|
|
|
We've started a coalition that is active in local, state, and federal government. We've also aligned with many other organizations who have the same purpose. This site I have to pay for, subscription runs out in November, I think. You can use this for information purposes. It has a lot of good information. But if you want to fight illegal immigration, the Superhighways, and the North American Union, come on over to our new website:
http://concernedcitizenscoalition.blogspot.com
or e-mail me at fayehall@cableone.net.
We have 2 chapters in Odessa and Midland, TX. But our membership goes clear across the nation and is an information pipeline. Whatever we're fighting, I double-dog guarantee you that you have the same problem in your area. We take no dues, no donations, and we are not a non-profit or a profit organization. We have no ads on our site. Nobody is even attempting to make money. We don't even have a bunch of meetings. Most is accomplished by e-mail and everyone participates as they wish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
PREMEDITATED MERGER
Congress debate begins
on North America Union
Resolution calls for end of NAFTA superhighway, abandonment of
integration with Canada, Mexico
Posted: September 25, 2007
1:00 a.m.
Eastern
By Jerome
R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
A House resolution urging President Bush "not to go forward with the North
American Union or the NAFTA Superhighway system" is – according to its sponsor
Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., in an
exclusive WND interview – "also a message to both the executive branch and the
legislative branch."
As WND previously reported,
on Jan. 22 Goode introduced H.C.R. 40,
titled "Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not
engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and
Canada."
The bill has been referred to the House
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee.
WND asked Goode if the president was risking electoral success for the
Republican Party in 2008 with his insistence on pushing for North American
integration via the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or
SPP.
"Yes," Goode answered. "You won't hear the leadership in the Republic Party
admit it, but there are many in the House and Senate who know that illegal
immigration has to be stopped and legal immigration has to be reduced. We are
giving away the country so a few very rich people can get richer."
How did he react when President Bush referred to those who suggest the SPP
could turn into the North American Union as "conspiracy theorists"?
"The president is really engaging in a play on words," Goode responded. "The
secretary of transportation came before our subcommittee," he explained, "and I
had the opportunity to ask her some questions about the NAFTA Superhighway. Of
course, she answered, 'There's no NAFTA Superhighway.' But then Mary Peters
proceeded to discuss the road system that would come up from Mexico and go
through the United States up into Canada."
Goode is a member of the Subcommittee
on Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development of the House
Committee on Appropriations.
"So, I think that saying we're 'conspiracy theorists' or something like that
is really just a play on words with the intent to demonize the opposition,"
Goode concluded.
Goode stressed that the Bush administration supports both a NAU regional
government and a NAFTA Superhighway system: "The Bush administration as well as
Mexico and Canada have persons in the government in all three countries who want
to a see a North American Union as well as a highway system that would bring
goods into the west coast of Mexico and transport them up through Mexico into
the United States and then in onto Canada," Goode confirmed.
The Virginia congressman said he believes the motivation behind the movement
toward North American integration is the anticipated profits the large
multinational corporations in each of the three countries expect to make from
global trade, especially moving production to China.
"Some really large businesses that get a lot from China would like a NAFTA
Superhighway system because it would reduce costs for them to transport
containers from China and, as a result, increase their margins," he argued.
"I am vigorously opposed to the Mexican trucks coming into the country,"
Goode continued. "The way we have done it and, I think, the way we should do it
in the future, is to have the goods come into the United States from Mexico
within a 20-mile commercial space and unloaded from Mexican trucks into U.S.
trucks. This procedure enhances the safety of the country, the security of the
country, and provides much less chance for illegal immigration."
As WND reported, the
Department of Transportation has begun a Mexican truck "demonstration project"
under which 100 Mexican trucking companies are being allowed to run their
long-haul rigs throughout the U.S.
Previously, Mexican trucks have been limited to a 20-mile commercial zone in
the United States, with the requirement that goods bound for locations in the
U.S. beyond the 20-mile commercial zone be off-loaded to U.S. trucks.
WND reported last month that
Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., successfully offered an amendment to the Department
of Transportation Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations bill to block DOT from
spending any federal funds to implement the truck project.
Dorgan’s amendment passed 75-23, after Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., changed
her vote to support Dorgan.
By a voice vote, the House passed an amendment
offered by Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., to the DOT appropriations bill comparable
to Dorgan's, designed to block the agency from using federal funds to implement
the truck project.
DeFazio chairs the House transportation subcommittee that oversees motor
carriers.
"With the Trans-Texas Corridor, which I would say is part of the NAFTA
Superhighway system, and with this NAFTA plot with the Mexican trucks just
coming in and not loading off to U.S. trucks, they will just drive right over
the Rio Grande and come on over into Texas," Goode argued. "A lot of these
Mexican trucks will be bring containerized cargo from the west coast of Mexico
where they will be unloaded in Mexican ports to avoid the fees and costs of
unloading at U.S. ports."
"So, when you look at the total package," he continued, "we do have a
NAFTA Superhighway system already in place. There are those in all three
countries that believe we should have a North American Union and the Security
and Prosperity Partnership, in my opinion takes us down that road. And I am
vigorously opposed to the loss of our sovereignty."
Why, WND asked, do so many congressmen and senators insist on writing and
telling their constituents that they don't know anything about the Security and
Prosperity Partnership, or that SPP working groups are really just to increase
our competitiveness?
"In the House, a strong majority voted to provide no money in the
transportation funding bill," Goode responded. "I commend Congressman Duncan
Hunter for submitting an amendment to the Department of Transportation funding
bill [which] got over 360 votes that said no funds in the transportation
appropriation measure, prohibiting Department of Transportation funds from being
used to participate on working groups that promote the Security and Prosperity
Partnership."
As WND reported, Hunter's
amendment to the FY 2008 Department of Transportation funding bill prohibiting
DOT from using federal funds to participate in SPP working groups creating NAFTA
Superhighways passed 362 to 63, with strong bipartisan support. The House
approved H.R. 3074 by 268-153, with the Hunter amendment included.
"So, I think a majority the House, if you had an up or down vote on the SPP,
would vote down on the SPP," Goode concluded. "But some still say, and it's a
play on words, that we don't have a Security and Prosperity Partnership that
will lead to a North American Union. I don't think they can say anymore that we
don't have a Security and Prosperity Partnership arrangement between the U.S.,
Mexico, and Canada, because that was done in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005, and
the recent meeting at Montebello was to talk about it further."
WND asked Goode to comment on the North American Competitiveness
Council, or NACC, a group of multinational corporations selected by the
Chambers of Commerce in Mexico, Canada and the U.S. as the central adviser of
SPP working groups.
At the SPP summit in Montebello, Quebec, the NACC met behind closed doors with
the three leaders, cabinet secretaries who were present, and top SPP working
group bureaucrats, while various public advocacy groups, environmental
groups, labor unions – and the press – were excluded.
Should SPP working group meetings be open to the public?
