American Policy Center » 2008 » May
- What to do when you don’t like any of these candidates
- “Climate Security Act” Massive Tax Hike, Dangerous Call TODAY – Senate Set for Imminent Vote on S. 2191
- There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.
- There is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
- The Kyoto global warming agreement would have disastrous effects on over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.
- Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are projected at least $1.7 trillion and could reach $4.8 trillion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).
- Annual job losses are expected to exceed 500,000 before 2030 and could approach 1,000,000.
- The average household cost will be approximately $467 more each year for natural gas and electricity (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars).
- A recent poll conducted by the National Center for Public Policy Research found that 65% of Americans oppose spending even a penny more for gasoline in an effort to reduce “greenhouse gas” emissions.
- Senate Sneak Thieves Again Advancing AMNESTY!
- Senator Feinstein took an oath to “protect and defend” the United States, and that includes you and me (and our access to work) regardless of the state in which we reside.
- There is NO NEED for an Ag AMNESTY program; there is already an H-2A Ag worker program which provides plenty of temporary foreign nationals to U.S. growers. The rub is, growers must agree to provide a decent wage, and the workers must GO HOME at the end of the season.
- As acknowledged in Senator Byrd’s official remarks at the war supplemental mark-up last week, “The U.S. economy is in trouble…since March, 2007, the number of unemployed has increased…to 7.8 million (some assert the correct number is closer to 14 million)…1.35 million of which have been out of work at least 27 weeks.”
- The qualifying criteria for AMNESTY are extremely low; applicants need only prove they earned $7,000 in Ag from 2004-2007, or worked 863 hours in Ag from 2004-2007, or worked at least part of 150 days in Ag during the same period.
- Chairman Byrd even “implore(d) Members not to offer amendments (to the bill) that are controversial and not germane to this measure,” to no avail.
- It is wholly inappropriate to attach AMNESTY to a support bill for the very troops tasked with defending our nation.
- Any AMNESTY provisions must be stripped from this bill. Any kind of AMNESTY is unacceptable, and an AMNESTY for foreign workers to take jobs during our economic recession is a real slap in the face of their constituents.
- Fire Mary Peters
May 30, 2008
By Tom DeWeese
Hillary Clinton. John McCain. Barack Obama. Those are our choices for the next president of the United States. Are you happy with that selection? If not, what is your alternative? As the saying goes, “The lesser of two evils is still evil.”
Beyond the presidential race we have congressional candidates, governors, state legislators, county commissioners, mayors, and city council candidates. Are you happy with whom the parties have chosen to offer for election? If not, what’s your alternative?
The real issues of the day are not even being addressed in the campaigns. The falling dollar that will render our money worthless; the rising gas prices that grab the last of our worthless money; the invasion of illegal aliens that are changing our society; the globalization of our economy; assaults on our private property; the loss of American jobs to foreign countries; and now the threat of food shortages.
These are real problems facing every American, yet it is apparently politically incorrect to discuss them. There are no questions concerning these issues during debates, on Sunday morning political talk shows, or anywhere in the news media in relationship to the candidates. It’s not there. Not to be discussed. The powers in charge are picking the issues – no matter how frustrated the electorate is.
Is it any wonder that there are millions of Americans who don’t vote or participate in our nation’s debate because they think it doesn’t matter anyway. The “average voter” increasingly feels that the decisions have been made for them.
College students, just starting out in the world, wide eyed and ready to make a difference, end up just shrugging their shoulders at the selection of candidates and stay home.
Those who hold conservative points of view that our nation should live within the Constitution now believe socialism is inevitable, so why bother going to the polls.
And the poor think they are simply pawns in a vice grip between big money and special interests which control the elections. Why bother? Helplessness now rules the world’s greatest representative democracy. As people stay home or trudge to the polls to unenthusiastically vote to the next lesser of two evils, 93% of incumbents are routinely returned to office – year after year after year.
