Where do we find leaders who "think" like Mike Krauss?  They are few and far between, I fear --- caught up, not in red tape, but in corporate schemes to get something for nothing.

From 1999 through 2005 I was a senior executive of a North American railroad based in Mexico City, responsible chiefly for intermodal traffic between locations in Mexico, the United States and Canada. For some years prior to that, and until only recently, I lived in a still predominantly rural area outside Mexico City, traveled widely in the country and worked often on the border. I have had both professional and personal contact with illegal immigration into the U.S.

Railroads that come out of Mexico must deal routinely with the "sleepers," as those who try to hitch a ride on the northbound trains are called. And in the small town outside of Mexico City where I lived, I knew any number of people who had tried and failed or tried and succeeded to make the more common journey on foot across the border which, I observed first-hand, is porous.

In order to resolve the crisis of illegal immigration into the U.S., it is important to understand who these people are and what they want. Overwhelmingly, they are young and healthy. It is not a journey for the old or frail. They are not all poor or uneducated. Many educated young Mexicans have no work. For every entry-level and mid-level managerial position my company advertised there were hundreds of qualified applicants. What drives them to make an always arduous, often perilous and sometimes fatal journey is the search for opportunity and more specifically, work.

The other thing that must be understood is that there is presently no effective process in place to lawfully manage the numbers of Mexicans and, to a lesser extent, other Hispanics seeking to live or work in the U.S. Through inaction and inattention Congress has manufactured a crisis.

The legal process is to stand for hours, often more than once, in a line outside the U.S. embassy in Mexico City. It's the kind of line I recall from my youth outside the local movie theater when a new Walt Disney movie opened. It seems to go on forever, with people waiting in the cold or rain or heat to bring a raft of papers and documents before an INS officer and take their best shot. By all accounts, it is not a pleasant experience.

No one may accompany the supplicant, so it is all hearsay, but what a careful listener will hear is that the officer does not really want you in the U.S. Basically, the applicant is required to prove to the officer that he or she has sufficient motives to return to Mexico. The result is that employed professionals or the well-to-do get visas for business trips, family vacations or shopping excursions. The rest -- the vast majority -- don't bother to try.

The story of one young neighbor of mine in Mexico is instructive and not atypical. Jorge, let's call him, was an intelligent and outgoing seventeen year old. We hired him to do some odd jobs at the house and over time became close to his family -- other members had also worked for us. He got a degree in mathematics from the local university and hoped to teach. But there were no positions.

Teachers do not retire in Mexico: They can't afford to give up the job. All that was available was part-time work grading papers and otherwise taking the load off senior teachers. It was low paying even by Mexican standards. The U.S., however, has a real need for mathematics teachers, especially those who speak Spanish and English, as he does.

Jorge went through the legal process. He set up a bank account, which he, like many youths from the town, had never had before. His father pulled together his income records to demonstrate the family's means and went to considerable trouble to put a piece of land in his son's name. It was all to no avail.

His application was denied because, said the INS officer, his English was so very good that he had obviously been illegally to the States to learn it. He tried to explain that he had acquired his excellent, American English in an intensive language course: four hours a night, almost every Friday night of the year for five years, playing cards with American businessmen.

Yeah, right. Denied. Jorge took the other route to the United States.

Jorge had one other thing in common with most Mexican immigrants, apart from the "get-up-and-go" that Americans used to admire. Legal or otherwise, they are focused. They are not coming to wander aimlessly about. They are headed for a specific town or city where some family member or friend from their village is now or has been, and where they will be received by an extended family that provides initial shelter and will show them the ropes. Think of it as a combination social service and employment agency, provided tax free.

The point is, the overwhelming majority of these people come here looking for work. And it is clear the U.S. economy has a place for them. In several industries it has a critical need: meat packing and food processing, agriculture, hotel and restaurant services or bilingual mathematics instruction, for example.

What can be done? In the short term, first the security of the border with Mexico must be guaranteed to the satisfaction of anxious citizens, the overwhelming majority of whom believe, correctly, that it is not now sufficiently secured -- although it strikes me that a garrisoned wall is unnecessary and offensive.

Second, we need to reform the legal process and direct the flow through a series of modern-day Ellis Islands, preferably in the interior of Mexico, fully staffed and funded to serve as welcome centers that will identify the newcomers, find out where they are headed, and try to match them up with legal employers in the U.S. In the new process a determination can be made if these are temporary workers or people who want to become Americans. They can then be monitored and assisted appropriately. When these two steps are accomplished, it will then be possible to revisit the legalization process for those who are already established in the country.

Of course, as I think it over, perhaps these proposed processing centers ought not be called "welcome centers." We wouldn't want to give the wrong impression. How about, Immigration Identification, Security and Control Centers? That ought to push all the right buttons on the talk-radio dial.

But for the long term, only raising the living standards of the Mexican people will staunch the flow. The U.S. and Canada together, but chiefly the U.S., need to invest in Mexico on the scale of a Marshall Plan, or as West Germany invested in East Germany at the reunification, and for the same reason. Huge disparities in the living standards of societies living in close proximity inevitably invite migration to the more prosperous society. The wider the gap, the greater the flow.

This investment in Mexico will have two other benefits for the U.S. Like the Marshall Plan, it can be structured to create opportunities for American businesses and expand markets for U.S. goods and services. And it will give the Mexican government an incentive to fix a policy that effectively exports its unemployment to the U.S.

What are the chances? It is difficult to say, but I am not voting for anybody for president, U.S. Senate or Congress in the 2008 elections who does not advance some kind of similar plan.

I wholeheartedly concur, Mr. Krauss.  

I would go one step further .... Issue work visas to businesses who feel their employee-needs are met only by using illegal immigrants.  Let THEM (or their representative agency) recruit temporary employees at these "opportunity centers."   If work visas are lost or stolen or are not accounted for -- penalize the business.

How could a true baby boomer forget?

Today is the birthday of Ernest Hemingway (books by this author), born in Oak Park, Illinois (1899). He went off to fight in World War I when he was just 17. He had bad eyesight, so he volunteered as an ambulance driver for the American Red Cross in Italy. He gave away chocolate and cigarettes to the Italian troops. And just about a month after he got to Italy, he was hit by shrapnel from an exploding shell. He spent weeks in the hospital and then came back home to his parents in Oak Park.

He was one of the first Americans to return from the war, and that made him a kind of celebrity in Oak Park. He gave talks to high school students. He hung around his parents' house until they decided they wanted him out of the house.

