Members' Corner

By Michael J. McCormack

There’s only one word to describe my opinion of the recently announced “immigration compromise.” However, so as not to offend anybody, I’ll keep that vulgar word to myself. Suffice it to say, if you can imagine the condition of the street shortly after several thousand horses with severe stomach trouble have cantered past, you’ll know the word to which I refer. Yes, that’s the one. It makes the grass grow green.

Our weak-kneed, or dare I say, cowardly politicians in Washington who purport to represent we the People incense me. Whether democrat, republican, or whatever shade of party Senators McCain, Kennedy and their cronies claim to be, they certainly don’t represent me, nor do they represent the vast majority of Americans on this issue. Let me make it very simple for them. We, the People, don’t want amnesty for illegal aliens, or, as you like to call them, “undocumented immigrants.” Why can’t you stop twisting things into some kind of unrecognizable jumble of words? My wife was a proud, legal, resident alien for more than ten years before she became a naturalized American citizen. The same holds true for my favorite niece. In fact, it said as much on their green cards. A rose by any other name is still a rose and amnesty is still amnesty, and illegal aliens are still illegal aliens despite your best efforts to make them sound like something we should all just shut up about and be happy with. We’re not happy and we won’t shut up. Those lawmakers on the “pro” side of this ridiculous legislation would do well to remember that you work for us, not vice versa, and we plan to speak at maximum volume during the next election if you allow this to go forward.

I don’t get it. What is it about the word “no” that you don’t understand? Just a cursory look at the polling data available at http://www.numbersusa.com/ drives the point home. Some of this data is no more than 60 days old!

- Fifty-nine percent of Americans polled believe the more effective way to deal with the potential threat to national security posed by millions of illegal immigrants living within the United States is to crack down on illegal immigration by toughening the enforcement of existing laws, deporting illegal immigrants and prosecuting the employers who illegally employ workers. UPI/Zogby Poll; April 13-16, 2007

- Sixty-one percent of likely American voters say there are no blanket conditions under which they would support giving legal, green card status to millions of illegal immigrants. McLaughlin & Associates poll; April 12-15, 2007

- Sixty-one percent oppose providing a path to US citizenship for those illegal immigrants who entered the United States illegally, and who fraudulently obtained green cards and Social Security numbers, when millions are playing by the rules and waiting in their countries to enter the United States legally. McLaughlin & Associates poll; April 12-15, 2007

- Fifty-four percent of Americans polled believe illegal aliens harm the nation's economy. Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll; April 5-9, 2007

- One reason the public does not like Senate proposals to legalize illegals and double legal immigration is that seventy-three percent said they had little or no confidence in the ability of the government to screen these additional applicants to weed out terrorists and criminals. Zogby/CIS poll, April 17-24, 2006

- By eight-to-one, Americans think it is unfair to grant rights to illegal immigrants while thousands of people wait each year to come to the United States legally. Fully eighty-six percent of Republicans think it is unfair, as do seventy-seven percent of Democrats. Opinion Dynamics Poll for FOX News, April 4-5, 2006

- Sixty-five percent of those surveyed said they would be willing to pay significantly higher prices for some goods and services should that be the result of tighter control of the southern U.S. border and a resulting lower number of undocumented workers. Zogby Poll, March 31-April 3, 2006

- Fifty-six percent of Americans polled say the U.S. should NOT grant temporary-worker status to foreigners who are here illegally, as this would make them and their families eligible for government services while they are here. We should not reward people who have broken the law, and this will encourage even more people to enter the United States illegally. NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll, March 10-13, 2006

Given the numbers, it would seem your constituents are trying to tell you something, but you’re simply not listening. It took me about five minutes to get this information. What have you been reading? If these numbers were even close to accurate, I’d guess I’m not the only American incensed. Take it from a voting American; reconsider this ludicrous, unwanted legislation, and get back to work on what the People want. You’ll be amazed at how our collective opinion of you can change.

By Tom Kiser

We are human beings.
We live on planet Earth.
We will obey the laws of physics.

For several weeks I have been searching through my vocabulary for a word that would express a specific concept with accuracy and precision. I couldn't find the word that I needed. I consulted my thesaurus. My word's not there either, at least not that I could find.

Then with the idea that the English language is the most versatile and most adaptable language on the planet and new words are being invented and added to the language all the time, I decided to invent my own. It does have a bit of a clunky feel to it, but with the help of my thesaurus, I did it. The new word that I invented is the word 'unthinker' as in "The long term, deeply entrenched, institutional culture of Congress has rendered Congress into an institution of
unthinkers."

