konane's Blog

Just got this in email. 

>>      Isn't this amazing?
>>
>>
>>
>>        TAXES
>>
>>        Accounts Receivable Tax
>>
>>        Building Permit Tax
>>
>>        Capital Gains Tax
>>
>>        CDL license Tax
>>
>>        Cigarette Tax
>>
>>        Corporate Income Tax
>>
>>        Court Fines (indirect taxes)
>>
>>        Dog License Tax
>>
>>        Federal Income Tax
>>
>>        Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
>>
>>        Fishing License Tax
>>
>>        Food License Tax
>>
>>        Fuel permit tax
>>
>>        Gasoline Tax (42 cents per gallon)
>>
>>        Hunting License Tax
>>
>>        Inheritance Tax Interest expense (tax on the money)
>>
>>        Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
>>
>>        IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
>>
>>        Liquor Tax
>>
>>        Local Income Tax
>>
>>        Luxury Taxes
>>
>>        Marriage License Tax
>>
>>        Medicare Tax
>>
>>        Propert y Tax
>>
>>        Real Estate Tax
>>
>>        Septic Permit Tax
>>
>>        Service Charge Taxes
>>
>>        Social Security Tax
>>
>>        Road Usage Taxes (Truckers)
>>
>>        Sales Taxes
>>
>>        Recreational Vehicle Tax
>>
>>        Road Toll Booth Taxes
>>
>>        School Tax
>>
>>        State Income Tax
>>
>>        State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
>>
>>        Telephone federal excise tax
>>
>>        Telephone federal universal service fee tax
>>
>>        Telephone federal, state and
>>
>>          local surcharge taxes
>>
>>        Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax
>>
>>        Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax
>>
>>        Telephone state and local tax
>>
>>        Telephone usage charge tax
>>
>>        Toll Bridge Taxes
>>
>>        Toll Tunnel Taxes
>>
>>        Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
>>
>>        Trailer Registration Tax
>>
>>        Utility Taxes
>>
>>        Vehicle License Registration Tax
>>
>>        Vehicle Sales Tax
>>
>>        Watercraft Registration Tax
>>
>>        Well Permit Tax
>>
>>        Workers Compensation Tax
>>
>>
>>
>>        COMMENTS:
>>
>>      Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago and our
>>      nation was the most prosperous in the world, had absolutely no
>>      national debt, had the largest middle class in the world and only
>>      one parent had to work to support the family.
>>
>>
>>        What the hell happened
>>

Looks as if it may be sooner than later.

"By ERICA WERNER
"Associated Press Writer

<excerpt>

"House panel backs Internet gambling limits

MAY. 25 5:17 P.M. ET A House panel voted Thursday to crack down on the $12 billion Internet gambling industry by applying federal prohibitions to games like online poker, blackjack and roulette.

The legislation would amend the 1961 Federal Wire Wager Act to explicitly prohibit online gambling. It also would outlaw electronic transmission of funds to pay for gambling bets, give law enforcement agencies authority to block such money transfers, and increase penalties for violation of the law.

Although the Justice Department has taken the position that the Wire Act already prohibits online gambling in the U.S., there is disagreement about that. Most of as many as 2,300 online gambling sites in existence are overseas. "......................

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8HR1U3G0.htm?campaign_id=apn_home_down&chan=db

"Nothing isn't what it used to be.

Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby recently reviewed Al Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth." He argued that President Bush "refused to let his administration do anything about climate." And last month New York Times columnist Paul Krugman made the same claim: "most governments have done little to curb greenhouse gases, and the Bush administration has done nothing ..."

One is tempted to ask whether they are being Clintonesque, with nothing depending upon their definitions of nothing. But assuming they were being honest, one can only wonder where they gathered their evidence that the Bush administration was doing nothing.

Obviously it was not from reading Gregg Easterbrook in The New Republic, who in February last year, wrote: "[T]he notion that Bush has done nothing at all about greenhouse gases can only be sustained if you ignore what he has done."

What has that been? Easterbrook was writing about a program called Methane to Markets, which the Bush administration negotiated among several countries in 2004. He noted that most news outlets didn't report a thing about it. Yet, the program promises a reduction in methane -- a greenhouse gas 23 times more powerful than the carbon dioxide that is the focus of most news reporting -- equal to the reductions in greenhouse gases from the more heralded Kyoto Protocol.