He started writing stories for Chicago newspapers and magazines, and then got a job as a foreign correspondent for the Toronto Daily Star and went off to Paris with his wife Hadley. They moved into an apartment in the Latin Quarter. Hemingway liked to give the impression that he was a poor bohemian, but he actually had plenty of money. He and his wife traveled around Europe and went to the horse races and ate in nice restaurants.

He became friends with a lot of writers who were in Paris at the time, Fitzgerald and Joyce and Pound and Gertrude Stein. And he wrote every day, sometimes in his apartment, sometimes in cafés. He wrote about one of those cafés, "It was a pleasant café, warm and clean and friendly, and I hung up my old waterproof on the coat rack to dry and put my worn and weathered felt hat on the rack above the bench and ordered a café au lait. The waiter brought it and I took out a notebook from the pocket of the coat and a pencil and started to write. I was writing about Michigan and since it was a wild, cold, blowing day it was that sort of day in the story."

He wrote in a letter to his father, "I'm trying in all my stories to get the feeling of the actual life across—not to just depict life—or criticize it—but to actually make it alive.

His first collection of short stories, In Our Time, came out in 1925 and the following year, his first big success, The Sun Also Rises. Three years later, A Farewell to Arms came out. By the 1930s, he was one of the best-known writers alive, and young American men tried to act like "Hemingway heroes," speaking in staccato sentences out of the sides of their mouths. By the time he died in 1961, he was one of the most recognizable people on the planet.

Forgive my fascination .... not only have I read all his books, but he resembles my dad and there is an eerie "likeness" to the man who was my one-and-only for almost 30 years.  And I'm referring to his physical appearance as well as his ... ummmm ... lifestyle. 

Sigh.

Credit: Garrison Keillor.

Experience has confirmed my skepticism in completely trusting my government to make decisions for me.  Recent "back room" deals on immigration reform among dems and republicans has affirmed that skepticism. 

So here I go -- from skeptic to cynic in, what -- two months?   Not a good sign for an elder-person who has been pro-government most of her life.  

An even greater scam about to be perpetrated on Americans is the North American Union concept.  It has deep support among corporate-types and cheap labor proponents.  And it fits right in with the recently defeated immigration reform package ....  Some say it's a conspiracy.  Others say those who think it's a conspiracy are just paranoid -- that the conspiracy theorists are exaggerating a "normal" process behind governmental decision-making  ..... 

Maybe they are.  Maybe they aren't.  All I know is that we've been lied to and conned one time too many.  The Immigration Reform Shamnesty was enough to convince me that something is rotten in DC.  I don't want special interest groups writing legislation.  I don't want the Chamber of Commerce or some appointed acronym-committee (i.e., SPP, secretly setting national policy.  

We've allowed corporate America to garner control of the legislative process and the future of our nation.   How? 

Two ways. 

Elected officials have sold (check the money flow) THEIR authority to the highest bidder.  From the executive branch, there have been agreements and partnerships(which require only a majority of House/Senate votes -- see Clinton's NAFTA vote),  as opposed to treaties (which require 2/3 favorable vote in the Senate). 

Agreements "innocently" set the framework for decisions normally made by Congress as bills ....  Agreements empower private committees, commissions and think-tanks to literally make legislative decisions -- impacting national economic growth and security -- without public awareness or legislative oversight.  

And who sits on these powerful committees and commissions that generally meet behind closed doors (ala the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform Bill)?  Corporate sponsors and big donors.   

Connect the dots yourself. 

And speaking of "dots" ..... the DOT (department of commerce) is one place you might begin.  

The effect is similar to pork projects. 

The difference is, rather than one Congressman "rewarding" his constituents  -- corporate interests "reward" themselves with cheap labor, open borders and government funding.  

So where's the red flag supposed to flutter?

Generally, every time you see a commission or committee recommendation become policy -- almost overnight -- you should instinctively see a red flag.  Take, for example, the rumors about that SuperHighway "corridor" which is planned to run from Mexico to Canada through the US heartland.   It's not supposedly going to be funded by taxpayers -- it is to be built by "private" funds.  From the corporate sector. 

Who should we watch?   Consult the timeline presented below.

Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch comments:

"You've got all these ministries in the three countries working trilaterally on transportation, energy, food safety, health, pandemics and border security," Fitton said. "The concern from some on the right is that the process is not as transparent as it ought to be, and that it is a threat to sovereignty in the sense that they're talking about integration instead of just cooperation."

Follow this Canadian timeline which includes initiatives by Mexico, Canada and the US:

