Members' Corner

The Surge II: Pick Palin

2008-09-05T17:51:12Z

By Sherri Reese Protecting the future of America and her citizens took only one bold move. Pick a girl, right? Wrong. Pick a conservative who is unafraid of the “country club” political machine. Pick someone who is not an Ivy League elitist who has learned to play along to get along. Pick a person who faced every challenge by taking the higher, not because it was easy, but because it was the right thing to do. The beauty of Sarah Palin has nothing to do with her being physically attractive. The beauty in choosing Palin lies in the reaction of the American electorate, and the political establishments. Those who choose political teams based upon emotion are in full boil over. Some of the far left web site members have gone as far as to attack Palin’s daughter, and her 4 month old child. Those on the left who stuck their fingers in their ears singing “lalalalalalala, I can’t hear you” when the word experience was mentioned suddenly cling to that very word. Those frustrated and miserable at the thought of Senator John McCain representing them on the GOP ticket, are suddenly excited. No matter which side of the aisle you tend to hang out with, we are all sick of the corruption that permeates within our elected Representatives. So is Palin, and she has stood up to it. On the issues of Foreign Policy experience, well, she has enough experience to know that having former leaders of a terrorist group host a fundraiser for you is not a smart move. Those who claim to be fighting for “women’s” issues have been exposed for their real agenda: political ideology, not women at all. Let’s face it, NOW is so desperate they point out that one of Palin’s appointee choices was accused of sexual harassment. This is the same group who supported President Clinton despite his abuse of power with a young intern, and even Clinton’s wife, who also defended this man’s actions. Who do they think they are fooling? To some, picking Palin was a sign of McCain’s desperation. Earth to you folks, America was desperate to do something about the blind faith in a candidate based solely upon his race and ability to promise fairy tales by reading a teleprompter. Hollywood style politics has gotten us into the mess we face with government insiders thirst for bigger chunks of your wallet, and a total disregard for the Constitution. We have become fans of teams with a donkey or an elephant mascot, instead of individuals applying our proclaimed values equally to each candidate. Perhaps the most disgusting display of ridiculous political thinking is what I refer to as the Vegas attitude. This is when someone says, “You can’t vote for him (her), he (she) can’t win.” Have these folks lost their minds? Entering into the voting booth is not placing a bet at the black jack table. Many lives have been sacrificed, much blood has been shed, so that each of us can walk into a voting booth and choose the person who most resembles the representation you believe you deserve. This is particularly disastrous in our primary elections when we are convinced that the incumbent is deemed entitled. No one is entitled to any office or position. For anyone the least bit confused by this, I recommend you revisit the writings of Thomas Paine. America faces many challenges. Many Americans have seen the gradual demise of liberty and prosperity in our country. Palin has proven she is up for that challenge. Many of us were ready to head to our shed, grab a pitchfork, and head to Washington, DC. Instead, may I suggest that we recognize the emergence of The Surge II. So, head to the shed, forget the pitchfork, grab the shovel, hand it to the enemy and say, “go ahead, keep digging.”

Madison Forum Open Forum Luncheon

2008-08-12T15:21:42Z

By Sherri Reese For those of you who missed the luncheon on Monday, August 11th, you can catch up with the information below. For those of you who attended, here is the information I promised. (the comment field has been opened with no restirctions, I will do my best to monitor them) We intended to cover 4 topics, but only covered 3 due to time. 1) The House Energy Bill, and the happenings on this issue in the house for the past 10 days. 2) The Gang of 10, including a statement for Madison Forum Members from Johnny Isakson's office. 3) State's Rights, a new group is emerging. They are legislatures from various states, other grassroots groups, and members of media. 4) The Global Poverty Act sponsored by Senator Obama (the one we didn't get to) Here is a wrap up and info on these topics: 1) House Energy Bill Here is a link to the House Energy Bill by John Boehner: LINK I simply refer to this bill as "Prego." "It's in there." Renewables, solar, nuclear, wind, drilling, etc, it's in there; and with no added costs passed onto the taxpayer. What is going on in Washington, DC, on the House Floor, and how did it all begin? Go Here for that info....(you will need to scroll down- and if you click the pause button on the blue blogtalkradio box you can stop the audio on this page- and you can go to the talk show page here on Madison Forum to hear from the folks in DC involved. There are 2 different petitions you can sign to help these efforts: Drill Here, Drill Now and Call Back Congress Other actions you can take: I have talked to the folks leading this charge in DC everyday. They do not need anymore calls to them for support, they know we support them. They do not need us to call Nancy's office anymore, she knows we want her to call Congress back for a vote on the above bill. They have urged us to call the Democratic Congressman who are not joining them on the floor and urge them to return to Washington and join the fight for an up or down vote NOW. HERE is a link to the results of the vote on staying to vote on this bill or go on vacation. 2) Enter the Gang of 10! The "Gang of 10" are 5 Democrat and 5 Republican Senators who have joined together to come up with their own "Energy Plan." (Click Here for the press release from the gang on their energy ideas) What we need to know and understand about the gang. This gang had originally formed BEFORE the events we see happening on the House Floor. They truly believed that the Boehner bill would never pass the Senate. But folks, things have changed since their original "meetings." The PEOPLE WANT BOEHNER'S BILL! The "news" of the gang of 10 seemd to hit with an article in the Wall Street Journal on Friday, August 8th. One week after the House Republicans decided to stay in DC and fight for an up or down vote on this bill. Johnny Isakson is one of the gang, and this is what I wrote to their office:

you realize they (MF) are going to (be) very hot-- pitchforks in hand, hot over this... We want the Boehner bill in the House- we feel there is no need for a gang even the drilling areas the gang proposal has- will be no help-- these areas are not where the oil is. The Senate serves the same people that House serves The House hears the American people--- Repub and Dem alike-- we want Boehner's bill We do not want "something" done for the sake of "something being done" we want a SOLUTION.... the gang proposal is NOT a SOLUTION to the crisis and will not lead us to Energy Independence.... Can you get me a Statement from you office that addresses these concerns?