One of the fruits of the methane to markets program came last week. China, a chief emitter of methane from its coal mines, has signed an agreement to buy 60 methane generators from Caterpillar Inc. for $58 million. The generators will take in the methane from its largest coal mine, reducing explosions and improving safety and health in the mines while providing 120 megawatts of electricity with reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Neither the Post nor the Times thought that worthy of reporting, nor did most other mainstream media outside of the business press. After all it's a "good news" story -- a kind of win-win-win-win scenario for health, safety, economics and the environment that the mainstream media are loath to report.

And besides, how can you write about the fruit of a program that you've barely acknowledged exists? The Post provided but one brief story about it on its inside pages back in November of 2004, and then gave it mention in a little science brief about a Princeton study that found "reducing emissions of methane ... by 20% from current levels would prevent an estimated 370,000 premature deaths worldwide between 2010 and 2030." And that's nothing compared to The New York Times reporting, which about methane to markets amounted to nothing googleable at all.

All of which may explain the frustration of James Connaughton, President Bush's chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality at a presentation at the American Enterprise Institute the day Mallaby's column appeared. He said he felt like asking the administration's critics such as Mallaby: "What part of 'yes' don't you understand?"

He said there is no longer any debate going on in the administration about the science of climate change nor that there is human contribution to warming. He said there is even consensus among policymakers here and abroad on the scope of action and places where it's needed and the type of arrangements required to help limit that contribution.

Connaughton pointed to 60 federal programs "designed to help reduce emissions by 500 million metric tons of carbon-equivalent (greenhouse gases) through 2012;" voluntary programs, such as Climate VISION, that aim to reduce carbon intensity -- the amount of carbon emissions for a given amount of economic activity -- by 18% by 2012; and federal spending on climate change programs of $26 billion since Bush came into office, about half of which has gone to researching new technology.

Where the administration runs afoul of its critics' demands -- and is considered to be doing nothing -- is in the promotion of caps on carbon emissions. The critics want to force carbon-emitting industries to cap emissions and then allow those who reduce their emissions below their cap to sell credits to those who fail to meet them. But such cap and trade schemes would do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Without China and India participating, costly carbon caps will prompt the movement of industrial emissions abroad -- where they will likely be spewed out in greater amounts through dirtier technology.

That is something that the Mallabys and Krugmans and most environmentalists overlook -- you can't force these countries to do what you want. You have to understand their economic and moral need to lift millions of people out of poverty quickly. They will put this goal ahead of reducing greenhouse emissions any day. And who can blame them? Further, from a political standpoint, you aren't going to get far with significant carbon curbs if they hurt your own economy, a fact that helps to explain why the Clinton administration did less than the Bush administration on climate change, if you look at the record.

What can do something to influence what is going on in China and India? As Connaughton pointed out, you can make a deal with them to provide them cleaner, better, safer, healthier, more advanced technology -- if they agree to protect the intellectual property of those who invent that technology. And you can seek to ensure that you don't wipe out incentives here for the development of the kind of clean technology they might buy -- in particular clean coal. You want coal cleaned up as a source of electricity, so as to pass on the technology to coal-dependent nations such as China and India. But it is unlikely these clean-coal technologies will develop if carbon caps force utilities to switch to natural gas.

What's more, recent real-world experience with carbon caps undercuts the arguments of the administration's critics. Canada has indicated it won't meet its caps under Kyoto, and Europe is heading toward failure as well.

Meanwhile, Bush's sweet nothings of Methane to Markets, his Asian Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate Change (AP6), and his promotion of investment in technological development here and its spread through free trade and intellectual property protection abroad are producing measurable gains already with the China-Caterpillar deal.

Of course, don't expect to hear about those gains from Mallaby or Krugman or the rest of mainstream major media. Much like Sergeant Schulz, the guard in Hogan's Heroes who turned a blind eye to the POW's shenanigans, saying, "I know nothing! Nothing!" so he didn't have to report them to Colonel Klink, so they maintain a willful ignorance of the administration's climate activities so as not to complicate their case that the administration is doing nothing -- see nothing positive, hear nothing positive, report nothing positive.

Duane Freese is Deputy Editor of TCS Daily.

This is posted in full directly from Powerlineblog.com.  This message is too important to post excerpts. 

March 1, 2006 | |

In the continuing debate over immigration policy, lawmakers would do well to step back from the pol­itics of the moment and develop a clear, com­prehensive, meaningful, and long-term policy concerning immigration, naturalization, and citi­zenship that is consistent with the core principles, best traditions, and highest ideals of the United States.

As the United States Senate considers a temporary worker program as one aspect of that policy, it is important to review the principles that ought to guide this discussion and against which any proposed tem­porary worker program should be measured.