• 1921: The Council on Foreign Relations is founded by Edward Mandell House, who had been the chief advisor of President Woodrow Wilson.
• 1973: David Rockefeller asks Zbigniew Brzezinski and a few others, including from the Brookings Institution, Council on Foreign Relations and the Ford Foundation, to put together an organization of the top political, and business leaders from around the world. He calls this group the Trilateral Commission (TC). The first meeting of the group is held in Tokyo in October. See: Trilateral Commission FAQ
• 1974: Richard Gardner, one of the members of the Trilateral Commission, publishes an article titled "The Hard Road to World Order" which appeared in Foreign Affairs magazine, published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). In the article he wrote: "In short, the 'house of world order' would have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault." Gardner advocated treaties and trade agreements as a means of creating a new economic world order. See: The Hard Road to World Order
• November 13, 1979: While officially declaring his candidacy for U.S. President, Ronald Reagan proposes a “North American Agreement” which will produce “a North American continent in which the goods and people of the three countries will cross boundaries more freely.”
• January 1981: U.S. President Ronald Reagan proposes a North American common market.
• September 4, 1984: Conservative Brian Mulroney is elected Prime Minister of Canada after opposing free trade during the campaign.
• September 25, 1984: Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney meets President Reagan in Washington and promises closer relations with the US.
• October 9, 1984: The US Congress adopts the Trade and Tariff Act, an omnibus trade act that notably extends the powers of the president to concede trade benefits and enter into bilateral free trade agreements. The Act would be passed on October 30, 1984.
• 1985: A Canadian Royal Commission on the economy chaired by former Liberal Minister of Finance Donald S. Macdonald issues a report to the Government of Canada recommending free trade with the United States.
• St. Patrick's Day, 1985: Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and President Ronald Reagan sing "When Irish Eyes Are Smiling" together to cap off the "Shamrock Summit", a 24-hour meeting in Quebec City that opened the door to future free trade talks between the countries. Commentator Eric Kierans observed that "The general impression you get, is that our prime minister invited his boss home for dinner." Canadian historian Jack Granatstein said that this "public display of sucking up to Reagan may have been the single most demeaning moment in the entire political history of Canada's relations with the United States."
• September 26, 1985: Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney announces that Canada will try to reach a free trade agreement with the US.
• December 10, 1985: U.S. President Reagan officially informs Congress about his intention to negotiate a free trade agreement with Canada under the authority of trade promotion. Referred to as fast track, trade promotion authority is an accelerated legislative procedure which obliges the House of Representatives and the Senate to decide within 90 days whether or not to establish a trade trade unit. No amendments are permitted.
• May 1986: Canadian and American negotiators begin to work out a free trade deal. The Canadian team is led by former deputy Minister of Finance Simon Reisman and the American side by Peter O. Murphy, the former deputy United States trade representative in Geneva.
• October 3, 1987: The 20-chapter Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA or FTA) is finalized. U.S. trade representative Clayton Yeutter offers this observation: "We've signed a stunning new trade pact with Canada. The Canadians don't understand what they've signed. In twenty years, they will be sucked into the U.S. economy."
• November 6, 1987: Signing of a framework agreement between the US and Mexico.
• January 2, 1988: Prime Minister Mulroney and President Reagan officially sign the FTA.
• January 1, 1989: The Canada US Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA or FTA) goes into effect.
• June 10, 1990: Presidents Bush (U.S.) and Salinas (Mexico) announce that they will begin discussions aimed at liberalizing trade between their countries.
• August 21, 1990: Mexican President Salinas officially proposes to the US president the negotiation of a free trade agreement between Mexico and the US.
• February 5, 1991: Negotiations between the US and Mexico aimed at liberalizing trade between the two countries officially become trilateral at the request of the Canadian government under Brian Mulroney.
• April 7 to 10, 1991: Cooperation agreements are signed between Mexico and Canada covering taxation, cultural production and exports.
• May 24, 1991: The American Senate endorses the extension of fast track authority in order to facilitate the negotiation of free trade with Mexico.
• June 12, 1991: Start of trade negotiations between Canada, the US and Mexico.
• April 4, 1992 Signing in Mexico by Canada and Mexico of a protocol agreement on cooperation projects regarding labour.
• August 12, 1992: Signing of an agreement in principle on NAFTA.
• September 17, 1992: Creation of a trilateral commission responsible for examining cooperation in the area of the environment.
• October 7, 1992: Official signing of NAFTA by Michael Wilson of Canada (minister), American ambassador Carla Hills and Mexican secretary Jaime Serra Puche, in San Antonio (Texas).
• December 17, 1992: Official signing of NAFTA by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, US president George Bush, and Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari, subject to its final approval by the federal Parliaments of the three countries.
• March 17 and 18, 1993: Start of tripartite discussions in Washington aimed at reaching subsidiary agreements covering labor and the environment.
• September 14, 1993: Official signing of parallel agreements covering labor and the environment in the capitals of the three countries.
• 1993: The Liberal Party under Jean Chretien promises to renegotiate NAFTA in its campaign platform, titled "Creating Opportunity: the Liberal Plan for Canada" and also known as The Red Book.
• December 1993: Newly elected Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien signs NAFTA without changes, breaking his promise to renegotiate NAFTA. U.S. President Bill Clinton signs NAFTA for the U.S.
• November 1993: The North American Development Bank (NADB) and its sister institution, the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), are created under the auspices of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to address environmental issues in the U.S.-Mexico border region. The two institutions initiate operations under the November 1993 Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States Concerning the Establishment of a Border Environment Cooperation Commission and a North American Development Bank (the “Charter”). See: About Us (The North American Development Bank)
• January 1, 1994: NAFTA and the two agreements on labour and the environment go into effect, replacing CUSFTA.
• November 16, 1994: Canada and Mexico sign a cooperation agreement regarding the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
• December 1994: The Summit of the Americas is held in Miami. The three signatories of NAFTA officially invite Chile to become a contractual party of the agreement. The Free Trade Area of the Americas or FTAA is initiated. According to the offical FTAA website, "the Heads of State and Government of the 34 democracies in the region agreed to construct a Free Trade Area of the Americas, or FTAA, in which barriers to trade and investment will be progressively eliminated. They agreed to complete negotiations towards this agreement by the year 2005 and to achieve substantial progress toward building the FTAA by 2000." See: FTAA
• December 22, 1994: Mexican monetary authorities decide to let the Peso float. The US and Canada open a US$6 billion line of credit for Mexico.
• January 3, 1995: Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo presents an emergency plan.
• January 1995: President Clinton announces an aid plan for Mexico.
• February 9, 1995: Mickey Kantor, the US Foreign Trade representative, announces Washington’s intention to include the provisions of NAFTA regarding labor and the environment in negotiations with Chile.
• February 21, 1995: Signing in Washington of an agreement regarding the financial assistance given to Mexico. Mexico in turn promises to pay Mexican oil export revenue as a guarantee into an account at the Federal Reserve in New York.
• February 28, 1995: Mexico announces the increase of its customs duties on a number of imports from countries with which it does not have a free trade agreement.
• March 9, 1995: President Zedillo presents austerity measures. The plan envisages a 50% increase in value added taxes, a 10% reduction of government expenditure, a 35% increase in gas prices, a 20% increase in electricity prices and a 100% increase in transportation prices. The minimum wage is increased by 10%. The private sector can benefit from government assistance. The inter-bank rate that is reduced to 74% will be increased to 109% on March 15.
• March 29, 1995: Statistical data on US foreign trade confirms the sharp increase in Mexican exports to the US.
• April 10, 1995: The US dollar reaches its lowest level in history on the international market. It depreciated by 50% relative to the Japanese yen in only four years.
• June 7, 1995: First meeting of the ministers of Foreign Trade of Canada (Roy MacLaren), the US (Mickey Kantor), Mexico (Herminio Blanco) and Chile (Eduardo Aninat) to start negotiations.
• December 29, 1995: Chile and Canada commit to negotiate a bilateral free trade agreement.
• June 3, 1996: Chile and Canada start negotiating the reciprocal opening of markets in Santiago.
• November 18, 1996: Signing in Ottawa of the Canada-Chile free trade agreement by Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister of Canada and Eduardo Frei, President of Chile. The agreement frees 80% of trade between the two countries. It is the first free trade agreement signed between Chile and a member of the G 7.
• July 4, 1997: The Canada-Chile free trade agreement comes into effect.
• 1997: The US presidency proposes applying NAFTA parity to Caribbean countries.
• April 17, 1998: Signing in Santiago, Chile of the free trade agreement between Chile and Mexico by President Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de León of Mexico, and President Eduardo Frei of Chile.
• August 1, 1999: The Chile-Mexico free trade agreement comes into effect.
• September, 1999: The Canadian right-wing think tank the Fraser Institute publishes a paper by Herbert G. Grubel titled "The Case for the Amero: The Economics and Politics of a North American Monetary Union." In the paper Grubel argues that a common currency is not inevitable but it is desirable. See: The Case for the Amero
• July 2, 2000: Vicente Fox Quesada of the National Action Party (PAN), is elected president of Mexico, thus ending the reign of the Revolutionary Institutional Party (RIP) that had held power for 71 years. Mr. Fox is sworn in on 1 December 2000.