"I wish they were," Goode responded. "If it is as the Bush administration
says, 'We're not planning any North American Union,' then why wouldn’t those
meetings be open, why wouldn’t you let the media in?" Goode asked.
"But some of the very big corporations want the goods from China to come in
here unchecked," he continued. "It costs money for U.S. trucks to transport
Chinese goods from West Coast ports like Los Angeles or Long Beach. But if you
can have a Mexican truck and Mexican truck driver, that's going to be cheaper.
And it's all about the margins. The margins relate directly to how much money
the multi-national corporations are going to make."
Has the Senate debate on the Dorgan amendment brought the issues of the NAU
and NAFTA Superhighways more to the attention of the Senate?
"I think so," Goode said. "That debate had a very positive effect. You had
grassroots support calling the Senate on the Dorgan amendment.
"The Bush administration engages in the same play of words with all these
issues," Goode added. "Take a look at the Kennedy-McCain comprehensive
immigration reform, which the Bush administration has now tried to jam through
the Senate not once, but twice.
"The Bush administration claims it's not [amnesty] when you let someone stay
in the country and give them a path to citizenship," Goode pointed out. "Well,
that's their definition, not my definition, and not the definition of the
majority of the public. The majority of the public called in and buried the
amnesty bill because of public pressure. Public pressure also got de-funded the
pilot program on Mexican trucks in this country."
So should the U.S. pull out of the SPP?
"Yes," Goode answered, "but the best way to end SPP would be to have a chief
executive that wouldn't do anything with it."
What does Goode think of the state legislatures that are passing anti-NAU,
anti-NAFTA Superhighway and anti-SPP resolutions?
"If enough state legislatures pass resolutions like that, it surely should
have an impact on the House and the Senate," Goode said.
"President Bush's position is that we need to carry out NAFTA and we need to
have this free flow of goods with Mexico and Canada," Goode explained. "Well,
Bush's approach involves a derogation of our sovereignty and it also undermines
the security and the safety of the country.
"It will be much easier for a truck to get a container on the west coast of
Mexico and haul in a biological or radiological or nuclear weapon than it would
be if you are going to have to unload the trucks on the Texas-Mexico border and
put the goods and material in a U.S. truck," he continued.
"The problem is that the NAU, NAFTA Superhighways and SPP all go back to
money," Goode stressed. "The multinational companies want their goods from
Mexico and China because they want the cheap labor."
What about the U.S.'s large and growing trade imbalance with China?
"I don't want to have to be an 'I told you so' person," Goode answered, "but
I was a vigorous opponent of PNTR ("permanent normal trade relations") and
before that of 'most favored nation' trade status with China. We need tariffs
and quotas with China. Personally, if I know food is coming in from China, I
won't buy it. The American people with the adoption of COOL, country of origin
labeling, with the food clearly labeled, I think you will see the American
public will shy away from Chinese products."
In 2000, Congress voted to extend to China PNTR. "Most favored nation" or MFN
trade status, was given to China first in 1980 by the Carter administration.
COOL rules are administered by the Department of Agriculture.
Goode concluded the interview by thanking WND for covering the SPP, NAU and
NAFTA Superhighway issues: "I want to thank you for putting these issues out
where people can read it," Goode said. "You have enlightened hundreds of
thousands if not millions of American citizens who otherwise would have been
greatly in the dark on the SPP." |
|
|
|
|
|
There will be a lot of this because La Raza , among many other pro-illegal organizations, is out there registering illegals. Get up and get active or you're going to come out living in Aztlan and being deported yourself. -- Faye
Voter fraud case takes a
new twist
Web Posted: 09/12/2007 10:28 PM
CDT
Guillermo X.
Garcia
Express-News
Officials involved in a joint federal-state probe say that some of the
dozens of people under investigation in a months-long Bexar County voter fraud
case may be charged with both state and federal crimes.
Federal investigators are to meet this week with local prosecutors to
coordinate the cases being developed and determine who'll face state felony
charges for voting illegally and who will be deported for violating federal
immigration law. No arrests have yet been made.
Authorities said they are anticipating charging some of the undocumented
people alleged to have voted in Bexar County with felony violation of state law
before they are turned over to immigration agents and likely deported.
As the federal portion of the investigation begun in late May winds down,
Bexar County District Attorney Susan Reed will determine how she'll proceed in
the case of the 41 people who allegedly voted, some repeatedly, despite being
non-citizens.
Reed's office will determine who will be charged with felony offenses after a
meeting between Homeland Security Department investigators from Immigration and
Customs Enforcement and Adriana Biggs, Reed's white-collar crime division chief.
"The joint federal-state strategy will likely be that (Bexar County) pursues
felony voter fraud charges, while the parallel federal investigation will focus
on violations related to identity theft, re-entry after deportation and other
violations of (federal) immigration law," ICE spokeswoman Nina Pruneda said
Tuesday.
She said it appears likely that some of the investigation's targets will be
prosecuted in state court on voter fraud charges before facing an immigration
law judge in deportation proceedings.
"They have not shown me what the results of their investigation reveals,"
Biggs said, referring to ICE's ongoing probe. "Once we have determined who is a
citizen and who is not, then we'll proceed with looking at filing state
charges."
The investigation was launched after Bexar County Elections Administrator
Jacque Callanen apparently discovered that undocumented immigrants had voted,
some several times, in more than a dozen local, state and federal elections
between 2001 and early 2007.
She said it didn't appear the illegal voting influenced an election's
outcome.
Callanen earlier this year was updating the county's list of eligible voters
when she discovered some 330 people who should not have been on the rolls
because they weren't citizens.
Callanen compiled the list of names after she determined that they had stated
on juror summons cards that they should be excused because they weren't
citizens.
Pruneda said her agency will process those found to be illegally in the
country for deportation hearings, an administrative proceeding.
Saying the probe was ongoing, Pruneda would not comment on substantive issues
in the investigation, such as how many people have been interviewed by federal
agents or when the federal portion of the investigation would end.
"We are looking at a big pie," Biggs said. "We are going to be carving out
state offenses and determining how to proceed, while the feds will carve out
their portion of the pie related to immigration law."
Biggs said the DA's investigators also would seek to determine whether those
people who said on the jury summons that they were not U.S. citizens were just
seeking to duck jury duty. Citizens who attempt to mislead authorities by
claiming they are non-citizens could face charges of lying on a government
document, she said.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/metro/stories/MYSA091307.03B.Voter_Fraud.2f71d87.html
| |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
| Self-Government Is
In Peril From The SPP |
| September
12, 2007 |
by Phyllis
Schlafly |
| It's now
leaking out that there was more going on than met the eye at the Security and
Prosperity Partnership (SPP) Summit in Montebello, Canada in August. The three
amigos, Bush, Harper and Calderon, finalized and released the "North American Plan for
Avian & Pandemic Influenza."