His office sent me this statement- Click HERE to read. The "Gang" needs to hear from us that we want the HOUSE BILL! There are many details on this issue that would just take up too much space and time to read.... 3) States Rights-- Here are links to some info on this issue. (You can also listen to the Madison Forum radio show from Saturday, August 2nd- I interviewed State Representative Charles Key about this issue, he is involved with this forming group- they will have a web site soon) OK Letter to stop Real ID Stop Real ID Coalition Letter OK Senate Bill 464 Letter- ACLJ Letter ACLU Real ID info Doc One Real ID info Doc Two Right now-- the focus of this groups is to repeal the Real ID Act, stop the Trans Corridor, and stop the SPP. But there are many other state's rights issues to be addressed as we move along. Here are 2 links to the work being done in Oklahoma: Fighting the Real ID Act in Oklahoma Joint Resolution by Charles Key of Oklahoma that he introduced in his state Stay tuned for more developments on this issue. 4) Senator Obama's Global Poverty Act We didn't get to cover this. Let me say that I have talked to Senator Obama's office about this bill on at least 3 occasions, and have contacted every single one of the 23 co-sponsors of this bill at least once and in some cases up to 3 times. NONE of them were willing to give me a statement, but I did receive something from Obama's office. The Global Poverty Act Document from Obama's office I will schedule a Madison Forum Show for this Saturday, as long as MF members are willing to call in and discuss these issues. The show works much like a conference call. We can handle multiple callers, and all callers are welcome to stay for the entire show, as long as they are not rude or using foul language. The comments section is open- or you can reach me by phone and/or email with thoughts and comments. Thanks to each of you for all you do to help in our efforts to bring about "GOOD GOVERNMENT" and an enlightened population of voters.

No More Silence; The Communist Goals

2008-06-10T22:14:26Z

By Sherri Reese If you have not read the Communist Goals , be prepared for a lesson you will not want to forget. In the 1960's, communism was seen as America's most looming enemy. Communism was the biggest threat to our freedom and liberties. How is it that we have a copy of their battleplan to bring us down from within, we have entered this plan into our Congressional record, and yet we still have allowed so much of this plan to be carried out? Well, lets review them and see. Below, I have taken most of these 45 "goals" and divided them into catagories that I have labeled as "enemy fronts." The enemy fronts: Education: (these are numbered in correlation to the original list entered into the Congressional Record in 1963.) · 17) Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism, and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in text books. · 18) Gain control of all student newspapers · 19) Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack. · 28) Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state" · 29) Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis. · 30) Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man". · 31) Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture:" Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over. · 41) Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents. Some of these have already been accomplished, and the rest are rampantly taking hold in the American education system. Much of this has been allowed to happen because we were not aware of the plan of attack! Media:(again, numbered accordingly) . 11) Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.) · 20) Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions. · 21) Gain control of key positions in radio, TV & motion pictures. · 25) Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography, and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV. · 26) Present Homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as "normal, natural, and healthy". · 42) Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special interest groups should rise up and make a "united force" to solve economic, political, or social problems. Culture: · 22) Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings", substitute shapeless, awkward, and meaningless forms. · 23) Control art critics and directors of art museums. " Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art". · 27) Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch" . 32) Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc. · 36) Infiltrate and gain control of more unions. · 37) Infiltrate and gain control of big business. · 39) Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals. · 40) Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce. Legal System: · 16) Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights. · 12) Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party. · 24) Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press. · 33) Eliminate all laws or procedures, which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus. · 38) Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat. · 14) Continue giving Russia access to the US Patent Office. Politics: · 15) Capture one or both of the political parties in the US. · 10) Allow all Soviet Satellites individual representation in the UN. · 35) Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI. · 29) Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis. · 7) Grant recognition of Red China, and admission of Red China to the UN. · 1) US acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war · 2) US willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war. · 3) Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the US would be a demonstration of "moral strength". · 4) Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war. · 5) Extension of long term loans to Russia and Soviet Satellites. · 6) Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination. · 9) Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the US has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress. . 34) Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities. . 43) Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government. . 44) Internationalize the Panama Canal. . 45) Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike. Several of these "Goals" actually repeat themselves and overlap into more than one area. The battle ground is wide and vast. In a short summary I have concluded that the success of these goals has been carried out by the enemy tackling and succeeding in the above "enemy fronts." They took over media outlets (#'s 20-21), they infiltrated the schools (#17), and they captured at least one of the political parties (#15). Once these three things were completed, the others just fell into place like a domino effect. Most of us have been convinced that communism is no longer a threat. The Conventional War on Communism turned into a Cold War, the "Wall" came down, and we suddenly believed it was all over. No folks; there has been a "Culture War" going on the entire time. It will take awareness, vigilance and resolve to defeat the attempt to bring us down from within. The battleground is wide and the battle fronts are many. Education is step one. We must get this information into the hands of people. It may take 10 times before they finally care, then be sure you tell them 10 times, or however many times it takes. These are the facts, folks. Anything less than an all out offensive to this enemy from within is just simply a full surrender. I LOVE America. I am a patriot. I LOVE my freedoms and liberties, and I refuse to sit by quietly as the enemy siezes these things I hold dear. My forefathers' blood, and the blood of every soldier since our conception will be in vain if we don't stop this. NO MORE SILENCE FOR COMMUNISM! NO MORE SILENCE FOR THE ENEMY! NO MORE SILENCE! NO MORE SILENCE!

Drink Up!