• July 4, 2000: Mexican president Vicente Fox proposes a 20 to 30 year timeline for the creation of a common North American market. President Fox’s “20/20 vision” as it is commonly called, includes the following: a customs union, a common external tariff, greater coordination of policies, common monetary policies, free flow of labor, and fiscal transfers for the development of poor Mexican regions. With the model of the European Fund in mind, President Fox suggests that US$10 to 30 billion be invested in NAFTA to support underdeveloped regions. The fund could be administered by an international financial institution such as the Inter-American Development Bank.
• November 27, 2000: Trade negotiations resume between the US and Chile for Chile’s possible entry into NAFTA.
• 2001: Robert Pastor's 2001 book "Toward a North American Community" is published. The book calls for the creation of a North American Union (NAU).
• April 2001: Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien and US President George W. Bush sign the Declaration of Quebec City at the third Summit of the Americas: “This is a ‘commitment to hemispheric integration." See: Declaration of Quebec City
• August 30, 2001: The Institute for International Economics issues a press release advocating that the United States and Mexico should use the occasion of the visit of President Vicente Fox of Mexico on September 4-7 to develop a North American Community as advocated by Robert Pastor in his book "Toward a North American Community." See: A Blueprint for a North American Community
• September 11, 2001: A series of coordinated suicide terrorist attacks upon the United States, predominantly targeting civilians, are carried out on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. Two planes (United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 11) crash into the World Trade Center in New York City, one plane into each tower (One and Two). Both towers collapse within two hours. The pilot of the third team crashes a plane into the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia. Passengers and members of the flight crew on the fourth aircraft attempts to retake control of their plane from the hijackers; that plane crashes into a field near the town of Shanksville in rural Somerset County, Pennsylvania. Excluding the 19 hijackers, a confirmed 2,973 people die and another 24 remain listed as missing as a result of these attacks. U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico shut down temporarily after terrorists attack the World Trade Centre in New York City. Business leaders in all three countries, worried that trade had come to a halt, hatch a plan to create Fortress North America -- a continental economic and security zone.
• December 2001: New U.S. Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci publicly advocates "NAFTA-plus". See: The Emergence of a North American Community?
• December 12, 2001: U.S. Governor Tom Ridge and Canadian Deputy Prime Minister John Manley sign the Smart Border Declaration and Associated 30-Point Action Plan to Enhance the Security of Our Shared Border While Facilitating the Legitimate Flow of People and Goods. The Action Plan has four pillars: the secure flow of people, the secure flow of goods, secure infrastructure, and information. It includes shared customs data, a safe third-country agreement, harmonized commercial processing, etc.
• February 7, 2002: Robert Pastor gives invited testimony before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, House of Commons, Government of Canada, Ottawa. See: INVITED TESTIMONY OF DR. ROBERT A. PASTOR
• April 2002: The Canadian right-wing think tank the C.D. Howe Institute publishes the first paper in the "Border Papers" series, which they have described as "a project on Canada's choices regarding North American integration." The Border Papers were published with the financial backing of the Donner Canadian Foundation. Generally the border papers advocate deep integration between Canada and the U.S., and the first border paper "Shaping the Future of the North American Economic Space: A Framework for Action" by Wendy Dobson popularized the term "the Big Idea" as one euphemism for deep integration. To read the border papers, you can visit the C.D. Howe Institute website at www.cdhowe.org. Use the publication search form (1996 to current, PDF) and choose "border papers" from the "Serie contains" drop down menu.
• June 28, 2002: John Manley and Tom Ridge announce progress on the Smart Border Declaration, including “stepped up intelligence cooperation with Canada,” “common standards for using biometric identifiers, such as fingerprints, facial recognition, and iris scanning, to confirm the identify of travelers,” and “a common approach to screen international air passengers before they arrive in either country and identify those who warrant additional security scrutiny.”
• September 9, 2002: President Bush and Prime Minister Chrétien meet to discuss progress on the Smart Border Action Plan and ask that they be updated regularly on the work being done to harmonize our common border.
• December 5, 2002: The text of the Safe Third Country Agreement is signed by officials of Canada and the United States as part of the Smart Border Action Plan. See the final text here: Final Text of the Safe Third Country Agreement Refugee support groups on both sides of the Canadian-U.S. border criticize the new agreement dealing with refugees for stipulating that refugees must seek asylum in whichever of the two countries they reach first. Critics say that preventing individuals who first set foot in the U.S. from making a claim in Canada will increase cases of human smuggling, and that other refugees will be forced to live without any kind of legal status in the U.S. See for example: 10 Reasons Why Safe Third Country is a Bad Deal
• September 11, 2002: The National Post publishes an article by Alan Gotlieb, the chairman of the Donner Canadian Foundation and Canada's ambassador to the United States from 1981 to 1989, titled "Why not a grand bargain with the U.S.?" In the article, Gotlieb asks "Rather than eschewing further integration with the United States, shouldn't we be building on NAFTA to create new rules, new tribunals, new institutions to secure our trade? Wouldn't this 'legal integration' be superior to ad hoc responses and largely ineffective lobbying to prevent harm from Congressional protectionist sorties? Wouldn't our economic security be enhanced by establishing a single North American competitive market without anti-dumping and countervail rules? Are there not elements of a grand bargain to be struck, combining North American economic, defence and security arrangements within a common perimeter?" See: Why not a grand bargain with the U.S.?
• September 26, 2002: Canadian citizen Maher Arar is detained in New York while passing through John F. Kennedy Airport and held for 12 days by U.S. officials then deported to Syria where he is tortured and imprisoned for a year. In 2006, a Canadian government commission into the affair blames the unfiltered sharing of faulty information between Canadian and U.S. security agencies, which is specifically mandated in the Smart Border Declaration.
• November 1-2, 2002: Robert Pastor presents "A North American Community. A Modest Proposal To the Trilateral Commission," to the North American Regional Meeting, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Pastor called for implementation of "a series of political proposals which would have authority over the sovereignty of the United States, Canada and Mexico. ... the creation of North American passports and a North American Customs and Immigrations, which would have authority over U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within the Department of Homeland Security. A North American Parliamentary Group would oversee the U.S. Congress. A Permanent Court on Trade and Investment would resolve disputes within NAFTA, exerting final authority over the judgments of the U.S. Supreme Court. A North American Commission would 'develop an integrated continental plan for transportation and infrastructure.'" See: A North American Community. A Modest Proposal To the Trilateral Commission
• December 6, 2002: The White House issues an update on the progress of the Smart Border Action Plan. See: U.S. Canada Smart Border 30 Point Action Plan Update
• December, 2002: US Secretary Colin Powell signs an agreement between the United States and Canada to establish a new bi-national planning group at the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) headquarters in Colorado Springs. The new bi-national planning group is expected to release a report recommending how the militaries of U.S. and Canada can "work together more effectively to counter land-based and maritime threats." See: U.S. and Canada Sign Bi-National Agreement on Military Planning
• January 2003: The Canadian Council of Chief Executives headed by Tom D'Aquino (also a member of the trinational Task Force on the Future of North America) launches the North American Security and Prosperity Initiative (NASPI) in January 2003 in response to an alleged "need for a comprehensive North American strategy integrating economic and security issues". NASPI has five main elements, which include: Reinventing borders, Maximizing regulatory efficiencies, Negotiation of a comprehensive resource security pact, Reinvigorating the North American defence alliance, and Creating a new institutional framework. See: North American Security and Prosperity Initiative (PDF).
• April 3, 2003: The CCCE sets up an “Action Group on North American Security and Prosperity,” which is comprised of 30 CEOs including former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney’s former chief of staff, Derek Burney. On April 7, this action group meets with Tom Ridge, John Manley, then U.S. ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci and prominent U.S. neocon Richard Perle in Washington, D.C. to discuss the Security and Prosperity Initiative.
• October 21, 2003: Dr. Robert Pastor gives testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives, International Relations Committee, Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere Affairs on "U.S. Policy toward the Western Hemisphere:Challenges and Opportunities" in which he recommends the formation of a "North American Community."
• January 2004: NAFTA celebrates its tenth anniversary with controversy, as it is both praised and criticized.
• January/February 2004: The Council on Foreign Relations publishes Robert Pastor's paper "North America's Second Decade," which advocates further North American integration. Read it at: North America's Second Decade
• April 16, 2004: The CCCE holds its Spring Members meeting in Washington, D.C., bringing close to 100 CEOs together to discuss North American integration with politicians including John Manley, Condoleeza Rice and Jim Peterson.
• April 2004: The Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) publishes a major discussion paper titled "New Frontiers: Building a 21st Century Canada-United States Partnership in North America." Some of the paper’s 15 recommendations expand on the NASPI framework in areas such as tariff harmonization, rules of origin, trade remedies, energy strategy, core defence priorities and the need to strengthen Canada-United States institutions, including the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD). Other recommendations focus on the process for developing and executing a comprehensive strategy, including the need for greater coordination across government departments, between federal and provincial governments and between the public and private sectors. See: Building a 21st Century Canada-United States Partnership in North America