The "Plan" (that's what they call it, with a capital P) is to use the excuse
of a major flu epidemic to shift powers from U.S. legislatures to unelected,
unaccountable "North American" bureaucrats.
This idea was launched on September 14, 2005 when Bush announced the "International
Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza." He was then speaking to
the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
We might have thought that idea had some merit because the Influenza
Partnership called for "transparency in reporting of influenza cases in humans
and in animals" and the "sharing of epidemiological data and samples." That's
very different from the SPP, where transparency has always been conspicuously
avoided like the plague.
This year's SPP summit in Canada morphed the Influenza Partnership into the
North American Plan. Now we discover that the Plan is not only about combating a
flu epidemic but is far-reaching in seeking control over U.S. citizens and
public policy during an epidemic.
The Plan repeatedly features the favorite Bush word "comprehensive"; it calls
for a "comprehensive, coordinated North American approach." The Plan would give
authority to international bureaucrats "beyond the health sector to include a
coordinated approach to critical infrastructure protection," including "border
and transportation issues."
The Plan is a wordy 44-page document, much of which sounds innocuous. It is
helpful to exchange information about disease and take precautions against
letting foreign diseases enter the United States.
However, self-government and sovereignty are at risk when control over these
matters is turned over to a newly created North American body headed by the
representative of another country. It's an additional problem when the entire
Plan is a spin-off of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, an arrangement
created in secret solely by White House press releases, without Congressional
approval or even oversight.
The 2007 Plan acknowledges that it is based not only on the Influenza
Partnership, but also on the guidelines, standards and rules of the World Health
Organization (WHO), the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), the World
Trade Organization (WTO), and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
The Plan sets up a "senior level Coordinating Body to facilitate the
effective planning and preparedness within North America for a possible outbreak
of avian and/or human pandemic influenza under the Security and Prosperity
Partnership (SPP)." The Plan identifies this SPP Coordinating Body as
"decision-makers."
The Plan then (ungrammatically) states: "The chair of the SPP Coordinating
Body will rotate between each national authority on a yearly basis." Thus, a
foreigner will be the "decision-maker" for Americans in two out of every three
years.
What powers will this foreign-headed Coordinating Body exercise? The Plan
suggests that these include "the use of antivirals and vaccines; ... social
distancing measures, including school closures and the prohibition of community
gatherings; ... isolation and quarantine."
Will this foreign-headed Coordinating Body respect the First Amendment "right
of the people peaceably to assemble"? Or will the rules of the Plan, SPP, WHO,
OIE, WTO, and NAFTA take precedence?
In evaluating the Plan, it is instructive to recall the Model
State Emergency Health Powers Act (EHPA), an anti-epidemic plan launched
by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on October 23, 2001.
Designed to be passed by all state legislatures, the model bill was primarily
written by Lawrence O. Gostin, a former member of Hillary Clinton's discredited
Task Force on Health Care Reform, and was promoted by the Bush Administration
during its first year.
The proposed EHPA would have given each governor sole discretion to declare a
public health emergency and grant himself extraordinary powers. He would have
been able to restrict or prohibit firearms, seize private property and destroy
it in many circumstances, and impose price controls and rationing.
Governors would have been given the power to order people out of their homes
and into dangerous quarantines. Children could have been taken from their
parents and put into public quarantines.
Governors could even have demanded that physicians administer certain drugs
despite individuals' religious or other objections. EHPA was based on the
undemocratic concept that decision-making by authoritarian bosses and unelected
bureaucrats is the way to go in time of crisis.
EHPA roused a nationwide storm of protest because it was an unprecedented
assault on the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, as well as on our
principles of limited government, and so it never passed anywhere in its
original text. Will similar totalitarian notions now bypass legislatures and be
forced upon us by SPP press releases?
Further reading:
 North American
Union
Read this column online.
| |
|
|
|
|
|
 Listen to Grassfire.org audio interview with Dr. Jerome Corsi: Interview |
|
|
|
|
|
NORTH AMERICAN UNION DRIVERS' LICENSE CREATED
Logo intended to standardize documentation across continent
Posted: September 6, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome
R. Corsi
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com
The first "North American Union" driver's license, complete with a hologram
of the continent on the reverse, has been created in North Carolina.
"The North Carolina driver's license is 'North American Union' ready,"
charges William
Gheen, president of Americans
for Legal Immigration.
Gheen provided WND with a photo of an actual North Carolina license which
clearly shows the hologram of the North American continent embedded on the
reverse.
"The hologram looks exactly [like] the map of North America that is used as
the background for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America logo
on the SPP website," Gheen told WND. "I object to the loss of sovereignty that
is proceeding under the agreements being made by these unelected government
bureaucrats who think we should be North American instead of the United States
of America.
"To protest, I don't plan on applying for a North Carolina driver's license,"
Gheen told WND, "even though I am a resident of the state. I don't see how a
Division of Motor Vehicles authorized in a Department of Transportation of a
state of the United States can force me to have a license place that is designed
with a North American Union insignia printed on the backside.
"My decision not to get a North Carolina driver's license could have very
difficult consequences for me," Gheen told WND. "Without a valid driver's
license, I may not be able to drive a car, fly on an airplane, or enter a
government building."
Gheen told WND he does not have a U.S. passport. In 2005, WND reported North
Carolina was the state where illegal immigrants go to get a driver's
license, with busloads of aliens traveling south on I-95 to get an easy ID.
The Tar Heel State's requirements to obtain a license are weaker than those
of many surrounding states.
Marge Howell, spokeswoman for the North Carolina DMV, affirmed to WND the
state was embedding a hologram of North America on the back of its new driver's
licenses.
"It's a security element that eventually will be on the back of every
driver's license in North America," Howell told WND.
Howell explained the hologram of the continent was the creation of the American Association
of Motor Vehicle Administrators, a tax-exempt, nonprofit organization that,
according to the group's website, "develops model programs in motor vehicle
administration, law enforcement and highway safety."
Founded in 1933, AAMVA represents state and provincial officials in the
United States and Canada who administer and enforce motor vehicle laws. The
government of Mexico is also a member, though the individual Mexican states have
yet to join.
According to the group's
website, AAMVA's programs are designed "to encourage uniformity and
reciprocity among the states and provinces."
"The goal of the North American hologram," Howell explained, "is to get one
common element that law enforcement throughout the continent can look at on all
driver's licenses and tell that the driver's license is an official document."
Jason King, spokesman for AAMVA, affirmed the North American hologram was
created by AAMVA's Uniform Identification Subcommittee, a working group of its
members.
He explained the goal is to create a continental security device that could
be used by state and provincial motor vehicles agencies throughout North
America, including the U.S., Canada and Mexico.
King referenced a
document on the AAMVA website that describes guidelines for using the North
America continent hologram as an Optical Variable Device (OVD) that AAMVA has
now licensed with private manufacturers to produce.
AAMVA supplies member motor vehicle agencies with a quantity of North
American continent hologram OVD foils to use on their driver's licenses and ID
cards as needed.