The Democrats in Congress operate on mental autopilot as programmed by liberal ideologies. The Republicans in Congress operate on mental autopilot as programmed by conservative ideologies. That's not really a problem as long as all they do is talk-the-talk at each other, or, past each other at the people as the case may be. It is when they actually decide to do something that their unthinking causes bad things to happen in the lives of good people. Then they call it, unthinkingly, the law of unintended negative consequences while apparently never thinking that it was their unthinking actions that caused the negative consequences.

The worst possible things happen when the two ideologies come into confluence with each other on one problem. Then we get the results of someone else's invented word, bipartisanship. (Is bipartisan a biredundancy?) That means that the two parties have found a way for each to unthink in their own way about the same problem.

It is then that we get such creations of unthinkmanship as the proposed so-called Illegal immigration bipartisan reform legislation which doesn't reform anything that can be noticed and actually does nothing or almost nothing to deter and put a halt to the criminal invasion of our country. In fact, it is highly likely that if that big pile of biunthinking crap is actually passed and signed into law then the change in illegal immigration will look a lot more like escalation than it looks like deterrence. But if so, will it be due to the law of unintended negative consequences? How unthinking and unkind of me to suspect that what I suspect could be true. Surely any harm that is done to the nation and to the lives of the nation's citizens would be unthinkable and thus unintentional?

I'm sure glad I finally have my word even though it may be just a little clunky.

By Sherri Reese

Is The North American Union really just a conspiracy theory?

There are several different versions of the history of the European Union. In my research however, I was able to find most sources agree on several points. Talk of a body such as the EU had started before WWI, but WWI made talks of such a body more palpable. By the time WWII was over, the idea was looking like the answer to a peaceful Western Europe. While talks of such a union were sold to the people as a movement for lasting peace; one of the very first moves was for six nations to create the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951. The six nations (Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and West Germany) all agreed to give decision-making authority on coal and steel production in their countries to an independent body called the "High Authority".

I recommend people do their own research, but I feel confident that once they do, most people will agree on the following:

*The goals of the EU were Security and Prosperity.

The means by which to achieve these goals was to create treaties that were based on the economic common good of all the countries included. “Member states soon spoke of creating a genuine "common market" between themselves and removing all trade barriers that hindered this.” This would not only spur the economy, but would then make it in the best interest of these countries to remain peaceful or face great economic strain. Kind of like a “it pays (literally) to be nice to your neighbor” atmosphere. Traveling from one country to the next became very easy for both goods and people. This was achieved through trade agreements and treaties.

Now fast forward to today...... and this kook theory about President Bush joining hands with Mexico and Canada to create a North American Union. We all know that under ARTICLE II, SECTION 2 of the Constitution that the President cannot sign a treaty with another nation without the consent of Congress. The Constitution also states that trade deals work the same way. Oops, I mean they were supposed to work the same way, until “Fast Track Authority” was invented in 1974. Leave it to government to derail the Constitution.

(In an effort to be balanced, I have provided 2 links Here and Here about the Fast Track Authority. I strongly recommend reading BOTH of them in entirety.)

Here comes the bubble buster for us conspiracy theory folks. There is no plan for a North American Union, but there IS a plan for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).

If you visit the previous link you will find some heavy and flowery language about what is “good for America.” You will even find a Myth vs Facts page.

We will start with this page.

If you dare to take the time and actually read the PDF files provided at this site (along with other sources provided in this article), you will find that the “myths” are no longer myths, and the “facts” are no longer facts.

The page is clear that there is no plan for a “North American Union.” It also makes it clear that no agreement was ever signed. (emphasis added)

Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.

Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed. (emphasis added)

Not an agreement? Uh, no it is an “unsigned” PLAN!

Also notice that the myth and fact statements below include the currency point. All the evidence I have found shows that there is no plan for a common currency. Now let’s take out the currency point:

Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.

Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.

Does not change our courts or legislative process? No I think the CAFTA Trade agreement (and others) along with the Fast Track Authority have already accomplished this, but SPP certainly will enhance these abuses of our people and our Constitution.

Myth: The SPP is being undertaken without the knowledge of the U.S. Congress.

Fact: U.S. agencies involved with SPP regularly update and consult with members of Congress on our efforts and plans

.

Hah, so here they do admit it is a plan; and by the way, which members of Congress? ALL OF THEM? I want a list.

Myth: The SPP is illegal and violates the Constitution.