• October 2004: The Canada-Mexico Partnership (CMP) is launched during the visit of President Vicente Fox to Ottawa. See: Canada-Mexico Partnership (CMP)
• November 1, 2004: The Independent Task Force on the Future of North America is formed. The task force is a trilateral task force charged with developing a "roadmap" to promote North American security and advance the well-being of citizens of all three countries. The task force is chaired by former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister John Manley. It is sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in association with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives (CCCE) and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.
• December 29, 2004: The Safe Third Country Agreement comes into force. See: Safe Third Country Agreement Comes Into Force Today
• March 14, 2005: The Independent Task Force on the Future of North America releases "Creating a North American Community - Chairmen’s Statement." Three former high-ranking government officials from Canada, Mexico, and the United States call for a North American economic and security community by 2010 to address shared security threats, challenges to competitiveness, and interest in broad-based development across the three countries. Among its key recommendations are the establishment of a continental security perimeter, a common external tariff, a common border pass for all North Americans, a North American energy and natural resources strategy, and an annual meeting where North American leaders can discuss steps towards economic and security integration. See: Creating a North American Community Chairmen’s Statement
• March 14, 2005: Robert Pastor, author of "Toward a North American Community" and member of the task force on the future of North America, publishes an article titled "The Paramount Challenge for North America: Closing the Development Gap," sponsored by the North American Development Bank, which recommends forming a North American Community as a way to address economic inequalities due to NAFTA between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. See: THE PARAMOUNT CHALLENGE FOR NORTH AMERICA: CLOSING THE DEVELOPMENT GAP (PDF)
• March 23, 2005: The leaders of Canada, the United States and Mexico sign the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America at the trilateral summit in Waco, Texas. Canada is signed on by Prime Minister Paul Martin. See: www.spp.gov.
• March 24, 2005: The 40 Point Smart Regulation Plan is launched as part of the SPP agreement. It is a far-reaching plan to introduce huge changes to Canada's regulatory system in order to eliminate some regulations and harmonize other regulations with the U.S. Reg Alcock, President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, launches the Government of Canada's implementation plan for Smart Regulation at a Newsmaker Breakfast at the National Press Club. For the original plan and updates see: Smart Regulation: Report on Actions and Plans
• March 2005: Agreement to build the Texas NAFTA Superhighway: “A ‘Comprehensive Development Agreement’ [is] signed by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to build the ‘TTC-35 High Priority Corridor’ parallel to Interstate 35. The contracting party involved a limited partnership formed between Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte, S.A., a publically listed company headquartered in Spain, owned by the Madrid-based Groupo Ferrovial, and a San Antonio-based construction company, Zachry Construction Corp.” Texas Segment of NAFTA Super Highway Nears Construction, Jerome R. Corsi, June 2006, www.Humaneventsonline.com The proposed NAFTA superhighway will be a 10 lane super highway four football fields wide that will travel through the heart of the U.S. along Interstate 35, from the Mexican border at Laredo, Tex., to the Canadian border north of Duluth. Minn. The "Trans-Texas Corridor" or TTC will be the first leg of the NAFTA superhighway.
• April 2005: U.S. Senate Bill 853 is introduced by Senator Richard G. Lugar (IN) and six cosponsors. “The North American Security Cooperative Act (NASCA) is touted as a bill to protect the American public from terrorists by creating the North American Union. The North American Union consists of three countries, U.S., Canada, and Mexico, with open borders, something that is proposed to be in effect by 2010. Thus, it would ensure the fulfillment of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.” NASCA Rips America, April 2005, www.Freemarketnews.com
• May 2005: The Council on Foreign Relations Press publishes the report of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America, titled "Building a North American Community" (task force report 53). See: Building a North American Community
• June 2005: A follow-up SPP meeting is held in Ottawa, Canada.
• June 2005: A U.S. Senate Republican Policy Committee policy paper is released: “The CFR did not mention the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), but it is obvious that it is part of the scheme. This was made clear by the Senate Republican Policy Committee policy paper released in June 2005. It argued that Congress should pass CAFTA … The Senate Republican policy paper argued that CAFTA ‘will promote democratic governance.’But there is nothing democratic about CAFTA’s many pages of grants of vague authority to foreign tribunals on which foreign judges can force us to change our domestic laws to be ‘no more burdensome than necessary’on foreign trade.” CFR's Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada, July 2005, www.Eagleforum.org
• June 9, 2005: CNN's Lou Dobbs, reporting on Dr. Robert Pastor's congressional testimony as one of the six co-chairmen of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Independent Task Force on North America, began his evening broadcast with this announcement: "Good evening, everybody. Tonight, an astonishing proposal to expand our borders to incorporate Mexico and Canada and simultaneously further diminish U.S. sovereignty. Have our political elites gone mad?"
• June 27, 2005: NDP critic for International Trade and Globalization, Peter Julian (Burnaby-New Westminster) says "The Liberal minority government is fast tracking Canada into an agenda of deep integration with the US and Mexico without a mandate from Canadians or consultation with Parliament". See NDP Demands Transparency In Can/US/Mexico Talks
• July 2005: The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) passes in the U.S. House of Representatives by a 217-215 vote.
• October 2005: The inaugural meeting of the North American Forum, which brings together U.S., Canadian and Mexican government and business representatives to discuss issues related to continental economic and social integration, is held at a secret location in Sonoma, California. Invitees to the event, which is chaired jointly by former U.S. secretary of state George Shultz, former Mexican finance minister Pedro Aspe, and former Alberta premier Peter Lougheed, include John Manley, Mexican ambassador to the U.S. Carlos de Icaza, Chevron CEO David O'Reilly, former head of the CIA James Woolsey, and a host of U.S. policy advisors to George W. Bush.
• November 2005: Canadian Action Party leader Connie Fogal publishes an article called "Summary and Part 1:The Metamorphosis and Sabotage of Canada by Our Own Government- The North American Union." See Summary and Part 1:The Metamorphosis and Sabotage of Canada by Our Own Government The North American Union
• January 2006: Conservative Stephen Harper is elected Prime Minister of Canada with a minority government.
• January 10-11, 2006: Government officials and corporate leaders from Canada, the U.S. and Mexico meet in Louisville, Kentucky for a “Public-Private Dialogue” around the SPP. Discussion hits on “marrying policy issues with business priorities,” expanding the SPP “beyond those identified in the initial stages of the process,” and building a “genuine constituency for North American integration.” A North American council on competitiveness, comprised entirely of corporate leaders, is discussed.
• March 31, 2006: At the Summit of the Americas in Cancun, Canada (under new Prime Minister Stephen Harper) along with the U.S. and Mexico release the Leaders' Joint Statement. The statement presents six action points to move toward a North American Union, aka a North American Community. These action points include: 1) Establishment of a Trilateral Regulatory Cooperative Framework 2) Establishment of the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) 3) Provision for North American Emergency Management 4) Provision for Avian and Human Pandemic Influenza Management 5) Development of North American Energy Security 6) Assure Smart, Secure North American Borders. Read the full statement at: Leaders' Joint Statement
• April 2006: A draft environmental impact statement on the proposed first leg of the "NAFTA superhighway", the "Trans-Texas Corridor" or TTC, is completed.
• June 2006: Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado. demands superstate accounting from the Bush administration: “Responding to a Worldnetdaily.com report, Tom Tancredo is demanding the Bush administration fully disclose the activities of an office implementing a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada that apparently could lead to a North American union, despite having no authorization from Congress.” Tancredo Confronts 'Super-State' Effort, June 2006, www.Worldnetdaily.com
• June 15, 2006: U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez convenes the first meeting of the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), the advisory group organized by the Department of Commerce (DOC) under the auspices of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and announced by the leaders of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico on March 31, 2006.
• July 2006: Public hearings on the proposed "NAFTA superhighway" begin in the U.S.
• July 25, 2006: The article "Meet Robert Pastor, Father of the North American Union" is published. See: Meet Robert Pastor: Father of the North American Union
• August 15, 2006: The NACC meets in Washington, D.C. to hash out priority issues for the SPP. The business leaders decide that the U.S. secretariat of the NACC will deal with “regulatory convergence,” the Canadian secretariat, housed by the CCCE, will deal with “border facilitation,” and the Mexican secretariat will handle “energy integration.” There is no media coverage of this event.
• August 21, 2006: An article titled North American Union Threatens U.S. Sovereignty" is posted to informationliberation.com.
• August 27, 2006: Patrick Wood (U.S.) publishes an article titled "Toward a North American Union" for The August Review. See: Toward a North American Union
• August 28, 2006: A North American United Nations? by Republican Congressman Ron Paul (Texas) is published. See: A North American United Nations?
• August 29, 2006: Patrick Buchanan (U.S.) criticizes a North American union in his article "The NAFTA super highway." See: The NAFTA super highway
• September 12-14, 2006: A secret "North American Forum" on integration is held at the Fairmont Banff Springs Hotel. Elite participants from Canada, the U.S. and Mexico are present to discuss “demographic and social dimensions of North American integration,” security cooperation and a “North American energy strategy.” It is ignored by the mainstream media. See the Vive le Canada.ca article for the secret agenda and participant list: Deep Integration Planned at Secret Conference Ignored by the Media
  