As the AAMVA guidelines document explains, each North American hologram OVD
foil is embedded with a unique set of control numbers that permit law
enforcement electronic scanners to identify the exact jurisdiction and precise
individual authorized to hold a driver's license or ID card.
"AAMVA understands its unique positioning and the continuing role
identification security will play in helping the general public realize a safer
North America," King explained to WND in an e-mail. "The association believes ID
security will help increase national security, increase highway safety, reduce
fraud and system abuse, increase efficiency and effectiveness, and achieve
uniformity of processes and practices."
Jim Palmer, press director for ALIPAC, told WND his group first became aware
of the hologram when Missouri State
Rep. Jim Guest held a seminar in North Carolina to protest the Real ID law.
The surprise came at a meeting July 28 on the Real ID that Palmer held in
Raleigh, N.C.
"When Rep. Guest asked participants to take out their driver's license and
see what was on it," Palmer explained, "one gentleman was a state employee and
on his license there was this hologram with the North American continent on the
back. We were all surprised to see that on a North Carolina driver's license.
Right there, that stopped the show."
Guest has formed a coalition called Legislators
Against Real ID Act, or LARI.
"I was astonished when I saw that North American hologram on the North
Carolina driver's license," Guest told WND. "I thought to myself that the state
DMV has already included this North American symbol on the back of the driver's
license without telling the people of North Carolina they were going to do this.
"I thought right then that this was going to be the prototype for the
driver's license of the North American Union," Guest said.
"When we called the North Carolina DMV, they hedged at first," Guest said,
"but finally they admitted that, yes, there was a North American continent
hologram on the back of the license.
"This is part of a plan by bureaucrats and trade groups that act like
bureaucrats to little by little transform us into a North American Union without
any vote being taken and without explaining to the U.S. public what they are
doing," Guest argued.
King explained AAMVA's Uniform Identification Subcommittee created a number
of task forces, including the Card Design Specification that developed the North
America hologram.
"The Task Group surveyed and met with many stakeholders during the
development effort," King wrote to WND. "The Task Force gathered information
from government and non-government users of the driver's License/ID card to
determine their uses for the DL/ID card and how they believe the card should
function. In addition, the Task Group surveyed and met with industry experts in the area of
card production and security to gather their advice, especially about the
physical security of the card."
King told WND the Task Group work was repeatedly reviewed by the UID
Subcommittee as a whole, with final approval coming from the AAMVA Board.
In 2006, WND reported Pastor
Rios Sanchez, 55, an illegal alien, was accused of killing three people,
including two North Carolina State University students and a 26-year-old, while
driving drunk.
"People who think the Real ID was created to keep illegal aliens from getting
driver's licenses and IDs should come to North Carolina," Gheen told WND. "What
the North Carolina DMV is doing is creating the basis for a continental driver's
license.
"What difference does it make to North Carolina if an illegal alien gets a
driver's license?" Gheen asked. "The photo on the license creates a close face
scan that can be identified by face recognition technology, whether the DMV
admits it or not.
"Illegal aliens who get driver's licenses are just being scanned in advance,"
Gheen concluded.
"Illegal aliens who get driver's licenses or IDs in North Carolina are just
being prepared for their admission into the North America Union driver pool that
North Carolina is at the vanguard of creating," Gheen said. "That is the truth,
whether the North Carolina DMV or the AAMVA want to admit it or not."
King told WND North Carolina is the first AAMVA member jurisdiction to use
the North America hologram on a driver's license or ID card.
World Net Daily New security logo on the reverse of
North Carolina's driver's licenses Security and Prosperity Partnership
logo |
|
|
|
|
|
Principles
VIDEO
Federalism:
The Framers drew their design for our Constitution from a basic understanding
of human nature. From the wisdom of the ages and from fresh experience, they
understood the better angels of our nature, and the less admirable qualities of
human beings entrusted with power.
The Framers believed in free markets, rights of property and the rule of law,
and they set these principles firmly in the Constitution. Above all, the Framers
enshrined in our founding documents, and left to our care, the principle that
rights come from our Creator and not from our government.
We developed institutions that allowed these principles to take root and
flourish: a government of limited powers derived from, and assigned to, first
the people, then the states, and finally the national government. A government
strong enough to protect us and do its job competently, but modest and humane
enough to let the people govern themselves. Centralized government is not the
solution to all of our problems and – with too much power – such centralization
has a way of compounding our problems. This was among the great insights of
1787, and it is just as vital in 2007.
The federalist construct of strong states and limited federal government put
in place by our Founders was intended to give states the freedom to experiment
and innovate. It envisions states as laboratories in competition with each other
to develop ideas and programs to benefit their people, to see what works and
what does not.
This ingenious means of governing a large and diverse nation prevailed for
more than a century. But today our Constitution and the limited, federalist
government it established, are considered by many to be quaint or out of touch
with the world we live in, to be swept aside by political expediency.
The Supreme Court sometimes ignores the written Constitution to reflect its
view of the times. So does Congress, which routinely forgets that our checks and
balances, the separation of powers and our system of federalism are designed to
diffuse power and protect the liberties of our people. Before anything else,
folks in Washington ought to be asking first and foremost, “Should government be
doing this? And if so, then at what level of government?” But they don’t.
The result has been decades of growth in the size, scope and function of
national government. Today’s governance of mandates, pre-emptions, regulations,
and federal programs bears little resemblance to the balanced system the Framers
intended.
This in no way diminishes the important role played by the national
government, including ensuring our national security, and regulating interstate
commerce to promote free markets. Indeed, a commitment to federalism would help
the federal government do a better job in addressing national emergencies and
emerging threats, because it could focus on these issues rather than on
everything else it is trying to do. A proper regard for constitutional
boundaries would also go a long way in avoiding the arguments that follow when
Washington acts by decree, disregarding the elected representatives of the fifty
states.
You know better than anyone how involvement from Washington affects nearly
every policy, program, and aspect of your jobs. But beyond the nuisance of
duplicative state and federal requirements, one might wonder if a division of
responsibility between the federal government and the states is still important.
The answer must be a resounding yes.
Federalism is not an 18th century notion. Or a 19th century notion. It
retains its force as a basic principle in the 21st century, because when
federalism is ignored, accountability, innovation, and public confidence in
government at all levels suffer.
It is as true today as it ever was: the closer a government is to its people,
the more responsive it is to the felt needs of its constituencies. Too often,
however, state and local leaders have to answer to federal bureaucrats first and
their constituents second. When the federal government mandates a program that
states and localities are forced to implement, or when a federal grant program
is created to fund a specific state or community need, it blurs the lines of
accountability.
Who answers to the people if a program fails? The federal government will
point to state authorities carrying out the program; the states will point to
the federal government, which came up with the program in the first place. And
in the end no one is more confused than the people the program is supposed to be
serving, who can’t even say for sure who is responsible for what. This does not
argue against all federal programs but it does require the recognition that
there, indeed, are trade-offs.