The Principles of Immigration

As previously established, four broad principles should guide United States immigration policy.[1]

The Consent of the Governed. The very idea of sovereignty implies that each nation has the responsibility-and obligation-to determine and defend its own conditions for immigration, naturalization, and citizenship. Individuals who are not citizens do not have a right to American residency or citizenship without the consent of the American people, as expressed through the laws of the United States.

National Security. A disorganized and chaotic immigration system encourages the cir­cumvention of immigration laws and is a clear invitation to those who wish to take advantage of our openness to harm this nation. Secure borders, especially in a time of terrorist threat, are crucial to American national security.

The Rule of Law. Immigration is no exception to the principle that the rule of law requires the fair, firm, and equitable enforcement of the law. Congress should require and provide resources to enforce immigration laws within the United States, and individuals unlawfully present in the United States should not be rewarded with amnesty.

Patriotic Assimilation. A successful immigra­tion policy must include and emphasize a delib­erate and self-confident policy that welcomes and assimilates permanent immigrants, with the goal being American citizenship. This may be a nation of immigrants, but it is more accurate to say that this is a nation where immigrants are Americanized, sharing the benefits, responsibili­ties, and attachments of American citizenship.

Guiding Principles for a Temporary Worker Program

The comprehensive reform of immigration pol­icy has little prospect of success unless it seriously reduces the growing number of undocumented workers and benefit recipients in the United States. Among the proposals designed to accomplish this goal is the creation of a temporary worker program that would be open to new foreign workers as well as illegal immigrants currently in the United States.

A balanced and well-constructed temporary worker program, by replacing the incentives for illegal immigration with an option for legal tempo­rary labor and (in combination with other reforms) reducing over time the current population of unlawfully present persons, would foster better national security and serve a growing economy. Such a temporary worker program would be a valuable and perhaps even necessary component of a comprehensive immigration reform proposal.

Nevertheless, reasonable enthusiasm for such a program in theory must be moderated by serious and realistic concerns not only about the failures of such programs in the past and in other countries,[2] but also regarding how a new program would likely be implemented and operate in practice.[3] That both the National Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy and the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform (chaired by the late Represen­tative Barbara Jordan), after extensive study of the matter, rejected a temporary or guest worker pro­gram for just these reasons should counsel some trepidation.[4] At the very least, policymakers must bear in mind during the lawmaking process that an ill-defined and poorly constructed temporary worker program would make the current problems of immigration policy much worse.

It is with great care and prudence, then, that law­makers should address the many thorny questions raised by a temporary worker program. In that pro­cess, policymakers should be guided not only by general principles, but also by several principles particular to a temporary worker program. These principles should be used to evaluate and judge any such proposals.

The first priority is national security. Con­gress must take steps to ensure that immigra­tion policy, or the lack of immigration policy enforcement, does not undermine national security; and, from a national security perspec­tive, preventing illegal entry and reducing unlawful presence in the United States is an imperative. A critical element of any reform proposal must be to build a "system of systems" that welds all of the nation's border assets into a single coherent security strategy-addressing the issue from the point of origin, in transit, at the border, and within the United States-and strengthens all of the activities, assets, and pro­grams necessary to enhance homeland secu­rity.[5] While recognizing that a temporary worker program could potentially contribute to the task of policing borders and coastlines, a comprehensive plan for integrated border secu­rity must be implemented and operational prior to any temporary worker program.

There should be no amnesty program for ille­gal immigrants. Regardless of the penalties imposed, any program that grants individuals who are unlawfully present legal permission to remain here rewards illegal behavior and is unfair to those who obey the law and go through the regulatory and administrative requirements to enter the country legally. Those who enter the United States illegally should not be rewarded with permanent legal status or other such benefits, and they should be penal­ized in any road to citizenship. The cost of changing one's status from illegal to legal is a change of condition from a permanent to a tem­porary presence in the United States. Unlaw­fully present individuals who voluntarily leave the United States, register with authorities before leaving through the US-VISIT program, have no criminal record, and agree to abide by the terms and requirements of a temporary worker program and the laws of the United States can then apply for legal entry to the United States without partiality or prejudice.[6]

A temporary worker program must be a tem­porary program. Participation in the program should be of defined and limited duration. If participation is renewable, there should be a substantive period of time in the home country between renewals; to be temporary, the pro­gram must not be indefinitely renewable. Indeed, policymakers must be confident that the program will remain temporary and that, at the end of program tenure, participants will return to their home countries. For those indi­viduals who are not present in the United States, applicants must demonstrate permanent foreign residence. For those that are currently here illegally, a temporary worker program should be seen as an attractive and legal avenue for them to reestablish permanent residence in their home country. In all cases, participants must show an intention to return to one's home country ("nonimmigrant intent"). In order to encourage this outcome, Congress should engage non-governmental organizations and stakeholders in establishing humanitarian sup­port programs to assist undocumented workers in returning to their home countries and could even create a national trust fund, based on vol­untary contributions, to assist in covering the expenses of returning undocumented workers to their home countries.

