rather than a big hotel ballroom. The dress was decidedly casual rather than business. The General Assembly of the Green Party of California was not your typical media targeted political performance.
The General Assembly began the night of Feb. 5 with a meeting of the Coordinating Committee of the GOCA and continued through the afternoon of Feb. 7. While there were the usual political party business such as electing delegates to the National Committee of the Green Party U.S., much of the interest over the two days focused the opportunity to hear from both of the Green Party candidates for Governor, Laura Wells and Deacon Alexander.
Wells and Alexander come from very different backgrounds. Wells is a financial analyst and more of a veteran campaigner, having twice run for Controller. In 2002, she managed to poll the highest vote total of any Green for a partisan office in California, exceeding that of Peter Camejo in either of his gubernatorial races. Alexander came to the Green Party after a period of community activism with the Black Panthers. He has continued his activism for social justice, something that will not stop whether he wins or loses in the GPCA primary.
Wells and Alexander held a question and answer session with the delegates. One of the issues differentiating Greens from the major political parties in California was a willingness to view Proposition 13 as a source of the financial crises plaguing the state rather than it being the untouchable protection of most home owners' major investment. Both candidates took on this question.
Those who have listened to the recent ubiquitous attacks on Republican Steve Poizner know just how much money is going into the promotion of Proposition 13 while more and more of the tax burden for Californians moves from commercial property to homeowners. Greens say that when Proposition 13 was passed, the real estate tax burden was evenly split between commercial property and homeowners. Locally, it is now approximately two-thirds from homeowners and one-third from commercial property, according to the Santa Clara County Assessor, Larry Stone.
The Green Party of Santa Clara provided the volunteers whose work was necessary to run this meeting. That volunteerism is typical of all Green Party events.
The effort was led by Jim Stauffer, an alternate to the GPCA Coordinating Committee. There were no paid professionals running the meeting, no media consultants spinning the results and no corporate sponsorships. The Green Party does not accept corporate donations. That may result in lower visibility events, but Greens say it also means that Green Party votes can not be purchased.
Wes Rolley, Morgan Hill
POST A COMMENT
If you are under 13 years of age you may read this message board, but you may not participate.
Here are the full legal terms you agree to by using this comment form.
Gilroy Garlic Festival: City vs. City Challenge