Back in my days in the Senate, I found myself on the short end of a couple of
99 to 1 votes. They involved issues that had been under the purview of states
for over 200 years. I asked why we should federalize what rightly were state and
local issues.
I’ve been saying it for years, and it bears repeating: what works in
Tennessee may not work in Nebraska and may be different from what succeeds in
Oregon. That’s why President Ronald Reagan compared federalism to letting a
thousand sparks of genius in the states and communities around this country
catch fire. It’s not a perfect system, but it works a lot better than the
alternative of central planning.
We need to allow local authorities to apply their own good ideas and use
their own good judgment. Each state can find its own way, learning from the
successes and failures of the others. There is a wealth of creativity and
initiative out there in the states, and often the best ideas in Washington
started out as state initiatives.
A good example of this early in my Senate service was welfare reform. We were
warned that terrible things would happen if we went forward with a bill – a
fundamental commitment would be abandoned and, among state governments, a “race
to the bottom” would begin.
But key to our approach were elements of welfare reform that had proved
successful in various states, such as Colorado, Michigan and Wisconsin. The
result was a law that allowed us to better meet our commitments to our fellow
citizens. It was one of the great political successes of the 1990’s, because
Washington – for once – had the good sense to learn from state and local
authorities and empower them in return.
When you hold firm to the principles of federalism, there’s another
advantage: our federal government can better carry out its own defining
responsibilities – above all else, the security of our nation and the safety of
our citizens. Sometimes I think that our leaders in Washington try to do so many
things, in so many areas, that they lose sight of their basic
responsibilities.
We saw some improvement in the post-1994, “Contract with America” takeover of
Congress – strings to federal programs were cut, more federal programs were
being turned over to states, historic legislation to reduce unfunded mandates
became law, and we rolled back the Clinton anti-federalism executive order. But
in recent years we’ve seen backsliding.
The recent immigration bill was a case in point. That bill failed, and it
failed for good reason. The federal government simply had no credibility on the
issue.
The promises of the 1986 immigration bill have not been fulfilled. Current
laws have not been enforced. The federal government has been failing in its
fundamental responsibility to control the borders. Worse, when state officials
have tried to act with reforms of their own, federal authorities have gotten in
the way. In the end, many in both parties in Congress have learned a lesson:
promises about immigration reform aren’t worth much unless you have credibility.
And in this case there’s only one way that credibility can be regained. Federal
leaders must do their job and secure the borders of the United States.
Law enforcement in general is a matter on which Congress has been very active
in recent years, not always to good effect and usually at the expense of state
authority. When I served as a federal prosecutor, there were not all that many
federal crimes, and most of those involved federal interests. Since the 1980’s,
however, Congress has aggressively federalized all sorts of crimes that the
states have traditionally prosecuted and punished. While these federal laws
allow Members of Congress to tell the voters how tough they are on crime, there
are few good reasons why most of them are necessary.
For example, it is a specific federal crime to use the symbol of 4-H Clubs
with the intent to defraud. And don’t even think about using the Swiss
Confederation’s coat of arms for commercial purposes. That’s a federal offense,
too.
Groups as diverse as the American Bar Association and the Heritage Foundation
have reported that there are more than three thousand, five hundred distinct
federal crimes and more than 10,000 administrative regulations scattered over 50
section of the U.S. code that runs at more than 27,000 pages. More than 40
percent of these regulatory criminal laws have been enacted since 1973.
I held hearings on the over-federalization of criminal law when I was in the
Senate. You hear that the states are not doing a good job at prosecuting certain
crimes, that their sentencing laws are not tough enough, that it’s too easy to
make bail in state court. If these are true, why allow those responsible in the
states to shirk that responsibility by having the federal government make up for
the shortcomings in state law? Accountability gets displaced.
Now, there are plenty of areas in criminal law where a federal role is
appropriate. More and more crime occurs across state and national boundaries;
the Internet is increasingly a haven for illegal activity. A federal role is
appropriate in these and other instances. But today the Federal Bureau of
Prisons has quadrupled in size in little more than 20 years.
Perhaps the clearest example of federal over-involvement in state and local
responsibilities is public education. It’s the classic case of how the federal
government buys authority over state and local matters with tax-payer money and
ends up squandering both the authority and the money while imposing additional
burdens on states.
Between 1970 and 2005, federal spending on education increased nearly 150
percent without results to match. The No Child Left Behind law itself increased
federal funding by some 26 percent, while creating 50 new educational programs
nationally, imposing almost 7 million hours and more than 140 million dollars in
compliance time and costs. The classrooms of America, where the learning
actually takes place, receive but 61 cents out of every tax-payer dollar
appropriated.
A little more federalist confidence in the wisdom of state and local
governments might go a long way toward improving America’s public schools. The
most encouraging reforms in education are occurring at the local level, with
options like charter schools. And often the best thing Washington can do is let
the states, school districts, teachers and parents set their own policies and
run their own schools.
It is appropriate for the federal government to provide funding and set goals
for the state to meet in exchange for that funding. However, it is not a good
idea for the federal government to specifically set forth the means to be used
in order to reach those goals. Adherence to this principle would make for fewer
bureaucracies, fewer regulations, and less expense, while promoting educational
achievement. There are bills pending in Congress that would move us in this
direction, and I hope Congress gives them the attention they deserve.
Beyond specific policies, what’s needed are some basic rules to restrain the
federal rule-makers.
A good first step would be to codify the Executive Order on Federalism first
signed by President Ronald Reagan. That Executive Order, first revoked by
President Clinton, then modified to the point of uselessness, required agencies
to respect the principle of the Tenth Amendment when formulating policies and
implementing the laws passed by Congress. It preserved the division of
responsibilities between the states and the federal government envisioned by the
Framers of the Constitution. It was a fine idea that should never have been
revoked. The next president should put it right back in effect, and see to it
that the rightful authority of state and local governments is respected.
It is not enough to say that we are “for” federalism, because in today’s
world it is not always clear what that means. What we are “for” is liberty for
our citizens. Federalism divides power between the states and government in
Washington. It is a tool to promote freedom. How we draw the line between
federal and state roles in this century, and how we stay true to the principles
of federalism for the purpose of protecting economic and individual freedom are
questions we must answer. Our challenge – meaning the federal government, the
states, our communities and constituents – is to answer these questions
together. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Conservatives Against Fred Thompson volunteers have compiled a
list of proposals supported by Fred Dalton Thompson in the senate that include
Gun Bans, confiscations and limitations to the free speech of Gun Rights
Advocates. Dates and bill numbers are provided so this information can be easily
verified. Summary:
1. Anti-gun terror bill (S. 735 )
On June 7, 1995, the Senate passed an anti-gun terror bill (S. 735) by a vote
of 91-8. This version of the terror bill included: a BATF pay increase of $100
million; a provision authorizing “roving wiretaps” allowing government officials
to wiretap one’s home if a person under investigation visits the home — even if
one had no knowledge the person was a suspect; a weakening of the Posse
Commitatus law to give the military more authority to get involved in law
enforcement in certain circumstances; a grant of power to the FBI to conduct
“fishing expeditions” and secure one’s financial and travel records in certain
circumstances without any evidence one has committed a crime; and finally, the
“Randy Weaver entrapment provision” which extends the statute of limitations for
violations under the National Firearms Act of 1934 from three to five years.