A temporary worker program should not undermine the preferred process of natural­ization. Policymakers should be concerned if the sheer size or lack of "temporariness" in a temporary worker program threatens to over­whelm the immigration process and create de facto permanent residents without permanent legal status. A temporary worker program must not be allowed to become merely a legal way to circumvent the rules and procedures of the nat­uralization process. This process must be pro­tected and should be strengthened, and the distinction between citizen and non-citizen (and between immigrant and non-immigrant) should be clarified rather than blurred.[7] Indeed, to the extent that the need is for a larger permanent working population in the United States, the policy preference ought not to be workers who are temporary, but assimilated immigrants who understand and are willing to take on the long-term responsibilities and obli­gations of citizenship.

A temporary worker program should be good for the American economy and as market-based as possible. Immigration has always contributed to the expansion of the American economy, and the goal of this particular pro­gram should be no different. In general, the economic benefits of the program must be understood to outweigh its costs. The best way to do that is for the operations of a temporary worker program to be as flexible and market-based as possible, in accord with basic princi­ples of free-market economic analysis.[8] It should not be micromanaged by government agencies, but should leverage the capacity of the private sector to develop innovative and effective ways of matching sponsoring employ­ers to eligible employees. As well, a temporary worker program should provide economic incentives for participants to abide by the rules of the program and return home at the end of their program tenure, for both the participant (perhaps in the form of withheld income or investment accounts) and the employer (per­haps in the form of a bond to control the flow of workers and promote compliance). The objec­tive should be to allow for a reliable and stable source of labor, but for that labor to be pro­vided by a dynamic and constantly changing temporary work force.

New programs should not encourage or exac­erbate illegal immigration. While recognizing the difficulty and challenge of finding and removing every illegal immigrant in the United States, Congress and the President must take credible steps to reduce illegal immigration in both annual and absolute terms. If for no other reason, policymakers should reject amnesty for illegal immigrants because it would encourage others to emulate illegal behavior and thereby increase rather than ameliorate the problem.[9] In considering new programs, policymakers must also recognize that any program that is vague or unenforceable, or that allows tempo­rary visitors or workers to disappear when their legal status expires, would not only mean a larger illegal immigrant community, but also invite new illegal immigration-and thus create an even larger public policy problem.

Serious immigration reform requires serious enforcement. What immigration policy needs- as any new program requires-is a clear and determined strategy to enforce all the rules. Immigration reform in general, and a temporary worker program in particular, must go hand-in-hand with a much stronger approach to dealing with violations of our immigration laws. This means credible workplace enforcement that imposes steep employer penalties for willfully violating immigration laws and, without requir­ing a new large federal bureaucratic program, tar­gets the largest employers of unlawful labor and the most egregious violators of immigration laws. Secure documents, biometric identification, and mandatory workplace verification would cer­tainly ease the burden on employees and employers to abide by the rules. Before pro­ceeding, policymakers must have the political will to insist on the rule of law.

A temporary worker plan should be family-friendly. Temporary workers in the United States should be encouraged to establish long-term residences, create stable households, and build families in the country of their permanent citizenship. Policymakers must recognize that for temporary workers to do so in the United States creates powerful conditions of perma­nency, placing the temporary worker, his family, and those obliged to enforce the law in a difficult and untenable situation. A family-friendly policy that respects and encourages permanent house­holds would break program participation into brief periods, with significant time between renewal for the temporary worker to reestablish ties to his or her permanent foreign residence. It would also permit brief family visits in the United States during periods of program partici­pation while clarifying that, consistent with the temporary nature of the program, children born to temporary workers while in the United States are not automatically United States citizens.[10]

A temporary worker program must be admin­istratively feasible and fully implemented. The infrastructure necessary for such a program, including the creation of a single integrated bor­der services agency, must be in place and work­ing before a temporary worker program is implemented. This is especially the case with those elements of the program (such as a biomet­ric identification registry, verification of identity and criminal security check with the partici­pants' home country, mandatory workplace ver­ification, and a system of secure documents) that contribute to the requirements of national secu­rity. Policymakers must have demonstrable con­fidence (based on system testing and pilot programs, for example) that the infrastructure and its system elements are able to manage a program of this size efficiently and accurately. A pilot program, perhaps based on the expansion and streamlining of existing non-immigrant work visa programs, is a reasonable and prudent policy prior to launching a new program of this magnitude.[11] Given the federal government's poor track record in consistently enforcing national immigration laws and providing the resources necessary to carry out its own policies, there should be measurable border security, internal enforcement and program infrastructure timetables, benchmarks, and goals that must be met in order to proceed with the implementation of a temporary worker program.