2008-03-21T15:22:21Z

By Sherri Reese First, let’s just establish two points. Point one; while the exposure of Pastor Wright paved the way for Barak’s “Grandma got run over by Obama” speech, the real issue was Barak’s integrity and political ideology, not racism. The reason the media and most American’s missed this and became caught up in the racism issue, and the issue of America being the good guy or the bad guy, is because the race issue and the Anti-America issues are still a living cancer that American’s refuse to treat with some serious chemo-therapy. Even as racism seems to be a political hot button manipulated and abused by politicos, there has yet to ever be an honest discussion about not just the issue, but the real remedy to the racial divide in our country. Point two; there is a tremendous difference between racism (hatred), and prejudice. When someone mentions to me that they visited their doctor, I automatically envision a man. In no way do I think women are the least bit less qualified or apt as doctors, it is just my pre-disposed thought process. I do the same when I think of a policeman or a fireman. I hear “hairdresser” and think of a woman. This is not based in hatred, it is based in experience. There is no doubt that racism and hatred still exists in this country. I hate to break the news to you, but it will always exist. As long as evil has any shadow of cover in this world, these things will exist. During the seventies and eighties we did a damn good job in this country trying to correct the problem of racism. We struggled to try and turn the tide towards being a colorblind society. My generation understood that the horrors of the past were not our fault, but it was nonetheless our responsibility. If we were ever going to change things, we had to answer the call, and not only did we answer the call, we did it in a big and bold way. We did such a great job, that even though my parents’ generation was the ones who instituted educational changes, created movies like “Roots,” etc, it ultimately was us that ended up teaching our parents how to overcome this black hole of hatred. In all the tapes of Wright and his rants, the one clip that bothered me the most, was the one clip that I heard the least talk about. When Wright ranted about how Hillary had never been called the “N” word, I was horrified. Watching the mob (forgive me, but truth is truth, this was not a sermon of God’s word, and the folks laughing and cheering in the pews were not a “congregation” during this event) reaction was infuriating. Could you imagine video clips being released in which some organization that Hillary was a member of (for 20 years, and one she donated thousands of dollars too) had a woman leader (whom Hillary referred to as a spiritual leader and moral compass) was ranting about how Obama could not understand women’s struggles and issues because he had never been called the dreaded “C” word? What a load of BS! I remember a discussion I had with “friends of the family.” (My ex husband’s family friend) We were visiting them in their home, my son was about 10 years old, and this man used the “N” word. I immediately confronted him. I told him point blank. “This is your home, and you have every right to do as you please in your home, but if you expect us to spend time here with you, you will not use that word; especially in front of my son.” His response was to first try to debate the real definition of the word. I simply told him that this was not up for discussion. I made my feelings clear, his choice. He then tried to tell me that I could not shelter my child from things; he was going to hear that word whether I liked it or not. I pointed out that I would not allow my child to hang out with people who used that word, so how could I justify to that I would hang out with people who did. I also added that while I know he will hear this word, he will not hear it from people who loved him, people his parents expected him to respect, and people he and his family were supposed to trust. He got the point and shut up. Let’s put this in “context” as all of Barak’s supporters have “demanded” we do. Barak is more qualified because he has been called the “N” word? No, that was not his point. Listen to the entire clip. Put it in “context.” His point was that Hillary could not be trusted, because she had not been called the “N” word. Let me clue you in Mr. Wright, and your mob following, the truth is, the ones that can not be trusted are those who USE the “N” word. I don’t care what your economic status is, I don’t care what your race is, and I don’t care how many different races or continents your family “represents.” The “N” word serves no positive or constructive purpose in this world. NONE! I am sick of carrying the baggage of injustices that I have never participated in. The “Black Community” who wants to carry and pass on the hatred of racism can sit in their pews, steeped in their own hatred and stew in it. WE (White America and many other Americans) have gone the extra mile to stop the precious heirloom of hatred being passed on from one generation to the next. We have been understanding, apologetic, sensitive, and physically worked hard to overcome this evil, and we actually embraced the “Dream” of which the late Martin Luther King Jr inspired us to work towards achieving. This whole time, a certain percentage of the “Black Community” has sat in the privacy of their own homes and gatherings and festered and fed this hatred. Let me also tell you about a Pastor who does stand in the pulpit and talk about hate in a way that any true Christian knows comes from the word of God. Hate is a poison that infects its host, not its target. Clinging to hatred is like holding a cup of poison, glaring down the object of your hate, sipping from your cup and saying to your target, “Here, take that.” This is the nature of hate. So, Pastor Wright, you and all your supporters can go ahead and cling to your hatred. Go ahead and cheer your hatred. Go ahead and cling to the pains of your past, inflict blame, malice, and contempt onto those who had nothing to do with the atrocities committed to your ancestors. Your hatred has no power of me. Your hatred brings out of me nothing but pity for your children. Go ahead and drink your pain and hate. Go ahead; pass the cup of poison down to your children like some precious heirloom of great worth. Go ahead. Grasp your cup of poison and DRINK UP!