Thompson voted in favor of the bill.
2. Anti-gun terror bill — final passage
On April 17, 1996, the Senate passed the conference version of the
anti-terrorism bill by a vote of 91-8. The final version of the bill (S. 735)
contained several problems, including ones that will: order an “anti-hunter”
rifle and ammo study; authorize a $40 million pay increase for the BATF (through
the Treasury Department); potentially punish gun dealers (and individuals) for
selling ammunition to someone they should have known would commit a violent
crime; federalize many state crimes, thus tremendously increasing the scope and
jurisdiction of the BATF; restrict the right of habeas corpus in such a way as
to severely damage the ability of the courts to rescue honest gun owners who are
unjustly incarcerated; allow the government to use “secret evidence” against
certain individuals; remove protections against wiretapping wireless data; and
require banks to freeze the assets of domestic groups in certain situations.
Thompson once again voted in favor of the bill.
3. Taggants in gunpowder
On September 12, 1996, the Senate voted (57-42) to keep an anti-gun amendment
off of the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill (H.R. 3756). The Kerry
amendment — which Thompson voted for– would have made funds available
for a study of tagging explosive materials, including black and smokeless
powders (thus setting the stage for registering ammunition). The amendment also
sought to further demonize firearms by selectively examining the misuse of
firearms by criminals. The study would not examine the number of times firearms
are used to save the lives of decent citizens.
4. Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation gun ban
On September 12, 1996, the Senate passed the Lautenberg gun ban as an
amendment to the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill (H.R. 3756). The Lautenberg
Domestic Confiscation Gun Ban disarms gun owners for small (misdemeanor)
offenses in the home — “offenses” as slight as spanking a child or grabbing a
spouse. This lifetime ban, in certain cases, can even be imposed without a trial
by jury. It is also retroactive, so it does not matter if the offense occurred
20 years ago. Thompson voted in favor of the amendment.
5. Free Speech restrictions
On October 7, 1997, the Senate defeated an “Incumbent Protection Bill” (S.
25) which would have resulted in the government regulation of GOA’s newsletters
and other communications with its members, while expanding the relative
political power of the liberal media and other anti-gun forces. Senators failed
in their effort, 53 to 47, to shut down a filibuster of the bill that was
ostensibly aimed at reforming campaign finance laws.
6. Smith “Anti-Brady” Amendment
On July 21, 1998, pro-gun Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) introduced an “Anti-Brady”
amendment that passed by a vote of 69-31. The Smith amendment would prohibit the
FBI from using Brady background checks to tax or register gun owners. Further,
the amendment requires the “immediate destruction of all [gun buyer]
information, in any form whatsoever.” Finally, if the FBI disregards this latter
provision, the Smith language will allow private citizens to sue the agency and
collect monetary damages, including attorney’s fees. Thompson, in keeping with
his tendency to usually vote for expanded federal police power, voted against
this limitation of FBI registration of gun owners.
7. Anti-gun Clinton judge appointment
On February 11, 1998, the Senate voted 67-28 to confirm Margaret Morrow to
the Federal bench. GOA vigorously opposed this Clinton-appointed judge, as she
has not only taken strident anti-gun positions, she has showed herself to be a
gun control activist.
8. Anti-gun Surgeon General
Having nominated anti-gun David Satcher for Surgeon General, President Bill
Clinton was forced to wait several months as debate raged over his controversial
pick. But on February 10, 1998, the President finally realized victory. By a
vote of 75-23, anti-gun Republicans teamed up with the Democrats to kill the
filibuster over the Satcher nomination. Mr. Satcher was later confirmed by a
vote of 63-35. Since the key vote was to end the filibuster, that is the one
that was rated by GOA.
9. Ending the filibuster of a major anti-gun crime bill
On July 28, 1999, the Senate ended a filibuster led by Senator Bob Smith
(I-NH) — a filibuster intended to keep anti-gun crime legislation from
progressing any further. After the 77-22 vote, the Senate moved to send the
language of the anti-gun Senate crime bill (S. 254) to a House-Senate conference
committee. Thompson voted to break the pro-gun filibuster.
10. Young adult gun ban
The young adult gun ban could severely punish parents who allow their kids to
even touch a so-called semi-automatic “assault weapon.” While the amendment
allows for certain exemptions, there are some imponderable questions which NO
senator could answer, but which a parent would have to answer in order to avoid
incarceration. For example: What is a “semiautomatic assault weapon”? The
definition, plus exemptions, takes up six pages of fine print in the U.S. Code.
Second, a child can handle a banned semi-auto if he is in the “immediate and
supervisory presence” of a parent or if he possess a written permission slip
from the parent. But what happens when, during a target practice session, the
parent walks to the car to retrieve his lunch and the juvenile is no longer in
the parents “immediate” presence and does not have a permission slip? A parent
can receive jail time for this infraction. The provision passed the Senate on
May 13, 1999, with Thompson voting in the majority.
11. Adopting the “Gun Control Lite” strategy
On May 13, 1999, a majority of Senators — including Thompson — defeated a
motion to table (or kill) an anti-gun amendment introduced by Senators Orrin
Hatch (R-UT) and Larry Craig (R-WY). This amendment was offered as an
alternative to gun control proposals being pushed by Sen. Frank Lautenberg.
12. McCain’s Incumbent Protection (2000 version)
By 59 to 41, the Senate passed S. 27, to amend the Federal Election Campaign
Act to include Incumbent Protection provisions. The bill severely curtails the
ability of outside groups such as GOA to communicate the actions of incumbent
politicians to members and supporters prior to an election.
13. Incumbent Protection (2002 failed filibuster)
This was the key vote in the Senate regarding the odious Incumbent Protection
bill in 2002 (H.R. 2356). The legislation finally became law that year. As he
had on previous occasions, Thompson voted in favor of the
bill. http://conservativesagainstfred.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/fred-thompsons-anti-gun-senate-record/
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pat Kossan
The Arizona
Republic
Aug. 31, 2007 12:00 AM
Hundreds of students in Arizona are trying to
learn English from teachers who don't know the language, state officials say.
The kids are taught by teachers who don't know English grammar and can't
pronounce English words correctly. Last year, for example, a Mesa teacher stood
in front of a class of language learners and announced, "Sometimes, you are not
gonna know some." A teacher in Phoenix's Creighton Elementary District asked her
kids, "If you have problems, to who are you going to ask?" A Casa Grande
Elementary District teacher asked her kids to "read me first how it was before."