Fact: The SPP is legal and in no way violates the Constitution or affects the legal authorities of the participating executive agencies. Indeed, the SPP is an opportunity for the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico to discuss common goals and identify ways to enhance each nation’s security and prosperity. If an action is identified, U.S. federal agencies can only operate within U.S. law to address these issues. The Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security coordinate the efforts of the agencies responsible for the various initiatives under the prosperity and security pillars of the SPP. If an agency were to decide a regulatory change is desirable through the cooperative efforts of SPP, that agency is required to conform to all existing U.S. laws and administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.

I think I have already pointed out this thing certainly violates the Constitution, maybe not “technically,” but when combined with the CAFTA trade deals, Trade Courts, the “unsigned” plan, all the groups and committees formed at the behest of the “plan,” and the new “Immigration Reform” Bill, etc, I’d say this ABSOLUTELY VIOLATES the Constitution!

Myth: The U.S section of the SPP is headed by the Department of Commerce.

Fact: The SPP is a White House-driven initiative. In the United States, the Department of Commerce coordinates the ‘Prosperity’ component, while the Department of Homeland Security coordinates the ‘Security’ component. The Department of State ensures the two components are coordinated and are consistent with U.S. foreign policy.

Does “White House-driven” leave any doubts about this being Bush’s plan for a “North American Union" yet? Not to mention that the Department of Commerce is not at the top of my list when I think of groups that have the best interests of every-day Americans at heart. Not to mention that it is thoroughly UNCONTIONABLE that the Dept of Homeland Security would put one iota of “trust” in the hands of Canada and Mexico when it comes to terrorism and invaders. (The “Security” part of this plan places our security into the hands of Mexico and Canada)

Myth: The U.S. Government, working though the SPP, has a secret plan to build a "NAFTA Super Highway."

Fact: The U.S. government is not planning a NAFTA Super Highway. The U.S. government does not have the authority to designate any highway as a NAFTA Super Highway, nor has it sought such authority, nor is it planning to seek such authority. There are private and state level interests planning highway projects which they themselves describe as "NAFTA Corridors," but these are not Federally-driven initiatives, and they are not a part of the SPP.

Uh, try again. (See p25 of 2005 Prosperity PDF file and pp 9 and 10 of the 2005 Security PDF file)

Myth: The SPP will cost U.S. taxpayers money.

Fact: The SPP is being implemented with existing budget resources. Over the long-term, it will save U.S. taxpayers money by cutting through costly red tape and reducing redundant paperwork. This initiative will benefit the taxpayers through economic gain and increased security, thereby enhancing the competitiveness and quality of life in our countries.

What budget resources....... and WHO’S budget? As far as economic gain, I say we ask the citizens of Detroit about that. (FYI, Ford Motor Company and General Motors Corporation are “Corporate Sponsors” of La Raza)

Is it not ironic that one of the first Key Themes of the 2005 Leaders Report for the SPP is to put in place a North American Steel Strategy by 2006? (Read p5 of the SPP 2005 Prosperity PDF file. Isn’t the stated goal of this SPP to better the lives of the people? Which people? (I hear the folks in Detroit are living in the lap of luxury.) With no EPA in Mexico, I bet you can get a permit for about $50 and 2 burritos. Labor south of the border is quite the bargain too, so I hear. WOW! And with the US government seeking ways to move cargo across the borders that are not only easier and faster, but also with tax relief incentives (see p16 of the 2006 Prosperity PDF file), it’s a big WIN for GM and friends in the BIG AUTO INDUSTRY.

Folks, do we not notice the key words in the establishment of the EU and the SPP? Security and Prosperity. You don’t have to force the pieces to fit, they naturally fit. I have done some research. These “unions” start with the notion that this is needed for peace and for the economy. It is sold under the guise of fear of war and poverty. The FIRST steps are to make the movement of goods and people across borders quick and easy.

President Bush has not signed a treaty or created a “High Authority.” But do not be mistaken, there is an agreement (I mean plan) and authorities; and it gets worse my friends.

The PDF files outline Initiatives, Key Milestones (which include a timeline for completion), and the Status of the Milestones. Remember, this “non-treaty” agreement was first initiated (according to our government) in March of 2005. Many Milestones of this initiative are found in the current Bill before the United States Senate.

Now, this is where the real research starts:

I have done a lot of research so far but as a fully employed single mother of 3, I am calling on fellow citizens to help use the tools provided here in this article to help by doing their own research in connecting all the dots; and making that information available via the internet. I also hope that some people will use their talents and take the time to make easy to read charts of the information.

The links are all at the SPP site, but here are some links below for your convenience. All of the information on the site is important but the PDF files are the “proof in the pudding.”