• September 13, 2006: Maclean’s magazine finally covers the August 15 NACC meeting in an article by Luiza Savage titled “Meet NAFTA 2.0.” The Maclean's article on integration notes that according to Ron Covais, the president of the Americas for defence giant Lockheed Martin, a former Pentagon adviser to Dick Cheney, and one of the architects of North American integration, the political will to make deep integration of the continent happen will last only for "less than two years". According to the article, to make sure that the establishment of a North American Union will take place in that time, "The executives have boiled their priorities down to three: the Canadian CEOs are focusing on 'border crossing facilitation,' the Americans have taken on 'regulatory convergence,' and the Mexicans are looking at 'energy integration' in everything from electrical grids to the locating of liquid natural gas terminals. They plan to present recommendations to the ministers in October. This is how the future of North America now promises to be written: not in a sweeping trade agreement on which elections will turn, but by the accretion of hundreds of incremental changes implemented by executive agencies, bureaucracies and regulators. 'We've decided not to recommend any things that would require legislative changes,' says Covais. 'Because we won't get anywhere.' " See: Meet NAFTA 2.0
  
• September 28, 2006: Stockwell Day says there was "nothing secret" about the forum on integration held in Banff. See: Nothing secret about Banff forum, says Stockwell Day
• February 23, 2007: SPP Ministerial meeting is held in Ottawa, Canada, and attended by Canadian Ministry of Industry Maxime Bernier, Mexican Secretary of the Economy Eduardo Sojo, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Peter MacKay, Mexican Secretary of External Affairs Patricia Espinosa Castellano, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, Canadian Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day, and Mexican Secretary of the Interior Francisco Javier Ramirez Acuna. Officials also consult with corporate CEOs, members of the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC). The Council's 10 Canadian members were appointed last summer by Prime Minister Harper and given privileged access to government Ministers to push their corporate vision for continental "integration". In a statement, the ministers responsible for the SPP noted that they “recognize the importance of focusing on initiatives that will further competitiveness and quality of life in North America, and will continue to work together to successfully meet the security and prosperity challenges of the 21st century.” The agenda of the meeting is challenged by an alliance of citizen's groups in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. See: Tri-national ministerial meeting to star Rice and Chertoff, Trade, Competitiveness, and Security Issues at the Forefront of North American Ministerial Meeting and United States Strengthens Ties with Canada, Mexico: Neighbors coming together through Security and Prosperity Partnership, By David McKeeby
• March 31-April 1, 2007: The Council of Canadians, the Canadian Labour Congress and other progressive organizations hold a teach-in in ottawa called Integrate This! Challenging the Security and Prosperity Partnership. See Integrate This!
• April 26-27, 2007: A closed-door roundtable meeting on the Future of North American Environment 2025 is held in Calgary on April 26 and 27 2007. This is the final concluding roundtable initiated by three think tanks to address issues around where the Security and Prosperity Partnership is going. The report is to be sent to the three national governments, both for feedback and comments, at the end of June 2007. NDP MP Peter Julian crashes the meeting, and due to his presence there the Harper government pulls its delegation. Organisers tell Julian that the federal government delegation was basically stopped at the Airport from attending the final roundtable meetings on the subject.
• April-May 2007: Thanks to the efforts of NDP International Trade Critic Peter Julian (Burnaby - New Westminster), the Standing Committee on International Trade holds the first ever hearings on the so-called "Security and Prosperity Partnership" (SPP) of North America. The televised hearings are held on April 26, May 1st and 3rd, 2007 in Ottawa. To read the transcripts of the hearings, see Info on SPP Hearings from NDP MP Peter Julian and Update on Hearings at Trade Committee re SPP from NDP MP Peter Julian Contributed by: sthompson
• Thursday, May 10, 2007: Amid heated charges of a coverup, Tory MPs abruptly shut down parliamentary hearings on the SPP, a controversial plan to further integrate Canada and the U.S. They shut the hearings down in reaction to the testimony of University of Alberta professor and director of the Parkland Institute Gordon Laxer, who testifies that Canadians will be left "to freeze in the dark" if the government forges ahead with plans to integrate energy supplies across North America. In response, the chair of the committee, Conservative MP Leon Benoit (Vegreville-Wainwright), rules his testimony out of order for being "irrelevant" to the hearings. When opposition MPs on the committee vote down his ruling, Benoit blurts out that he is adjourning the meeting, and proceeds to storm out with two other Conservative MPs. [Some of this information was paraphrased from the article in the Ottawa Citizen. For full article see "Tory chair storms out of SPP hearing", Friday May 11, the Ottawa Citizen, Tory chair storms out of SPP hearing.] Later, Gordon Laxer's presentation to the trade committee on SPP is officially voted in as evidence by the committee. The full testimony is printed in both the Calgary Herald and the Edmonton Journal on May 16, 2007. You can read it on Vive at: Latest News from Parkland Institute: Laxer Creates Stir on the Hill; or see the Edmonton Journal article, Canada-first energy strategy needed.
• July 5, 2007: Prison Planet reports that the merger of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico into a North American Union will be formally presented to U.S. Congress at the end of summer, after more meetings on the subject. See: Globalists To Formally Propose Merger Of U.S., Canada, Mexico
• July 9, 2007: NDP MP Peter Julian starts gathering signatures on a petition to stop the SPP. Signees "call upon the Government of Canada to stop further implementation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) with the United States and Mexico until there is a democratic mandate from the people of Canada, Parliamentary oversight, and consideration of its profound consequences on Canada’s existence as a sovereign nation and its ability to adopt autonomous and sustainable economic, social, and environmental policies, and urge the Government of Canada to conduct a transparent and accountable public debate of the SPP process, involving meaningful public consultations with civil society and a full legislative review, including the work, recommendations, and reports of all SPP working groups, and a full debate and a vote in Parliament." See Sign the Petition to Stop the SPP and Deep Integration
• UPCOMING August 20-21, 2007: Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, George W. Bush, and Mexican President Felipe Calderon will meet for the planned third summit of the Security and Prosperity Partnership. August 20-21,Montebello, QC. Protests are being planned. We'll update details on this as we get them.