The GREAT Plan: Let the Buyer Beware

2007-11-09T18:04:05Z

By Craig Kootsillas Speaker Richardson has whipped up a lot of excitement with his talk of eliminating property taxes. Careful examination of his plan reveals that it goes far beyond that and demands careful scrutiny. The plan, dubbed the "Get Rid of Every value Added Tax" (GREAT) began as a bill in the final days of the last session of the state legislature but was not brought to the floor for a vote. Although no new drafts have been released, the plan apparently has been changed as evidenced by statements made by the speaker and other members of the house leadership. The final bill will be crafted by the leadership, house members, their staff and thousands of lobbyists when the house reconvenes in January. The goal of the plan is to eliminate all property tax and replace the revenue with a statewide sales tax distributed to local governments through a formula determined by the state legislature. The plan also will create a new tax on most services including health care, legal, accounting, landscaping, engineering, cosmetology, construction, vehicle and equipment repair, transportation, advertising, pest control, child day care, and real estate commissions to name a few. The speaker's campaign to garner support for his plan is brilliant but deceptive. Local officials are being demonized for their opposition to the plan for "simply playing word games" regarding local control. In a recent op-ed piece the speaker wrote, "I believe local control is letting citizens decide, through a vote, when the system needs to change and letting them decide each and every day at the cash register how much they pay in taxes." While this statement certainly is appealing, it only tells part of the story. It ignores the fact that under the speaker's plan the tax rate will be set under the Gold Dome and funds collected from it will be sent to the Gold Dome to be parceled out to local governments as state legislators see fit. Another troubling aspect of the plan is the fact that it will cause redistribution of wealth throughout the state. It sets an arbitrary share of taxes collected statewide for local governments and allows adjustments for inflation and population growth. Over the past few years Cobb Countians have made significant investments to make Cobb County an attractive place to visit as well as live. Two significant examples are The Arts Center and The Strand. Should these investments pay off by attracting consumers from neighboring counties, it should be Cobb County that benefits, not the state legislature. According to a letter to county commissioners from Jerry Griffin, Executive Director of the Association of County Commissioners of Georgia who met with Speaker Richardson to discuss his plan, "the Speaker did acknowledge that this is an income redistribution system with the goal to bring those below the median service level up while holding everyone else where they are at." The Speaker has engaged noted economist Arthur Laffer, champion of supply side economics during the Reagan administration and after whom the "Laffer Curve" is named, to help create his plan. At the heart of supply side economics is the assumption that the amount of money collected in taxes increases when tax rates are cut. According to Griffin's letter, the leadership fully expects tax receipts to rise after implementation of Richardson’s plan, creating a windfall for the Gold Dome. How would a windfall be handled? Who can tell given the Gold Dome's budget process where numbers are crunched by a handful of members in committee then voted on by all - few of which will have read the entire bill. By contrast, local governmental bodies’ budget process involves real numbers from department heads, public hearings and is much more open to the public. At an emotional level, replacing property taxes with sales taxes seems to be a good thing. After all, why should home ownership come with the additional burden of paying for things used by renters for free? And why should local governments be able to raise taxes simply by changing the millage rate or re-assessing the value of your home? Has there been abuse? It's an easy claim to make given that from 1999 to 2005 personal income increased 147 percent, while property tax revenues increased 177 percent. There is much public support for fundamental changes in tax policy. The speaker's plan hijacks this support and translates it into support for a shift in power to Atlanta. Regarding the GREAT plan, let the buyer beware.

Leave it for the SPLOST

2007-09-23T15:47:36Z

By Craig Kootsillas Driving north on US 41 out of Kennesaw towards the Paulding County line, you'll pass two Super Wal-Marts, a Super Target and countless strip malls filled with national retail chain stores. Each intersection is covered with signs enticing passersby to visit hundreds of new neighborhoods in various stages of development close by. It wasn't like this a few short years ago. The area used to feature bait and tackle stores, flea markets and acres of kudzu patiently working to devour vacant buildings sprinkled throughout the landscape. It's now a thriving upscale community and the focus of Z-164, one of the hottest zoning battles going on in the county. Soon, the vacant strip of land at the intersection of US-41 and Awtrey Church Road will feature a new church (being built by Johnson's Ferry Baptist Church) and a WellStar hospital - along with office space filled with medical specialists. A major concern with this development is that it will lie within 1500 feet of Lake Allatoona and the land upon which it will be built contains a stream that empties into the lake. Lake Allatoona is one of only two sources of drinking water for Cobb County. The cast of characters involved in this matter reads like a Who's Who of Cobb County. John Moore, the dean of the development community, represents Johnson's Ferry Baptist Church and the developers. Helen Goreham, who rose from the ranks of the activist community to claim her seat on the Board of Commissioners, represents the area. Joe Lee Thompson, who is facing a tough re-election battle, represents the land upon which Johnson's Ferry Baptist Church sits. Former Commissioner Bill Byrne has been retained by area homeowners to fight for their interests. When the issue first came before the Board of Commissioners (after numerous planning commission hearings) it was obvious that Commissioner Goreham had done her homework. She called upon William Higgins, Cobb Stormwater Management Division Manager, to help explain the effects of the development on the lake. We seldom get rain, but when we do it can have devastating effects. A few short years ago, much of south Cobb County was flooded by a single storm. Higgins' presentation was truly informative and showed that the county learned valuable lessons from that horrific flood. The developers deserve credit for the lengths to which they went to protect the quality of water to be discharged into Lake Allatoona by the development. The retention ponds contained within the plan are oversized and include much vegetation to remove engine fluids and other waste from the development's parking surfaces. According to Higgins, though, the plan would harm the streambed running through the property due to the increased amount of water runoff and cause silt to build up in Lake Allatoona. With this insight, the all-star cast went back to work and crafted an agreement which not only protected the streambed and lake - but included an agreement by the developer to help defray the costs of improvements to existing infrastructure and streambed to the tune of around a half million dollars. If the story ended here, it would be a good one. A church, a hospital and needed medical services would be added to a growing community. Natural resources and infrastructure would have been considered and dealt with. In stepped Commissioner Joe Lee Thompson. He doesn't represent the community in which the development will occur; he represents Johnson's Ferry Baptist Church - the community that wants the development to be built. Commissioner Joe Lee Thompson offered a substitute motion eliminating the agreement, which passed with support from Commissioners Annette Kesting and Tim Lee. Thompson said, "I'm in favor of the hospital, I'm in favor of the church. But I'm not in favor of putting stipulations in that will prevent them from building or cause them to walk away." Over the past few years we've seen a number of gimmicks discussed and enacted that help the county find funds to maintain infrastructure. Gimmicks such as impact fees, the "Rain Tax" - the SPLOST. Perhaps these wouldn't be needed if the board followed Commissioner Goreham's lead and considered all costs when developments are built. Commissioner Goreham deserves much credit for looking at all costs for development. The stream through which water from this development flows eventually will need to be repaired, eventually silt will need to be removed to the lake. I'll be watching to see if it shows up on any list justifying a SPLOST.