International cooperation requires agree­ments with participating countries. A tempo­rary worker program must include bilateral agreements between the United States and the participants' home countries. Such agreements would strengthen cooperation concerning verifi­cation of identity and background security; establish clear agreement to abide by (and encourage participants to abide by) the rules of the program and United States immigration laws; facilitate the return of those nations' citi­zens at the end of program participation; and reward nations that develop robust programs that assist in significantly reducing the unlawful population in the United States. In lieu of con­gressional legislation on the matter, such agree­ments should also clarify the citizenship status of children of program participants. Such agree­ments are also an opportunity to develop addi­tional incentives for temporary workers, such as allowing program participants to receive credit in their home countries' retirement systems, and generally encourage economic freedom and growth in the nations that these individuals have left for opportunities in the United States.[12]

Conclusion

It goes without saying that many aspects of immigration policy are divisive, splitting not only virtually every segment of political opinion, but also the American people generally. One of the most divisive and controversial aspects of the cur­rent immigration debate is the proposal for a tem­porary worker program. Just as any immigration reform package must be informed by the proper guiding principles, thereby balancing national security, economic interests, and the rule of law, so a temporary worker program-to be acceptable both in principle and in practice, and to contribute to the objectives of comprehensive immigration reform-must be consistent with those principles and thus with the best traditions and highest ideals of the United States.

Edwin Meese III is a Distinguished Fellow at The Heritage Foundation, where he holds the Ronald Reagan Chair in Public Policy. Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., is Director of the B. Kenneth Simon Center for American Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1]Edwin Meese III and Matthew Spalding, "The Principles of Immigration," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1807, October 19, 2004.

[2]See, for instance, Dr. Vernon M. Briggs, "Guestworker Programs for Low-Skilled Workers: Lessons from the Past and Warn­ings for the Future," testimony before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate, February 5, 2004.

[3]For analysis of the two leading proposals, see James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., Janice L. Kephart, and Paul Rosenzweig, "The McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform Bill Falls Short," Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum No. 975, July 26, 2005, and James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., Janice L. Kephart, and Alane Kochems, "The Cornyn-Kyl Immigration Reform Act: Flawed But Fixable," Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum No. 982, September 23, 2005.

[4]See National Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, U.S. Immigration Policy and the National Interest: Final Report, 1981, and U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, Becoming an American: Immigration and Immigration Policy, 1997.

[5]James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., "Safeguarding America's Sovereignty: A ‘System of Systems' Approach to Border Security," Heri­tage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1898, November 28, 2005.

[6]Edwin Meese III, James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., and Paul Rosenzweig, "Alternatives to Amnesty: Pro­posals for Fair and Effective Immigration Reform," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1858, June 2, 2005.

[7]See Matthew Spalding, Ph.D., "Making Citizens: The Case for Patriotic Assimilation," forthcoming from The Heritage Foundation.

[8]Tim Kane, Ph.D., and Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., "The Real Problem with Immigration...and the Real Solution," Heritage Foun­dation Backgrounder No. 1913, March 1, 2006.

[9]See Meese et al., "Alternatives to Amnesty."

[10]See Edward Erler, "Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 925, December 1, 2005. This question can be clarified by legislation and/or bilateral agreement.

[11]This was the position of the Reagan Administration when the idea was proposed in the early 1980s.

[12]Stephen Johnson, "Immigration Plans Need a Foreign Policy Component," Heritage Foundation WebMemo No. 948, Decem­ber 19, 2005; see also Stephen Johnson and Sara J. Fitzgerald, "The United States and Mexico: Partners in Reform," Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1715, December 18, 2003.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/bg1911.cfm

This was on the local news a couple of days ago. 

Fuel Water

http://www.wimp.com/fuelwater/

by Steven Yates
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/americannworegions01may06.shtml
April 30, 2006

Forward courtesy of Slim Spurling (www.slimspurling.com)
.
Original Title
United States of North America

Elitists in the United States, Mexico, and Canada are plotting to merge these three nations into a single regional government similar to the European Union.