2005 Report to the Leaders:

Prosperity

Security

2006 Report to the Leaders:

Prosperity

Security

The 2006 Leaders Summit

Is anyone surprised why this is not common knowledge among the American people? When President Bush scolds his base and claims this bill is “good for America” I wish he would take the time to point out exactly what he means. What he means folks, is that it is good for America because of his Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America initiative. Make no bones about it, he is not just tired of fighting the left, or out of solutions to fix the problem; it is all part of his plan.

I don’t want or trust Mexico and Canada to play a role in protecting our families from terrorism! I don’t want “cargo” and “travelers” moving freely across our borders! I don’t want any courts other than our own to be overseeing land and/or trade deals within our borders! I don’t want a limitless amount of foreigners (who do not share the same allegiance to this country, our Constitution, and our Heritage) to be permanent legal residents. These people will have the very rights we do without any true appreciation of what it means to achieve it, let alone keep it. Canada and Mexico do NOT share our same ideas of what a “democracy” is. (I use quotation marks because even the propaganda for this “Partnership” does not recognize that the United States is a Republic and NOT a true democracy.) These people do not share our values, our heritage, or our interests.

I use to half-jokingly accuse this bill of truly solving the illegal alien issue by just making anyone who wants to cross the border legal. Well it is no joke. This is exactly what this bill and this SPP is all about. Eventually, NO Visa will be necessary, not even the infamous Z Visa. (I haven’t even touched on the biometric cards mentioned on p49 of the Security PDF of the 2006 Report to Leaders and on p6 in Section 111 – Biometric Entry-Exit System- of La Bill)

So there you have it folks. The North American Union rumor is just that, just a rumor. But you know what they say about ducks, and I say this thing QUACKS!

By Tom Kiser

A theoretical economy for a hypothetical nation that has a hypothetical population of people that are all highly educated, highly skilled people could not possibly be the real economy for any real nation on Earth. It can only be a fantasy economy for an imaginary nation. It is only when a nation’s economy is the right economy for the real people that live in that nation that a nation’s economy can be the right economy for any real nation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at the political map of The United States of America. The map depicts a divided, segmented and fragmented nation. But there is a problem with that political map. The nation that it depicts is an imaginary nation that only exists in peoples’ minds but which does not exist on Earth.

To see a map of the real United States of America, the one that actually exists on Earth, the one that we all actually live in, delete all of the lines on the map except for the national borders with Canada and Mexico. Now use the colors that cartographers use to depict the natural features of the land. Add in the yellow blobs that cartographers use to depict population centers. Draw in the highways, railroads, pipelines, etc.; the nation’s transportation and communications infrastructure.

Now you can see the real United States of America and the way it really functions. The one that actually exists on planet Earth and the one that we all live in. You can see a nation in which all of its parts are connected to and interconnected with its other parts. You can see nation in which all of its parts are dependent upon and interdependent with its other parts. You can see a nation in which all of its parts are dynamically interactive with each other and which function as one national system: As one nation undivided; a nation that is not segmented and not fragmented.

The real United States of America is badly in need of a Congress that is institutionally capable of ensuring that the real nation has a real federal government and that the process of governance of the nation is governance of the real United States for the citizens of The United States.

The imaginary nation that is depicted on the political map of The United States has had a congress for almost 220 years. The real United States, the one that we all actually live in, has always needed a Congress but has never had one. The need for a real Congress for our nation has never been more critical nor more urgent than it is today. Time is not on our side.

We must have a Congress that actually is and functions as The Congress of the United States of America: A national institution whose members can consider, discuss, debate and legislate governmental and public policies that are predicated on each policy being in the long term best interests of The United States as an entire nation and in the long term best interests of the citizens of The United States as an entire society.

We must have a Congress whose members can put the process of governance of the nation for the people from Washington at the top of a list of national priorities and keep it there where it belongs.

We must have a Congress whose members can remove the politics of government in Washington from the top of their list of priorities where it is today and throw it back on the garbage pile that it was pulled out of and leave it there where it belongs.

We must have a Congress that is institutionally capable of functioning in a way that makes the legislative branch the first branch among three branches of the federal government that are equal in power: A Congress that can be first by being willing and able to take the initiative and go first. We must have a Congress that is institutionally capable of taking the lead in getting face to face with the very real problems that exist in the real United States of America. We must have a Congress that is institutionally capable of playing a leadership role in finding, devising, legislating and overseeing the implementation of the best available real solutions for those very real problems.

We must have a Congress whose members can use their collective knowledge, wisdom and judgment and apply their collective talents, time and energy to formulating and writing the best legislative policies of which they are capable as an institution: Policies for the real United States of America and for the real citizens of the real nation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Congress whose members function as a congregation of local and state politicians who are congregated together in Washington cannot possibly be the Congress that we and our nation must have.