What Went Right on Comprehensive Immigration Reform

2007-07-15T15:49:13Z

By Michael J. McCormack Unless you’ve been living in a vacuum, by now you’re aware that S.1348, the proposed legislation on “Comprehensive Immigration Reform,” is now in its death throes. That’s not to say it has gone the way of the dodo just yet – it could very well be resurrected - but it’s safe to say that for now, it’s well on its way to the island of misfit and exceptionally bad legislation. For you geography buffs, that’s located in the bottom of Senator Kennedy and Senator McCain’s desk drawer. Having watched the Senate debate the issues surrounding the legislation, I was jubilant with the result of the cloture vote. There was so much wrong with the bill, it would take an army of legal eagles to sort it all out. Virtually every news outlet in the Nation reported something “bad” about the proposal. Whether it was amnesty, legalization of convicted felons, not making English the official language of the United States, the seeming disdain for our current laws, or something else, there was something in the bill for everyone to detest. That leads to a most interesting question; with so many things wrong with this bill, what went right? With 45 of our elected officials voting for cloture, one might think it safe to assume there must have been something right about this bill. Didn’t this legislation contain something that every American could latch on to? Wasn’t there a miniscule piece of the legislation that would make life better for all the People of our Nation? As far as I can tell, the simple answer is a resounding “no.” It would have cost us a ton of money and compromised our National security. The open borders brigade and those who seem to think aiding and abetting criminals is just fine and dandy, to use the vernacular, “got busted up.” While there isn’t much “right” about this legislation, there is plenty “right” about our Nation. When ‘We the People’ got the ill wind of this ridiculous attempt to throw open our borders – especially the southern one - willy-nilly by those charged to do our bidding in Washington, we rose up in droves! According to some estimates, more than 700,000 people signed an on-line petition to persuade those in the Senate to vote against cloture. This is certainly something right. Senate office telephone screeners, in their home states and in Washington, were inundated with calls from angry constituents threatening to vote in another direction should their Senator vote for cloture. That’s right too. There were demonstrations by angry constituents outside the offices of numerous Senators who might have been leaning toward voting for cloture. Right again. You see, the vast majority of Americans believe, in the most literal sense, that our government is one of, by and for the People. It might have taken a little bit of persuading from those People, but in the end, the majority of Senators got the message. As for the 45 who still don’t get it, I suspect they’ll be singing a different tune in the run-up to the next election. This legislation was so long and complicated - it was over 360 pages long - it was virtually useless. Our elected leaders would do well to remember the beauty of simplicity. They might also consider the words of two of our most influential founders, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. In Federalist 62, Hamilton and Madison wrote “It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow.” ‘We the People’ have spoken, and our voices were heard loud and clear. That is as it should be. We want our current laws enforced and we want attrition through enforcement. It’s as simple as that and it only took two sentences as opposed to 360+ pages. We have immigration laws on the books and our direction should be to enforce those laws rather than make new, even more complicated ones. This is precisely what Hamilton and Madison warned against. The critics be damned; let’s try upholding the laws we already have before we attempt to re-invent the wheel. Finally, 45 Senators voted for cloture. There were 34 Democrats and 11 Republicans. That number equates to nearly half of the U.S. Senate. With that in mind, ‘We the People’ will do well to remember the words of yet another of our Founders, those of John Adams. Adams said “Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.” We should heed these words and be very wary of those we entrust with our freedom. That, too, would be very right.

The Citizens Rule Book: JURY HANDBOOK

2007-07-05T13:59:47Z

By Sherri Reese

How did the American people defeat prohibition? By knowing their rights! The law banning alcohol became useless when the government couldn't get a conviction. Things have changed since then. Citizens, jurors, are being lied to. Below is valuable information that is largely ignored and hidden by our government and our educational systems. This is a must read for anyone committed to keeping our government in check and in the hands of the people. This is the way our forefathers wanted it to be. They gave their lives, their fortunes, and their honor for this. There is no shame in being a patriotic American who cherishes the inheritance that so many sacrificed their lives to give us. We only bring shame when we hide in ignorance or refuse to fight boldly to keep this precious gift in order to hand it down to our children and their children.

I have provided links for easy research, and highlighted some of the most pertinent information as well.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

Edmund Burke

The Citizens Rule Book

JURY HANDBOOK

LINCOLN said "Study the Constitution!" Let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislatures, and enforced in courts of justice."

RIGHTS COME FROM GOD, NOT THE STATE!

"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."

John Adams,
Second President of the United States

TABLE of CONTENTS
Section I

A HANDBOOK FOR JURORS
JURY DUTY
YOU ARE ABOVE THE "LAW"!
JURY RIGHTS
LAW OF THE LAND
TEN COMMANDMENTS
COMMUNIST MANIFESTO
GIVE UP RIGHTS?
JURY TAMPERING?

Section II
GIVE ME LIBERTY...
PATRICK HENRY SHOCKED
JURY OF PEERS
FREEDOM FOR WILLIAM PENN
JEFFERSON'S WARNINGS!
Section III
ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS

INDEX TO THE DOCUMENTS
Index to the unanimous Declaration
Index to the Constitution of the United States
Index to the Amendments to Constitution of the United States
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
THE CONSTITUTION
THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Copies of this information are available from Whitten Printers
Links to Related Subjects

Some of my FAVORITE PARTS:

The base of power was to remain in WE THE PEOPLE but unfortunately, it was lost to those leaders acting in the name of government, such as politicians, bureaucrats, judges, lawyers, etc.

As a result America began to function like a democracy instead of a REPUBLIC. A democracy is dangerous because it is a one-vote system as opposed to a Republic, which is a three-vote system. Three votes to check tyranny, not just one. American Citizens have not been informed of their other two votes.

Our first vote is at the polls on election day when we pick those who are to represent us in the seats of government. But what can be done if those elected officials just don't perform as promised or expected? Well, the second two votes are the most effective means by which the common people of any nation on earth have ever had in controlling those appointed to serve them in government.

The second vote comes when you serve on a Grand Jury. Before anyone can be brought to trial for a capital or infamous crime by those acting in the name of government, permission must be obtained from people serving on the Grand Jury! The Minneapolis Star and Tribune in the March 27th 1987 edition noted a purpose of the Grand Jury this way: "A grand jury's purpose is to protect the public from an overzealous prosecutor."