In 1787, 13 former British colonies that had briefly been independent states agreed to create a free trade zone inside a shared security perimeter. People, goods, and capital would move freely throughout that region, ignoring previously existing borders. The union thus created was christened the United States of America.

In the early years of the 21st century, elites in three nations - the United States, Canada, and Mexico - are busy creating a new political configuration called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). It would broaden and deepen the relationship between the three nations created in 1994 through the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in dramatic ways.

The new architecture would include a free trade zone protected by a common security perimeter, within which goods, people, and capital would move freely across what had once been firmly established international borders.

First of all, it would require that U.S. citizens effectively surrender their citizenship in the independent constitutional republic founded in 1787. Unlike the USA, which was an organic outgrowth of a political system rooted in Anglo-Saxon laws, customs, traditions, and language, the political entity created through the SPP - in effect, the United States of North America (USNA) - would be a forced three-way marriage of wildly incompatible cultures and political systems.

The U.S. and Mexico are separated by language and have fundamentally incompatible political systems. Canada, riven with linguistic and regional conflicts, is hard-pressed to maintain its own unity, without the additional complications that would arise from an effort to join with the United States and Mexico. Lacking the natural affinities that led the original 13 states to create a constitutional republic, the USNA would likely be held together only through corrupt alliances among ruling elites, backed by undisguised force.

"Integration"

This past March, President Bush met in Cancun, Mexico, with Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canada's newly elected Prime Minister Stephen Harper (shown above) to discuss the year-old SPP, which was formally inaugurated a year ago in a similar trinational summit in Waco, Texas.

To judge from the official rhetoric emanating from various governmental sources, the SPP is a collection of harmless or even commendable multilateral initiatives. A March 23 White House press release observed: "The SPP will complement, rather than replace, existing bilateral and trilateral fora and working groups that are performing well."

The "working groups" casually referred to in that statement were created at the March 2005 Waco summit to create common policies for the United States, Canada, and Mexico in various economic and security areas. Those groups are already laying the foundation for a European Union-style integration of the SPP member nations.

Though the leaders gathered at Cancun spoke in measured terms in describing this process, President Fox came close to giving away the game. His remarks underscored the demand for a new U.S. law ensuring "safe and respectful migration, respecting the rights of people."

Migration, unlike immigration, is the unhindered movement of whole peoples within national borders. Similar movement across a national border is either immigration, or emigration. Significantly, President Bush, too, said that the talks in Cancun often centered on "migration," tacitly endorsing the same subversive assumption that the border between the U.S. and Mexico is as inconsequential as that dividing Utah from Nevada.

Devil in the Details

The joint statement on the SPP issued on March 23, 2005 described it as an initiative to "establish a common approach to security to protect North America from external threats, prevent and respond to threats within North America, and further streamline the security and efficient movement of legitimate, low-risk traffic across our shared borders."

Eight trinational SPP "working groups" were then created to deal with different subject areas and instructed to report back within 90 days. Three months later, the working groups presented an array of ideas for new bureaucracies and "public-private partnerships," which were formed almost at once.

From the beginning, security - not liberty - has been one primary focus of the SPP's architects. The "security" agenda provides for three priority areas with these mandates: (1) secure North America from external threats; (2) prevent and respond to threats within North America; and (3) further streamline the secure movement of low-risk traffic across our shared borders.

Regional Insecurity

The idea that the SPP will provide Americans with additional security is absurd. Washington's efforts to secure our present borders are a spectacular failure - and yet, through the SPP, it would assume a large share of the responsibility for defending a much larger "perimeter" encompassing all of North America.

Representative Katherine Harris (R-Fla.), a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a close political ally of President Bush, has introduced a bill into the U.S. Congress called the North American Cooperative Security Act. This bill would begin a process of integrating Canadian and Mexican defense institutions with those of the United States, expanding "consultations on defense issues," and "exploring the formation of law enforcement teams that include personnel from the United States and Mexico."

Repeating in places, almost word for word, the security strategy of the SPP, that measure is clearly intended to begin the process of bringing the military and security institutions of the three nations under a central authority, with a single chain of command. The implications of that merger are profoundly troubling, to say the least.

Mexico is ruled by a political establishment intimately connected to that nation's narco-terrorist syndicates. A 2004 United Press International investigative report into the estimated 3,000 kidnappings in Mexico each year noted: "Mexico has a history of complicity between law enforcement and actual kidnappers."

