Last month, a new measure created by the Governor of New Mexico was instated requiring immigrants to re-register their license and provide proof of where they will continue to live in the state.  This Residency Verification Plan was an effort to crack down on immigration in New Mexico, one of three remaining where proof of citizenship is not required when applying for a driver’s license.  The state had issued notices to everyone that needs to schedule an “in-person interview” to supply documents showing proof of residency.  Of the 10,000 notices sent out, more than 30% have been returned as “undeliverable”.  In an effort to crack down on loopholes, the state had also planned to cancel any license’s for those no longer living in the state.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, however, challenged all aspects of the new program in court, forcing a district judge to freeze the program until it is resolved in court.  The MALDEF claims that the law discriminates against a certain group of people: foreign nationals.  They also claim that the Motor Vehicles Department has no reason to believe they’ve done anything wrong so they should not have to report.  Further, Marcela Diaz of Somos Un Pueblo Unido, (Pardon, of WHAT organization?) an immigrant rights group, said in a statement that the license verification program “is nothing more than a bullying tactic that intimidates and threatens people for no reason.”  Subsequently, this week, a federal judge denied Governor Susana Martinez and her administration the ability to verify the validity of immigrants licenses’ in the state.

So…notices are sent to the addresses provided on the license but many are “undeliverable” –yet, somehow, they still think there is no cause for concern? The proof is in the pudding.  The word ‘foreign’ should set off some alarms.  Yes, many foreigners live, work and contribute to America every year, after going through the proper channels.  But why wouldn’t we toughen the screening process for those who are native to this country? I simply don’t understand why obtaining a government ID does not require that you prove you are actually able to be governed under THIS government.

I could start a whole other blog about nutrition, food additives and the preservatives that damage our food, but talking about food just makes me hungry.  Instead, I would like to occasionally incorporate the foods and additives that the FDA is being deceitful about into this blog.  And while these thoughts should motivate you to become engaged in decisions about what you eat, it should more importantly alarm you that a government organization, like the FDA, can get away with essentially poisoning us.

About twenty years ago, there was a huge uproar over the additive monosodium glutamate, or MSG.  This ‘flavor enhancer’ was seen in many foods from condiments to soups to crackers.  It had actually been in many of our foods since the 1940’s, but no one really paid attention. Once credited as the ‘Chinese Restaraunt Syndrome’, due to the high sodium content of many chinese dishes, the effects of this additive that were included in so many food products were outed in the early 1990’s.  Resulting symptoms from MSG consumption include migraine headaches, tingling in the arms, back and chest, rapid heartbeat, nausea, drowsiness, weakness and ‘a craving for the same foods (This one, most closely associated with Chinese food, seems to be the only advertised effect). Some people even experience asthmatic responses like difficulty breathing and neurological symptoms.  Long term effects can include increased development of food allergies in children, hyperactivity and obesity.

That’s a long list, don’t you think?

However, this is all background information. You see, the FDA has restricted labeling techniques for producers and state that placing “no MSG added” or “No MSG” can be misleading, but somehow we still see these things on labels.  Because of the high publicity regarding MSG, many manufacturers have used other alternatives to get around the poor market ability.  Names such as yeast extracts, texturized protein, gelatin, anything “glutamate”, anything “hydrolyzed” and anything “enzyme modified” top the list of disguises for MSG.  Take a look in your pantry.  These things occur in eveything from potato chips and cookies to cream cheeses and even some milks (things that are ultra-pasturized also contain MSG).

You cannot just assume because it’s on the shelves of the grocery store that it’s safe. How many times has the FDA approved prescriptions and then had to pull them from the shelves because they were harmful (only to reintroduce the same drug with a different name or use) What about all the different names for aspratame that now saturate the market?  It’s the same concept.  The issue is that these names on the labels are misleading.  Who would, at first glance, think that something with protein or enzymes is bad for you?  Most people would think that you ‘need’ these things and think nothing of it.  But we’re being duped.

Many of you will probably just move forward on the notion that there are plenty of other harmful substances out there and you plan to go on eating just as you had before, and that’s fine.  But you should question why the FDA is allowing products such as these additives to be key ingredients in foods while knowing the harmful effects.