A Congress whose members fiddlefaddle around playing silly damned intramural fantasy league political games of which party is up and which party is down on the Washington, DC, political seesaw plank cannot possibly be the Congress that we and our nation must have.

A Congress whose members wait for policy initiatives to come from the Executive branch so they can then chew them up, digest them and turn them into a pile of crap before they send them to the White House for the President’s signature cannot possibly be the Congress that we and our nation must have.

A Congress whose members test the political winds to determine which direction the most people are going and then follow by jumping in front cannot possibly be the Congress that we and our nation must have.

Will the real Uncle Sam please stand up?

By Georgia State Senator Chip Rogers Author of "Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act"

Assume Congress was considering a “comprehensive” plan to reduce wages for the poor, increase crime in minority neighborhoods, further diminish already failing pubic schools, and seriously strain an overburdened health care system.

Surely such a proposal would be dismissed as “un-American”.

Yet this is exactly what the current amnesty/guest worker bill would accomplish.

While multi-national corporations brazenly urge Congress to decriminalize the subsidized illegal labor of an estimated 20 million illegal aliens, there has been little public exposure of what would happen to low-income U.S. citizens, particularly minorities.

*T. Willard Fair is President of the Urban League of Greater Miami and in his own words “devoted much of his adult life to helping black men build constructive lives”. During recent testimony before Congress, Mr. Fair asked a series of real-life questions striking at the heart of the proposed amnesty;

“Think about it this way: If there's a young black man in Liberty City, where I live, who's good with his hands and wants to become a carpenter, which is more likely to help him achieve that goal -- amnesty and more immigration, or enforcement and less immigration?

Which is more likely to help an ex-convict or recovering addict get hired at an entry-level job and start the climb back to a decent life -- amnesty and more immigration, or enforcement and less immigration?

Which is more likely to persuade a teenager in the inner city to reject the lure of gang life and instead stick with honest employment -- amnesty and more immigration, or enforcement and less immigration?”

*Dr. Norman Matloff is a highly regarded professor and former Chairman for the University of California Davis Affirmative Action Committee. Influenced by his childhood in predominantly Latino East Los Angeles, Dr. Matloff’s professional career has been devoted to helping minorities. He is married to an immigrant. During testimony before Congress, Dr. Matloff summarized his lengthy and detailed research into the destructive impact of illegal/legal immigration on minorities,

“The adverse impacts are both economic and noneconomic in nature: increased job competition; lowered wages; reduced opportunities for entrepreneurs; reductions in quality of education and housing; increased exposure to disease.”

*Monroe Anderson, a well-respected African-American columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times, recently penned a column entitled “Immigration Hurts Blacks”. He describes the current Senate amnesty proposal this way

“…so rich and rewarding -- for the rich. Illegal immigration allows the rich to get cheaper and cheaper goods and services and the black working class and poor to get hustled and trickled-down on.”

*A 2006 raid at a chicken processing plant in Stillmore, GA resulted in employer, Crider Inc., turning to the state employment office for the first time in years. The result cast doubt on the long-standing claim “these are jobs Americans won’t do”, more than 400 applicants came looking for work. Almost every new Crider employee is African-American. According to news reports, for the first time since illegal aliens began arriving in the mid-1990’s a majority of the production line workers are now black Americans. *Professors George Borjas of Harvard, Jeffrey Grogger of the University of California, and Gordon Hanson PhD from MIT, conducted an exhaustive study for the National Bureau of Economic Research determining the impact of immigration, both legal/illegal, on black males. Their summary is unambiguous,

“As immigrants disproportionately increased the supply of workers in a particular skill group, the wage of black workers in that group fell, the employment rate declined, and the incarceration rate rose.”

*Dr. Frank Morris, a former associate Dean at the University of Maryland, now leads a non-profit organization “Choose Black America”. A recent press statement by Dr. Morris describes outrage felt by many African-Americans,

“All Americans are harmed by rampant illegal immigration, but it is blacks, in particular, who have lost economic opportunities, watched their kids’ schools flood with non-English speaking students, and felt the direct impact in countless ways. Our government has failed us, our elected officials have failed us, and now they are prepared to compound the damage with an amnesty and guest worker program that will set black Americans back a hundred years.”

As elites in Washington D.C. seek to satisfy their corporate masters, while simultaneously attempting to purchase a new ethnic voting block, faithful public servants like T. Willard Fair of the Urban League must pick up the pieces of those left behind.

Perhaps we should all listen to his advice,

“The interests of black Americans are clear: No amnesty, no guestworkers, enforce the immigration law.”