In a March 31 Houston Chronicle op-ed column, Judge Michael McSpadden of Texas' 209 District Court described some things he learned five years ago while he served "as part of a contingent of Texas judges [who met] with then President-elect Vicente Fox's transition team in Mexico City to discuss possible changes in Mexico's justice system."

"Jury trials were not allowed, even though guaranteed by Mexico's Constitution," wrote Judge McSpadden. "There was no live confrontation of witnesses - the judge decided the case upon the written 'declarations' of witnesses. No bonds were allowed in cases considered serious - such as a false report to a public official."

While Canada's law enforcement system is cleaner and more competent than Mexico's, that country presents a different set of potential security risks. Thanks largely to that country's devotion to multiculturalism and political correctness, Canada is becoming a haven for Muslim refugees, a growing population in which terrorists can take cover.

Corporatism, Not "Prosperity"

The goals of the "prosperity working groups" are similarly misleading. The prosperity agenda originally announced a year ago promoted three broad agendas: improving productivity, reducing the costs of trade, and enhancing the quality of life. But what will their practical effect be?

One useful illustration of the SPP's "prosperity" agenda is the proposed Automotive Partnership Council of North America, which would "help identify the full spectrum of issues that impact the industry, ranging from regulation, innovation, transportation infrastructure, and border facilitation." This calls for integration of both business and government throughout the region through networks of public-private partnerships.

"Public-private partnerships" are better described as "corporatism" - the merger of big business with big government described by Mussolini as the foundation of fascism. In such partnerships, government is always the senior partner. The SPP's "partnership" will offer incentives to businesses to help further integration because they'll get preferential treatment by government. This system will actually circumvent marketplace competition, leading to fewer choices for consumers. It will also permit the emerging regional government to exert more control over business.

International Tribunals

The SPP is the product of the same minds that devised NAFTA, a sister-agreement and predecessor of the SPP. The basic treaty of that supposed free-trade accord is laid out in thousands of pages of dense regulations creating scores of unaccountable bureaucratic bodies, including several trade tribunals whose rulings are binding on the citizens of the three NAFTA nations.

Law professor Peter Spiro of Hofstra University said that the implementation of the NAFTA tribunals was "a fundamental reorientation of our constitutional system. You have an international tribunal essentially reviewing American court judgments."

And elected officials in the United States have begun giving precedence to NAFTA rules over the interests of Americans. For example, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was told by advisers in 2004 that a proposed tax incentive package encouraging Californian road builders to recycle 32 million used tires from California's vehicles would violate NAFTA rules by favoring American recyclers over those of Mexico and Canada. Schwarzenegger dutifully vetoed the bill.

Globalist Disclosures

As if the history of NAFTA didn't provide enough clues as to where the SPP is taking us, there is still more evidence - the unguarded words of politicians and their associates in the know.

Following his election in 2000, Mexican president Vicente Fox told an audience in California that his government would "use all our persuasion and all our talent to bring together the U.S., Canadian and Mexican governments so that in five or ten years, the border is totally open to the free movement of workers." Fox was similarly candid in a 2002 address to an audience in Madrid: "Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union."

The actions and statements of some U.S. politicians have been similarly telling. The Bush administration's proposed "guest worker" program, which is amnesty for illegal immigrants, is a key part of this trinational integration scheme.

Many of President Bush's staunch supporters, who see him as a flinty-eyed custodian of our national security, are puzzled over what they see as his uncharacteristic squishiness on the issue of protecting our borders. They don't understand that George W. Bush has long been a proponent of amalgamating the United States with Mexico, and is an unabashed proponent of regional integration as well.

The SPP, the instrument of that betrayal, does not have any broad base of public support beyond the tiny cluster of political, corporate, and bureaucratic elites that gave us NAFTA and CAFTA.

Americans by the millions have been infuriated by the spectacle of illegal aliens marching in the streets of our cities demanding they be given a fast track to citizenship. Our fellow citizens must be educated about the real design behind the drive for illegal-alien amnesty, and mobilized to defeat both amnesty and the ongoing drive to create the SPP.

Steven Yates

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steven Yates, Ph.D., teaches philosophy at the University of South Carolina Upstate and Greenville Technical College. "

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/americannworegions01may06.shtml

For the past several days it's been speculated that the US was headed toward a massive devaluing of its currency, anywhere from 25% to 40%. 

Soooo isn't it amazing today's article points toward a US$ rebound simultaneously with news of the senate's open borders immigration bill nearing regurgitation ...... I mean completion. 

"More Uncertainty on World Markets

May 24, 2006
BBC

"The jitters sweeping global markets have reasserted themselves in Europe, as worries about the continent's economies triggered fresh falls.