Each year, the state evaluates a sampling of classrooms where kids are
learning English. Last year, officials visited 32 districts and found similar
problems at nine. Some teachers' English was so poor that even state officials
strained to understand them. The state also found that students learning English
at all ages were being taught by teachers who did not have appropriate training
or materials. At a dozen districts, evaluators found teachers who ignored state
law and taught in Spanish. Each year, fewer kids who are still learning English pass the reading, writing
and math AIMS test. For the past five years, state monitors have
evaluated a sampling of language classes to help find out why. Here are
some of the problems they found inside the classrooms at the 32 districts they
visited for one to three days last year. • Teachers speak poor
English. At nine districts, some teachers did not know correct English
grammar or pronunciation. In one classroom, the teacher's English was "labored
and arduous." Other teachers were just difficult to understand. Some teachers
pronounced "levels" as "lebels" and "much" as "mush." At one school in
Humboldt Unified, a teacher asked, "How do we call it in English?" Another
teacher in Marana Unified told students, "You need to make the story very
interested to the teacher." A teacher at Phoenix's Isaac Elementary explained,
"My older brother always put the rules." • Teachers still use
Spanish in the classroom. Twelve districts had to be reminded that Arizona
law requires teachers to use only English in the classroom and bans all texts
and materials in any language but English. Monitors found teachers who used too
much Spanish translation to help students and used storybooks, textbooks,
posters and bulletin boards that were written in Spanish. State officials
allow Spanish-language books only in school libraries. At one Isaac
Elementary school, children could not answer simple questions in English.
Students told the monitors that much of their instruction was in Spanish. In a
class at Humboldt Unified, a teacher reviewed a list of vocabulary words by
reciting them in English and having the students respond in Spanish. Some
schools provided bilingual education to children whose parents did not fill out
state-required waiver forms or did not fill them out properly. •
Some schools shortchange language learners. Some schools hadn't bothered
to apply for tutoring grants available to help language learners, and many
teachers did not have the appropriate training to teach English as a new
language. One high-school teacher had only elementary-school credentials, while
some had none at all. In a classroom in Phoenix's Cartwright Elementary
District, kids still in the early stages of learning English "were found
sitting, comprehending very little, and receiving almost no
attention." Deer Valley Unified provided minimal materials and teaching
materials for language learners compared to other kids; it also offered little
academic guidance to high-school students learning English. At Maricopa
Unified, some language learners were placed in regular classrooms with up to 29
students. The hour of English instruction for these students was provided by a
teacher's aide at the back of the class. Arizona is revamping the way
schools teach kids English. Starting this year, schools must begin putting
language learners into four hours of classes each day where these students will
learn English grammar, phonetics, writing and reading. The state recently
rolled out a new program to help administrators understand the changes and train
teachers in a new prescriptive curriculum they will be expected to follow.
Reach the reporter at pat .kossan@arizonarepublic.com.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0831ellmonitor0831.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.stewards.us/
Bush Corruption at any cost to
the American People.
Trans-Texas Corridor: Can this possibly be stopped?
September 1, 2007
Joshua Herring
RenewAmerica analyst
Perhaps it isn't going to be as easy for big government and big business
magnates to abusively strip Americans of their homes, their businesses, and
their property as they originally thought it would be following the latest
Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain. In an analysis published by RenewAmerica
not long ago titled "A three pronged attack to bring down America," I dealt to
some extent with the Free Trade Agreements NAFTA and CAFTA, and I outlined some
of the potential threats involved.
One of the things I touched on is
what has been called "North America's SuperCorridor." This is a byproduct of
NAFTA that is to be a highway four hundred yards wide. Actually, there are plans
in the works that will link another stretch of highway to this "SuperCorridor"
that is to run up from Panama to facilitate plans being made for the sake of
CAFTA as well, but I lack both the time and the room get into all that here.
Bigger is not always better
At any rate, as I said before, this
"SuperCorridor" is to run through several Mexican states and then through Texas,
Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Nebraska, Minnesota,
North Dakota, and South Dakota, and the Canadian provinces of Manitoba and
Ontario. When I saw a map drawn to scale of this highway, in all its width and
immensity, with all the necessary connecting links that are planned for Texas to
go where they need it to, I was awestruck. The average American citizen has no
idea how much turf the Texas Department of Transportation and global enterprises
will have to chew up to facilitate their plans.
As one begins to look
into this matter, it quickly becomes obvious that the good of the American
people cannot possibly be served by swallowing up the nation the way they plan
to with this highway. And this is only one of many devastating aspects of the
overall objective. The economic plans that are in the works will swallow the
American economy the way the SuperCorridor will swallow up the turf. In fact,
although many Americans aren't seeing what is going down for what it really is
just yet, our economy is already half chewed and digested by men of global power
and prestige — both within and outside of national governments — as a result of
their insatiable appetite for even more money and power than they already have.
What is at the root of all this?
Of course, those involved in
the planning try and dignify the plans as if their interests and motives are
virtuous, noble, and in the best interest of the public. But just in case anyone
is missing the point, despite any amount of denial by those involved in what is
going on, this is all part of a long-range plan to form a North American Union.
(NAU) The reason so few people are aware is that at this point it is still a
matter of covert action, involving the Bush government, the Canadian government,
and the Mexican government, coordinating with members of high-powered
multinational corporations to sustain a plan that has been methodically going
forward for many years now. It is also a plan which, despite all the denials
being put forth by those involved, will take us right where the European Union
has taken so many nations.
By virtue of multinational economic
cooperation on a level unprecedented in all of global history, things that
become necessary to facilitate such cooperation gradually dissolve that which
distinguishes national identities. This is caused by, among other things, the
diminution of private economic interests and enterprises — such as small
businesses that have always been such an important part of American life — and
which are one of the foundations of what was for so long known as "the American
dream."
Is it actually progress or just a big facade?
In the
transition that takes place as a result of radical economic integration, many of
the national economies become weakened in areas and ways that make them
increasingly vulnerable to — and dependent upon — the multinational system. They
are first seduced and then drawn in before being brought under submission to the
system. This is passed off as "progress" by those who benefit from such
dissolution and destruction of traditional lifestyles and cultures. The many
(commoners) increasingly suffer and pay the price, as the few (elites) continue
to take greater control of nations and of the lives of the many — sapping the
substance out of their lives, destroying their national heritage, and swallowing
up their inheritance as a result.
This, of course, will inevitably lead
to a common currency — and to what amounts, for all intents and purposes, to a
shadow government that supersedes national governments in many areas — gradually
abolishing the sovereignty of every nation involved. It all starts with the kind
of economic planning and cooperation that has given birth to the idea of "North
America's SuperCorridor, " the first American stage of which is to begin with
what is referred to as the Trans-Texas Corridor.