The third is the most powerful vote; this is when you are acting as a jury member during a courtroom trial. At this point, "the buck stops" with you! It is in this setting that each JUROR has MORE POWER than the President, all of Congress, and all of the judges combined! Congress can legislate (make law), the President or some other bureaucrat can make an order or issue regulations, and judges may instruct or make a decision, but no JUROR can ever be punished for voting "Not Guilty!" Any JUROR can, with impunity, choose to disregard the instructions of any judge or attorney in rendering his vote. If only one JUROR should vote "Not Guilty" for any reason, there is no conviction and no punishment at the end of the trial. Thus, those acting in the name of government must come before the common man to get permission to enforce a law.

YOU ARE ABOVE THE LAW!

As a JUROR in a trial setting, when it comes to your individual vote of innocent or guilty, you truly are answerable only to GOD ALMIGHTY. The First Amendment to the Constitution was born out of this great concept. However, judges of today refuse to inform JURORS of their RIGHTS. The Minneapolis Star and Tribune in a news paper article appearing in its November 30th 1984 edition, entitled: "What judges don't tell the juries" stated:

At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the jury's role as defense against political oppression was unquestioned in American jurisprudence. This nation survived until the 1850's when prosecutions under the Fugitive Slave Act were largely unsuccessful because juries refused to convict.

{snip}

One JUROR can stop tyranny with a 'not guilty vote' He can nullify bad law in any case, by 'hanging the jury.'

I am only one, but I am one. I cannot do everything, but I can do something. What I can do, I should do and, with the help of God, I will do!
Everett Hale

The only power the judge has over the jury is their ignorance.
"WE THE PEOPLE," must relearn a desperately needed lesson in civics.

Please take the time to read it ALL! IT IS AWESOME!!!!

Illegal Immigration's Negative Effect on the African American Community

2007-06-28T18:12:46Z

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.”

Amnesty and Temporary Workers

2007-06-23T16:54:32Z

The below column was written for and originally posted on Dick Pettys’ Insider Advantage Georgia ( June 11, 2007), a subscription website. Re-posted here with permission. I have added a few hyperlinks to educate the reader.

On Amnesty and Temporary Workers

D.A. King

Ahh, irony… and timing.

In its cover story this week, no less than Time magazine , describes the soon to be resurrected “immigration” bill as exactly what the President and a large majority of the U.S. Senate have been vehemently denying for weeks: The legislation is “amnesty”.

A source of great annoyance to elected officials in Georgia who would entertain taking the politically suicidal act of actually voting for the Bush Inc. / Kennedy/ La Raza scam is that the American public has come out of the shadows, learned some inconvenient and indisputable facts on the issue and now, like Time, recognizes amnesty when they see it.

Unlike Time, they want no part of it…again.

Those pesky facts and twenty-one years of looking for a better life in post amnesty America are impossible to ignore.

As is the observation of a principled Senator from Alabama.

With considerable understatement on La Bill, Jeff Sessions minces no words in a quote to CNN last week: “This is not a good piece of legislation, it really needs to be re-drafted.”

A component of the “Grand Bargain” not getting the focused attention it so richly deserves is the “Temporary Worker” plan incased in the legalization - at - any - cost scheme. It will never work as advertised and its certain failure is guaranteed by an arrangement put in place by the very people who wrote the language of the bill.

What we are to believe is that low-skilled workers will be legally admitted into the U.S. to provide low wage labor for the bosses, then, having earned five to ten times as much as possible in their own nations, will depart for home at the agreed upon date.

It is never going to happen.

We would do well to learn from the Europeans: Few things are more permanent than temporary workers.

The promise that our government will track down those Temps who refuse to depart on time is empty in light of the fact that at present, the Department of Homeland Security admits to lacking the ability to find about 650,000 convicted criminals who are already under deportation orders and roaming American streets.

The same coalition that is presently pushing the amnesty will insure that once in Ben Franklin’s Republic – people “doing the jobs Americans are not doing” ( at wages on which Americans cannot live) are firmly anchored and never leave.

The present convoluted and incorrect interpretation of the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution is one pre-planned instrument to un-keep the promise of any “temporary” status of the bargain priced labor.

The practice of granting automatic citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to non-citizens is even now creating the absurd howls that forced removal is a human-rights violation and would “break up families”.

“You can’t make me leave, I have American citizen children” seems a defense that can be used by a variety of criminals to escape punishment. We look forward to the next Wall Street insider - trader defendant using the baby waving angle at trial…it seems to be working.

Despite the fact that existing federal immigration law (not something we hear much about in the Senate these days) makes it a crime to encourage an illegal alien to remain in the United States, the influential banking industry has for years been opening accounts, issuing credit cards and making mortgage loans to people it knows to be residing and working in the U.S. illegally.

Somebody, anybody, convince us that making a mortgage loan to anyone is not encouraging them to remain in the U.S. For now, let’s ignore the money-laundering aspect of running ill-gotten gains through bank accounts or wiring the same out of the country.

The site of well-heeled banking lobbyists spending millions to insure that the ‘temporary’ worker be allowed to remain because he has kids, a mortgage and is now part of the “fabric of America” does not require much imagination.

Neither does the true intent of the “Temporary worker” plan.

King is a columnist for the Marietta Daily Journal and president of the Dustin Inman Society, a Marietta-based non-profit actively opposed to illegal immigration and the senate border security compromise legislation. On the Web: www.TheDustinInmanSociety.org

Will the Real Uncle Sam Please Stand Up?

2007-06-20T01:32:14Z

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?

The TRUTH About the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)

2007-06-18T13:49:10Z

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!

An Unthinkable Government

2007-06-13T00:45:17Z

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.

An Incensed American

2007-06-03T10:28:54Z

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.