Photo: Even though it looks worrying, price volatility helps traders make money

Europe's main share indexes all fell sharply, with the FTSE 100, the Cac 40 and the Dax all losing more than 1.7%, despite earlier solid gains in Asia.

Worries about inflation and interest rates overshadowed profits growth.

Analysts expect volatile trading to continue after poor economic figures prompted a global sell-off last week.

Weighing on the markets is the fear that higher interest rates needed to rein in inflation could kill off the global economic recovery in the process.

Higher borrowing costs put a brake on consumer spending and corporate investment, squeezing profits and jeopardising growth.

The cautious mood had persisted in the US overnight, with the Dow Jones index down 0.25% and the Nasdaq down 0.65%

At the same time, metals prices firmed, crude oil prices slid and the US dollar strengthened against the Japanese yen.

'WE ARE SCEPTICAL'

In Europe, the UK's main FTSE 100 share index was down 105.8 points to 5,572.9 at 1157 GMT, with Germany's Dax losing 100.6 points and France's Cac off by 87.22 points.

In India another volatile day of trading saw the BSE Sensex index lose much of the 341 points gain made on Tuesday, closing down 2.3% or 249 at 10,573.

Analysts say that even though there are concerns that price growth may accelerate and push up interest rates, the sell-off means share prices are coming back to levels that could make them attractive to investors.

As a result, they predict that the declines may be short-lived.

A lot will depend on the quality of earnings and economic reports released in coming weeks. Market watchers said they expected a period of consolidation, rather than a rapid recovery.

"We are sceptical if there is anything fundamental about these falls," said Tristan Hanson of Cazenove. "It is more panic."

Electronic price board showing drop in Asian stocks

Photo: The strength and speed of the sell-off caught many people by surprise

Japan's Nikkei 225 index rebounded strongly on Wednesday as a weaker yen lifted optimism that exporters, including camera firm Canon and carmakers Toyota and Honda, would benefit and foreign sales increase.

SOLID METAL

One of the main areas of concern has been the rapid rise of commodity prices, amid fears that a market bubble is about to burst.

On Wednesday, gold prices were little changed, while copper rebounded quickly before levelling off.

Meanwhile, the price of crude oil, one of the main factors behind the inflation fears, dipped as supply concerns eased.

In London, a barrel of Brent crude oil fell back 1.4% to $70, and a barrel of New York light crude slid 1.5% to $70.69.

The US dollar had rebounded against both the yen and euro in Asian trading, but pared gains after a surprisingly strong German report on investor confidence.

In early European trading, euro was up 0.3% at $1.2855, while the US dollar was flat against the Japanese currency at 111.95 yen.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/5011530.stm

http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/06_Money/060524.world.mkts.html

Wow, no wonder all but true conservatives are falling all over themselves to pass the senate immigration bill.

No wonder what the senate is "working out" makes no sense whatsoever as far as securing borders. 

The more I read about this, the less I like it and expect a voter backlash toward more conservatives being elected from city councils up.

Perhaps pressure to follow through with this has something to do with the US dollar on world money markets ... my conspiracy theory of the day. 

Don't say you never had the website address to contact those

"President Quietly Creating 'NAFTA Plus'

by Jerome R. Corsi

Source Human Events Online

"Without announcing his intentions to do so, President Bush has decided to support the creation of a North American Union through a process of governmental regulations, never having to bring the issue before the American people for a clear referendum or vote.

The Bush Administration has decided to "back-door" the creation of a North American Union political entity that would effectively erase our borders with Mexico and Canada and create several super-regional governing bodies that would have jurisdiction over the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court.

This analysis has been advanced by economist Miguel Pickard at the Center for Economic and Political Research for Community Action (CIEPAC) in Chiapas, Mexico. Writing for the International Relations Center in New Mexico, Pickard explains how what he calls "NAFTA Plus" is being put in place by political elites in the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, largely without explanation to or understanding by the public in any of the three countries:

Contrary to NAFTA, whose tenets were laid out in a single negotiated treaty subjected to at least cursory review by the legislatures of the participating countries, NAFTA Plus is more the elites’ shared vision of what a merged future will look like. Their ideas are being implemented through the signing of "regulations," not subject to citizens' review. The vision may initially have been labeled NAFTA Plus, but the name gives a mistaken impression of what is at hand, since there will be no single treaty text, no unique label to facilitate keeping tabs. Perhaps for this reason, some civil society groups are calling the phenomenon by another name, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPPNA), an official sobriquet for the summits held by the three chief executives to agree on the future of "North America."