The Trans-Texas
Corridor
I intend to do a fairly extensive analysis on the NAU that is
forming that will require a series with at least three segments to cover even
the bare essentials sufficiently. However there is something I believe everyone
should know about right now. There are some of you out there who need to prepare
for the same kind of action to save your property from being brutally and
unjustly seized by government agencies in days to come. In the last analysis on
things related to this subject I wrote:
When I consider the most
recent Supreme Court decision pertaining to eminent domain, I think, "How
utterly convenient that is, and what a coincidence." This ruling permits local
governments to seize homes and businesses for private projects that "promote
economic development." This was a highly irregular decision by the Court, to say
the very least, and it was certainly well-timed to facilitate the needs of those
planning the "SuperCorridor." This highway is to provide not only truck routes
entering the United States from Mexico; it will include both passenger and
freight railroad lines that run alongside of oil and natural gas pipelines.
The Supreme Court ruling of which I speak, Kelo v. City of New
London, has made it easy for government agencies to virtually strip American
citizens of their homes and businesses with little or no meaningful opposition.
The Texas legislature tried to at least slow down the Trans-Texas Corridor. But
the governor, Rick Perry, did some hardnosed work to prevent any effective
opposition to the Corridor, and he had it aced . . . or so he thought.
To put it in the words of one person I talked to: "All of the agreements
were forged in darkness. Sunshine laws are banned regarding the NAU, SAPP, TTC
and the rest of the NAFTA superhighway." (Laws that preserve and encourage
openness are known as "Sunshine Laws.")
Greedy and corrupt politicians
are being used as facilitators by globalists
By the time Gov. Perry was
finished shooting down proposed legislation in Texas — part of which would have
imposed a two-year moratorium on the TTC if Governor Perry hadn't vetoed the
bill, and some of which would have strengthened the grip of Texas citizens on
their rights and their property — the Texas Department of Transportation was
exempt from observing Historical Landmark Preservation laws, open-process
competitive bidding, open-meeting negotiation the public can attend, public
release of proposals and research, and scrutiny regarding environmental impacts,
because they're doing that themselves . . . or so they thought — but:
TxDoT isn't Santa Anna, this isn't the Alamo . . . and these Texans
believe they can win!
TxDoT, Gov. Perry, and his big business supporters
thought they had it aced. There was just one little problem with all this. In
order to build the Trans-Texas Corridor, estimates regarding how much private
property would have to be seized under eminent domain land-grab laws have been
as high as 584,000 acres. This is to say nothing of the other states I mentioned
this highway going through. I'm talking about 584,000 acres in the state of
Texas alone. Well, some Texans did the math and decided that there must be
something that can be done about it . . . and it seems they were right.
Furthermore, there are some real Jim Bowie and Davy Crocket types among
them who are just brave enough and stubborn enough to make a stand and fight for
their principles all the way down the line, whatever the cost. This fight is
liable to become very dangerous at some point — there are billions of dollars on
the line, some of which has already been spent. But these people did some
investigating into local laws in their counties and found out that they don't
really have to lie down and allow Perry, TxDoT, and Cintra-Zachry Construction
Corporation to run over them like that.
There are laws on the books in
the state of Texas that require state agencies to cooperate with local entities
on such projects or the agencies cannot do anything at all. And now that these
Texans have learned of this, the proponents of the Trans-Texas Corridor, despite
all their big money backing and political clout, have a real fight on their
hands.
Serving papers . . . and a big surprise over who has the upper
hand at this point
As of Monday, August 27, Gov. Perry, the Texas
Department of Transportation, and the Environmental Protection Agency were
notified of the move to stop the TTC. The four Texas cities of Bartlett,
Holland, Little River-Academy, and Rogers formed the Eastern Central Texas
Sub-Regional Planning Commission (ECTSRPC) to fight the TTC. Moreover, among
other things, they are depending on federal court decisions that have set
precedents in favor of landowners, but never involving something of this
magnitude, in other federal districts to add backbone to the local laws they are
utilizing.
The mayor of Holland, Texas — Mae Smith — has been elected
president of the ECTSRPC. In the words of the newly elected president: "This is
one issue all four cities are united behind to save our rural way of life."
Ralph Snyder, a member of the commission who is business owner from Holland
said:
The purpose of this Commission is to give us a voice in this
process. It's our land that the Texas Department of Transportation and our
Governor want to take and we are not going to let them pave us over and ignore
the concerns of our communities.
The newly formed commission, in an
unprecedented move, was formed using the Texas Local Government Code, Chapter
391. This allows cities to develop plans for their local region and to force the
state agencies to coordinate with their activities. Under Chapter 391.009(c),
TxDoT is required to coordinate with commissions to ensure effective and orderly
implementation of state programs at the regional level. The vice president of
the newly formed commission, Ronnie White, said: "TxDoT must coordinate with us
before they can implement their plans in our region." He also stated that "The
TTC is driven by greed and has no respect for our rural way of life." This would
have to be the understatement of the century, in my estimation.
After
long consultations with attorneys and massive investigation, commission members
concluded that there are no loopholes for the state agencies to exploit here.
Therefore, under state law, TxDoT will be required to work with the ECTSRPC and
coordinate their plans with the local group before any land is taken or any
construction begins. Feeling that she is standing on firm ground after all the
deliberations and planning and consultations with attorneys, Smith said: "If
not, they are in violation of the state statute and we are prepared to take them
to court if necessary."
In conclusion
The reason the EPA is
being notified is because TxDoT has submitted a Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, but they did not coordinate with local government as required under
the law. It looks as if TxDoT really has some problems ahead. Some of the work
they thought they had finished was done in vain, and the money they spent so
doing poured down the drain.
I was offered copies of the letters that
were sent to the overbearing government agencies involved, but the letters have
since become a matter of public record. In the interest of conciseness, I am
just going to share a link to a website that is being formed to share that
information and much more in days to come. These people want other Americans to
be inspired, to know there is something that can be done, and to learn some
things about how to deal with government entities that try to rob them of their
land, their rights, and their American heritage
It is time for Americans
to wake up to what is going on. It is time to mount up in unified challenges to
the threat before big business and an increasingly corrupt government in America
takes everything we have, strips us of the few constitutional rights they
haven't already stolen, and destroys our way of life completely. There is a
clear and present danger here — and the deadline for getting started doing
something about it was yesterday — so we had better get moving. The link to the
website is: www.stewards.us.
Please help me pray for the people in Texas who are fighting this
battle. They are going to need God's help, and possibly more than favor with the
judges. What I said about the fact that they could find themselves in real
danger due to the billions of dollars of work that has been planned, some of
which money has already been spent, was sincere. I have done some talking with
them, and these are very bold, brave, and noble Americans who are putting
themselves on the line — not only for the sake of trying to protect their own
interests, but for the sake of beginning a movement in America that will
hopefully reverse the corrupt trend behind the Trans-Texas Corridor and help
lead to the saving of this nation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