REBUTTAL TO CYNTHIA TUCKER’S LATEST ASSAULT ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT

2007-05-04T15:10:55Z

By Dick Bachert On April 22, Atlanta Journal-Constitution Editorial Page Editor Cynthia Tucker treated the dwindling subscription base of the AJC to another of her frequent screeds against the Second Amendment. Entitled “Pushing guns for all students cartoonish idea,” it was filled with the inaccuracies and textbook leftist paranoia. This liberal paper allows her close to 20 column inches to air her misrepresentations of world events. For the same reasons liberal talk radio is an abject failure (Al Franken couldn’t deal with rational argument, either), readers who wish to rebut her are limited to 150 words once a month or so, I’ve opted to deconstruct her column here, where only the attention span and interest level of the readers rule. (Tucker’s comments will be marked “CT.” My rebuttals are marked “DB.”) CT: Why else would they (adults) insist that the best way to prevent carnage of the sort that occurred last week at Virginia Tech is to put guns into every available hand” DB: Cynthia, any such proposal allowed to become operative on the VT campus – where the “authorities” rejoiced at their success in prohibiting valid Virginia CCW permitted students and faculty from carrying there and did nothing to warn the campus of the two bodies found in a dorm, allowing Cho 2 hours to contemplate and implement his murderous plan – would undoubtedly limit carrying to valid permit holders. However, even after 32 deaths there, given the mindset of the utopian liberals who run most such institutions, chances of that happening fall somewhere between slim and none. CT: In real life, police officers – trained to fire in the heat of battle – hit their intended targets only 40% of the time… DB: In real life, Cynthia, the ARRIVAL of the cops (all of whom carry visible side arms and have more serious weapons in the trunks of their cruisers) – 10 minutes AFTER that 911 call! -- is usually sufficient to convince the bad guy to flee or surrender. In real life, police officers rarely UNHOLSTER their weapons and MOST cops go entire careers without firing a shot at another human being. And the cops are an “after-the-fact” agency, usually arriving just in time to snap a few photos, put markers on the shell casings and draw chalk outlines of the departed. And while there have been and continue to be cops who will stand between you and a bad guy or a bullet, according to MULTIPLE court rulings, the police have NO obligation to protect SPECIFIC INDIVIDUAL citizens. Google “Warren v. District of Columbia.” I wonder if this legal precedent was why the Supremes just declared D.C.’s anti-firearms ordinance unconstitutional? Did the court recognize – FINALLY and after how many needless deaths of decent citizens -- that when it comes to exercising our God-given right to self-defense, we’re really on our own? And each year, it is estimated that over 2 million criminals are deflected when the intended victim simply brandishes a firearm. No shots fired. Just another good citizen who avoided becoming another statistic. That figure can only be estimated as many of those incidents occur in jurisdictions where the citizen is not supposed to have that weapon. The authorities there will often spend more time and effort prosecuting the armed citizen than searching for the thug. CT: (According to criminologist Geoffrey Alpert) “You can train all day in simulated situations…and you think you can hit a target. But it comes right down to it and someone is pointing a gun at you, and it just doesn’t happen.” DB: Geoffrey may be right about that. And IF that IS a basic human fear, isn’t it also quite possible that all but the most deranged murderer would ALSO become a bit concerned that one of his victims was pointing HIS weapon at HIM? Might not the killer become just a bit less accurate in his shooting? And I can’t speak for you, Cynthia, but seeing a number of my family/classmates/coworkers/fellow officers bleeding on the ground and knowing that unless I act as quickly and efficiently as possible, I will join them would almost certainly cause me to settle down and kill him. CT: That utterly irrational argument comes straight from the NRA, which long ago abandoned any pretense of representing the reasonable aims of hunters and sports shooters. The gun lobby now peddles an insane policy of making firearms as ubiquitous as cell phones.” DB: Cynthia, Cynthia – the Second Amendment is NOT about hunting and sports shooting! It’s about FREEDOM. In case you miss the point, the Second Amendment supports your precious First Amendment. Here are the words of an icon of the Democrat Party in the 1960’s, Senator and former presidential candidate, Hubert Horatio Humphrey: “Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” --Humphrey, Hubert, “Know Your Lawmakers,” Guns, February 1960, p.4. CT: My father certainly would not have (accepted the NRA’s positions). An avid hunter and veteran of combat in Korea, my father owned shotguns, rifles and a handgun. (He hid the handgun from his four children so well we never came across it, though we enjoyed poking around where we didn’t belong.) Yet, he was fanatical about gun safety. DB: Thanks to your dad for his service. I, too, am a veteran. Never saw combat (few of us do) but knew several of the good men on The Wall. Perhaps if your dad had taken the time to give you more weapons training – as I did MY kids and grandkids – you would be more comfortable with and around them. The old “forbidden fruit is the sweetest” thing. Take the forbidden out of it and the untoward and often fatal fascination goes as well. Then again, perhaps your inordinate fear flows from another problem once discussed by Sigmund Freud, to wit: “A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” Instead of shrieking about gun control you might want to get thee to a shrink. If you go, please make appointments for Chuck Schumer, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Chris Dodd, Eleanor Clift, Lawrence O’Donnell, Rosie O’Donnell (gee, are they related?)… This could be a long list and we might need SEVERAL shrinks. CT: When I moved to Atlanta just out of college, I told him (my father) that I was going to buy a handgun. He strongly disapproved, believing I’d be more likely to get injured with my own gun than fend off an attacker with it. “You don’t need a gun, “ he said. “You need to stay out of dangerous places.” DB: YOU? BUY A HANDGUN?? It’s not too late, Cynthia. No thanks to you and your fellow gun-grabbers, they are STILL being made (and, as long as there is evil in the world, always will be!). Perhaps dad’s remark flowed from his failure to properly train you in their use. And as for staying out of “dangerous places,” that’s probably a lot easier for you than it is for your black brothers and sisters trapped in some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the country. And who would have thought that COLLEGE DORMITORIES, CLASS ROOMS AND HIGH SCHOOLS would become those “dangerous places?” You see, Cynthia, ANY location can become a killing field and if the only gun there is in the hand of a killer, he will have, on average, 10 minutes to do his thing work BEFORE the cops show up to do theirs. CT: His (my father’s) concerns are borne out by