While I'm not yet a "committed" conspiracy theorist -- there is something going on that makes one wonder just what the heck IS going on ....

The word is class. 

Which is lacking in  a (why promote the) classless couple of prominent conservative blogs who chose to reference homonyms for Mitt in a headline about FDT's lobbying history.   

Closing eyes and going  won't make that history go away.  Nor will classlessness.

Wonder -- if (and hopefully never) FDT's cancer were to metastasize to a terminal state -- whether they would use a subject line that would imply that his status rhymes with Fred?

Didn't think so.  And nor would any other blogger with any ounce of human decency. 

Totally classless.

And I won't be frequenting their sites again.  Not that they will notice or care.  Sensitivity, civility and respect are not qualities associated with classless masses who are fundamental asses. 

Too many of those types who blog from the left already ....

Several prominent bloggers have begun to chide MSM for its "unfair" (based on some perverted standard not applicable to officially declared candidates) criticism of the unofficial, yet awfully-official-sounding campaign of good ole Fred Thompson.

Heck -- no need for ole Fred to invest in another pickup.  He's already getting a free ride on the MSM express!   And his wishful thinkin' blogging corps are gettin' awfully riled up when anyone dares to criticize ole unofficial, albeit, almost-official Fred.

No matter that the most criticized Republican candidate has been Mitt Romney. 

Obviously it's "ok" to criticize Mitt. 

After all [enter sarcasm zone], the premises behind Mitt's character, professional profile and achievements, his candidacy and his qualifications are hard to believe [exit sarcasm zone] ....   