A complete list of MSG Aliases can be found at http://www.truthinlabeling.org/hiddensources.html

Sources:
http://www.resourcesforlife.com/docs/item1225 (This site is backed by the World Health Center & the Mayo Clinic)
http://www.carbohydrateaddicts.com/msg.html
http://www.rense.com/general67/msg.htm

In Maryland, people have been rallying in opposition of a bill that would grant some illegal immigrants the right to pay in-state tuition.  The state bill resembles the DREAM Act (which was recently struck down in Congress) in that it would grant illegals who have lived in the United States for more than 5 years and graduated from a high school here, in-state tuition.

Those in opposition are demanding that a referendum be placed on this bill and measure until the 2012 election, so voters can make the choice.  According to the Huffington Post, 55,736 signatures were needed…the group obtained 109,000 valid signatures.

Supporters of the bill are threatening to file a lawsuit and according to Casa de Maryland, (nice name, by the way folks) the signatures were obtained by misinforming the people.  They claim that ‘undocumented students only enjoy some of the rights enjoyed by other Maryland high school graduates’. HA!

I would like to know when our country got to this point? The point that our own citizens HAVE to petition AGAINST the rights of illegal immigrants, rights that would give these illegals advantages over our OWN citizens.  Why would a state be granting in-state tuition to illegal immigrants when the process of a student from another state within the United States is difficult, grueling and more often than not, unsuccessful?  To be in this country with undocumented status is against the law.  So if this bill passes, we are going to teach our youth that other people who break the law will reap benefits from it because we should feel sorry for them and be compassionate towards them.  In addition to the illegal aspect, most state university systems are struggling tremendously right now to stay afloat and maintain lower tuition rates for legal, legitimate students…Why are we trying to flood the system and give breaks to more people who haven’t earned it?

If this is how it’s going to be, what’s the point of even being a United States citizen?  It sure seems like you get a lot more benefits by not being one.

My favorite organization, the American Civil Liberties Union, has filed a suit in Anchorage, Alaska against the state because they refused to grant a driver’s license to a transgendered person.  Apparently, this former-man-now-‘woman’ applied for a driver’s license but was denied because this person, referred to as K.L., did not undergo a sex change surgery.  The ACLU is claiming that ‘denying the woman a license that accurately reflects her gender identity because she hasn’t undergone surgery is unconstitutional’.  Personal beliefs aside, this brings up some interesting points.  Let’s take a look at the facts.

The ACLU is a strong proponent of equality for a wide variety of groups.  With that equality, the ACLU, along with many other organizations, insists that people be recognized for their differences whether it be race, religion, gender, sex, etc. (Don’t you find it interesting that a group that seeks to create equality across the board continues to sort people into groups?)  With that being said, sociologists have defined specific differences between sex and gender.  Sex is defined as ‘either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures’.  Gender is defined as ‘the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex’  Some sites also claim that gender is a subclass of sex.  Okay, so just to clarify Merriam-Webster, (and most sociology and psychology text books) says sex is physiological and gender is psychological.

Moving on. In actuality, this K.L. person is suing because the state of Alaska would not recognize the behaviors, cultures and psychological practices and instead wanted to identify a person based on organs and actual tangible body parts.  I must be missing something here.

I have to question what the argument is for gender being a suitable form of identification.  Sure, gender rights are protected by Human Rights, the UN and other entities, but gender is not a way to identify one person from the next.  These rights are in place to protect people, as they should be.  And I have to wonder how it would be applicable.  Say a transgender person is in a car wreck and unable to identify themselves at the scene.  A lot of chaos could ensue when a license states one ‘sex’ and a medical examination determines another.  And while this K.L. person may have female tendencies that does not make him a male.  When I go shoot a gun at the gun range wearing camo and Timberland boots, I don’t refer to myself as a male.  Hunting quail on a camping trip would not change this either.  And how about public places? Which restroom does K.L. use when out? Certainly he wouldn’t walk into a woman’s restroom because that would essentially be breaking the law.  So why would a form of government identification be any different?

Take out your license.  Look at it.  Next to your eye color, your hair color and unfortunately your weight, what does it say? Sex. Not gender.