the FBI’s stats about gun crimes. In 2005, 8,890 people were murdered with firearms. Guns were also used in 142,471 cases of robbery and 151, 118 cases of aggravated assault. By contrast, there were only 143 cases of justifiable homicide by civilians using a firearm. DB: Where to start? Of those lamentable stats, I wonder how many were cases of gang-bangers and street hoods whacking each other in idiotic turf or drug wars? I’m beginning to suspect that you are far less concerned about honest citizens using firearms to defend themselves than you are embarrassed by the numbers of intra-racial killings by inner-city punks and hoodlums. The GUNS were simply the means to the end. Would you prefer they use machetes, as is often the case in other parts of the world today? Why are you not also calling for machete control? And do you REALLY think that concern for violating even the most stringent gun control laws – even registration (which I personally will resist to the end of my days) – will stop someone bent on far more serious acts such as RAPE, ROBBERY or MURDER? Give me a break! I could buy a gun on the street in any city in the country – even NY, San Francisco or D.C. And today, right now, something like 98.6% of the 250 million or so firearms in this country were NOT used in the commission of a crime! (Please see the brandishing stats cited above in connection to your mention of those 143 justifiable homicides. One has to wonder how many deaths of honest citizens by clubbing, knifing or other means THOSE brandishings prevented. CT: If dozens of VT students had been armed, “Lord knows what a disaster we would have had,” Alpert said. “I think it’s inappropriate to have firearms in a classroom…” DB: I wonder how Alpert would have felt if one of HIS kids was in that VT building that dreadful day? And, gosh, what a disaster, indeed. 32 people might have died. Certainly glad Cho ran out of ammo. And too bad Cho wasn’t told about the danger of firearms in the classroom before he went to class that day. Let me steal a fascinating scenario used by your pal and nemesis Neal Boortz to make a point here. You're in a class full of people at a university. Let's say that there are 30 people in that room. A predator with a gun walks through the door. He shoots the professor, kills him. He then takes the remainder of the people in the room and lines them up against a wall. He then walks up to the first person and shoots them in the head. Now ... let me allow you to change the scenario. We can freeze-frame this situation while you make a decision. Your decision is this: You can put a gun into the hands of one student or a professor in that room, or you can leave things exactly the way they are. What are you going to do? Come on now, let's have it. Which way do you want it? Do you want the predator to be the only one in the room with a gun? Or would you like to have at least the fighting chance that would result if one, maybe two of your classmates had a firearm? Now believe it or not, there are people out there (we generally call them liberals) who would say; "Oh no, I don't want anyone else to have a gun! They might try to shoot the killer and innocent people might get caught in the crossfire!" Well you can try to find a rational basis for that argument from now until pigs fly, and you will fail. There is no rationality in that argument. It's an argument based in mindless hysteria. DB: Hysteria of the sort displayed by one Lawrence O’Donnell who, on a recent “McLaughlin Group” display of complete IGNORANCE of weapons, declared that if Cho had not had AUTOMATIC weapons which SPRAYED BULLETS and had to pull the trigger for each shot, the kids at VT might have been able to charge him and take him down. Even after Pat Buchanan called him out on that idiotic remark, O’Donnell was unfazed by his ignorance.) Let's couch the argument a bit differently. Let's say you are the parent of a college student. You get a call from the campus police saying that YOUR CHILD is being held hostage in a classroom on the campus. The hostage-taker has a gun and has already shot one student. The police tell you that they have developed a plan whereby they are going to be able to sneak a gun into the hands of one of the students in the classroom, a student known to the police to be proficient in the use of a handgun. Before the police can take this step, they need the unanimous consent of the parents of the students in that class. While you're thinking it over, the hostage-taker executes another student. OK ... your decision. What do you say? Are you going to say, "No, I don't want any of those students to be armed. I don't care how qualified they are with a gun." Or are you going to allow the gun to be passed to the student. Now if your answer is that you would allow the gun to be passed to the student, then please explain your rational for the position that the student in question should not have been permitted to have a gun in the first place with a concealed carry permit? You may have difficulty in understanding this, but it really is rather difficult to arm these students after the fact. And insofar as the shooter is concerned ...you do understand that there is no way in hell to have prevented him to come on to that campus with guns once he made up his mind to do so, don't you? CT: So all those armchair heroes – all those firearm fanatics who claim everything would be different if they’d been in one of those classrooms with a gun – should don their red cape and take a leap. DB: Cynthia, you make it TOO easy! “…red cape…?” How appropriate that a socialist/statist would choose red. And as far as that “leap” is concerned, I suggest one for you. Back into REALITY! Here endeth Cynthia’s most recent call to disarm and turn the world over to the madmen and thugs. BTW, Cynthia’s email addy is cynthia@ajc.com. Let her know how YOU feel on the subject. Perhaps if enough of us do so, we can drag her back into the real world. Anybody know where we can rent a team of oxen? Let me wrap this already too long dissection of her delusion with a TRUE story. In the early 80s, I attended a speech by the late Arkady Shevchenko, then the highest ranking Soviet official to defect to the West. He had been their top guy at the UN. He spoke, interestingly, at KENNESAW COLLEGE -- and we all know what Kennesaw is famous for! I’m proud to have played a a small role in helping Mayor Darvin Purdy get that legislation through the Kennesaw City Council. Shevchenko’s talk dealt with the clear intent of the leadership of the old Soviet Union to somehow take America. He mentioned their ICBMs and the nuclear blackmail threat they posed. Then he broke from his prepared remarks and offered the audience this wisdom: "The leaders of my country are as AFRAID OF YOUR 200 MILLION PRIVATE FIREARMS as they are of your ICBMs. NEVER GIVE UP YOUR GUNS." Frankly -- and, while he had to be careful as he was under FBI protection at the time, Shevchenko cautiously alluded to THIS in his remarks -- I'm as concerned about some domestic tyrant (say, a Hillary, Guilliani, Obama or Chuck Schumer) as I am about some foreign enemy. And it is THAT threat about which the Founding Fathers were concerned that prompted them to leave us the Second Amendment. The BIG question is: WILL WE KEEP IT? (Here are 2 Must see videos: Video One and Video Two