1) Mitt's Mormon (if you hadn't heard); thus, he doesn't have to fake his spirituality.

2) Mitt's served as a successful conservative governor in one of the most liberal states in the nation.  He doesn't have to qualify his lack of legislative achievement with "...but look at what I voted against!"

3) Mitt has un-matched business-sense and proven organizational successes; he won't have to worry about political appointments or political paybacks when implementing his management team.  And you can bet his administrative advisors and staff won't consist of a montage of who-was-who-in-the-70's-and-80's.

4) Mitt voluntarily assumed leadership of the post-9/11 Olympics when others shirked from national service -- and in the face of disaster, he coordinated global support, comprehensive anti-terrorism security and salvaged financial success from bankruptcy and corruption. 

5) Mitt has proven experience and sound policies on issues which Americans rank as critical in our next Administration:  enforcing current immigration laws, expanding national security, implementing realistic state-level health care programs, ensuring economic stability and growth on the national and global fronts, addressing the Middle East dilemma, maintaining American sovereignty and strengthening traditional American values.

But don't take my word for it.  Venture beyond the headlines.

And don't blame everything "hypocritical" on MSM, liberals or Mitt's potential democrat opponents. The announced (and unannounced) conservative candidates are also well-schooled in hypocrisy ....

"Mitt Romney Best Choice For President"
New Smyrna Beach Observer
Editorial
July 5, 2007

"Although the Florida primary is more than six months away, we believe it is important to get behind the candidate we feel is best suited to be the next president of the United States: Mitt Romney.

"We feel his vision and leadership are vital to providing for our national interests as well as economic stability and growth in a shrinking world market.

"Romney is not the frontrunner in the Republican Party, but he is the clear candidate of choice in looking at former Mayor Rudy Giuliani's liberal politics and Sen. John McCain's old-school Washington insider status."

...

"So why now? Why not wait until the primaries?

"The answer is simple.

"We've seen and heard enough from the debates to know that McCain is yesterday's news and outside of his 9/11 heroics, Giuliani doesn't have a national platform.

"Romney has a strong campaign base.

"The fact that Romney won the governorship in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the most liberal of all the states, speaks volumes about his broad appeal – his Reaganesque appeal, something this country vitally needs.

"With a war raging in Iraq, instability among the [Palestinians] and Israel and Iran's veiled threats and nuclear program, the nation needs to get behind the strongest candidate.

"That candidate is Mitt Romney."

-- and we stand with him.

I never thought I'd say this, but right now -- two of my three heroes are journalists: Cal Thomas and Lou Dobbs.

More later on why.

 Landscapers sheered off the tops of my neighbor's tender onion patch a couple of months ago.  Everyone except the neighbor raised a ruckus over the carelessness of an oaf wearing a headset while swinging a weed-eater.  My neighbor casually re-bedded the clipped shoots and went about the business of nurturing her small garden. 

A few weeks later, she shared a tasty "mess" of garden onions and leafy lettuce with us.  Even though we who care for this elderly lady still shake our heads at the head-set-laden landscapers who grace our lawns weekly, she continues to leave a cooler of water on her deck for them. 

There has to be a moral in there somewhere. 

I'm just too caught up with the amnesty shamnesty and the stealthing of the North American Union to find it right now.  In the interim, I'll turn to the wisdom of two of my favorite national folksters.

Unless he pools political or sings -- Garrison Keillor remains one of my favorite story-tellers. 

Today is Independence Day, celebrating the day in 1776 that the Second Continental Congress unanimously adopted the Declaration of Independence, and the United States officially broke from the rule of England.

Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence in a second-floor room on Market Street in Philadelphia, on a little lap desk that he had designed himself. He described the task in a letter to a friend, saying, "The object of the Declaration [is] not to find out new principles, or new arguments... but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take.... [It is] intended to be an expression of the American mind."

Jefferson finished the first draft after a few days work and sent it to Benjamin Franklin on the morning of June 21, asking for suggestions. Franklin made just a few changes. In the most famous passage, Jefferson had written, "We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable." Franklin changed it to, "We hold these truths to be self-evident."

The Continental Congress made a lot more changes to Jefferson's draft when they considered its adoption. They deleted passages that attacked the British people, rather than just the king, and they cut an entire paragraph in which Jefferson had attacked the king for perpetuating the slave trade. The last five paragraphs were considered too long and rambling, and so they were reduced by half. In total, they made 86 changes, eliminating 480 words and leaving 1,337. Jefferson found the process of revision extremely painful. He later said, "I was sitting by Dr. Franklin, who perceived that I was not insensible to these mutilations."

One of my favorite social observers is Thomas Sowell.  The man is beyond insightful, brilliant and articulate; he's a fellow-tarheel .... 

There is nothing automatic about the way of life achieved in this country. It is very unusual among the nations of the world today and rarer than four-leaf clovers in the long view of history.

It didn't just happen. People made it happen -- and they and those who came after them paid a price in blood and treasure to create and preserve this nation that we now take for granted. More important, this country's survival is not automatic. What we do will determine that. Too many Americans today are not only unconcerned about what it will take to preserve this country but are busy dismantling the things that make it America.

You may have suspected that I'm overly protective of neighbors, "mutilated" onions (as compared with Jefferson's writing) or that I erred in not capitalizing the t in "tarheel" above. 

It was all deliberate.  

I'm just "made" that way -- borrowing a reference from Dr. Sowell's article.   

Plus, I didn't want my affinity for my state to be confused with an affinity for the UNC Tarheels. 

And that -- for those paying attention -- is no more a digression or loose association or idiosyncrasy than is being dismayed that some oaf with a headset and a weedeater would be so callous and irresponsible as to sheer off my neighbor's onion sprouts.

So read all of Sowell's article.  He's a wise man ... and God knows -- as we celebrate our Nation's Independence, we need a few more wise men reminding us what we celebrate.

And, yes -- on this Fourth of July, I'm having hotdogs again -- this time, loaded with fresh onions from my neighbor's garden.

Why did the White House join Ted Kennedy in forging an Immigration Reform Bill behind closed doors?

The answer may be HERE. 

The North American Union is also a project that has been orchestrated by big business -- with little public exposure or legislative over-sight.

Open borders are critical to the goals of the North American Union -- and those goals have little to nothing to do with our national security.

After all the howling about Mitt Romney's dog being transported in a kennel atop his station wagon (dredged outta the news files from 25 years ago -- yawn), you should have expected a blog to crop up. 

You'll find it at Mutts4Mitt ... cute cute cute. 

 I mean, woof woof woof.