The instant a candidate is elected and joins the ranks of the incumbents he/she begins the dance. Get the money for the next campaign. How? Special interests groups, corporations and foreign interests flood into their offices to make deals, promote their personal agendas and show the way to fame, fortune and perpetual office – if only the incumbents go along. They have the whole process well in hand. Campaigns become little more than big PR projects, promoted in positive platitudes, specifically designed to assure nothing negative sticks. Just get through it and keep the gravy train running.
Above all, do not talk about controversial subjects like dollar values, global trade or immigration; just stick to issues like health care and the environment – coincidentally, two issues bought and paid for by the special interests. See how it works?
So year after year we officially hold elections and politicians pontificate about how our going to the polls is a revered right; a valued tradition; the underpinning of a free society. And they wonder why there is such division in the nation. How did we end up in such a mess? We voted for these guys. But did we enjoy it? Are we satisfied with the results? Would we like to demand a do over?
Don’t despair. Don’t give up. There is a logical, effective way out of this. But it won’t happen by depending on political parties to lead the way. We have to take things into our own hands. We need an effective, binding form of protest to say NO to bad candidates. There is such a way.
Imagine going into the voting booth and looking down the list of candidates offered. None really appeal. None seem to offer satisfaction as an answer to the issues that concern you. If only there was something else you could do. A write in won’t help. It would take such a difficult, expensive effort. It rarely works.
Then you look further down the ballot. Something new. It says “NONE OF THE ABOVE.” It’s a final choice after the candidates – after the candidates in every category, from president, to congress to city council. What does it mean?
It means you have the power to decide who will hold office – not the power brokers. When the votes are tallied, if “NONE OF THE ABOVE” gets a majority of votes over any of the candidates listed, then “NONE OF THE ABOVE” wins. And that means none of those candidates will win the office. The election will have to be held again and new candidates will have to try to win the public’s support.
Fixing the election process could be that simple. You, the voter, would be completely in the driver’s seat with the power to reject candidates, forcing a new election with new choices. The political parties would be forced to provide candidates the people want — or face being rejected. They would have to talk about real issues – or face being rejected. Incumbents would have to answer for their actions in office – or face being rejected. “NONE OF THE ABOVE.” Period. The power of labor unions and international corporations would be broken.
Think of the consequences. No longer would voters have to settle for the lesser of two evils. If all the candidates are bad – none would be able to force their way into office. It would mean that powerful special interests could no longer rely on their money to buy elections. They could buy all the ads they wanted, spend millions on “volunteers” going door to door, and sling their dirt, but if the voters aren’t buying, none of it will save their candidate from being rejected by “NONE OF THE ABOVE.”
Moreover, the power of entrenched incumbents who have been unbeatable because of their massive war chests and party ties would be broken. Picture Ted Kennedy unable to run for office because he was rejected by “NONE OF THE ABOVE.”
However, in order to work, “NONE OF THE ABOVE” would have to be binding. It would have to have the power of law behind it. It cannot be just a “protest” vote that has no other meaning.
“NONE OF THE ABOVE” is completely non-partisan. There is no way to control its outcome. There is no need for a massive campaign chest to support “NONE OF THE ABOVE,” although it could certainly be done. But the option, once permanently placed on the ballot, would always be there. America’s representative system would be restored.
To get the job done, activists in every state would have to begin a campaign to demand that “NONE OF THE ABOVE” be given a permanent spot on the ballot. It would have to be done state by state. Some states have ballot referendums and initiatives using petition drives to get an issue on the ballot so the people can decide. It’s difficult and expensive to do, but popular ideas have a chance.
In other states, “NONE OF THE ABOVE” advocates would have to find a friendly state representative or senator to introduce the idea before the state legislature and then get enough votes to pass it in both houses and then signed by the governor. And if the effort is successful then every one of those legislators is an incumbent who will have to face “NONE OF THE ABOVE” or the ballot for their re-election. They probably won’t be too excited about the idea.
Of course, one of their main objections to the “NONE OF THE ABOVE” idea would be the requirement for holding a new election should it win. Too expensive, our responsible public servants would say as they dismissed the idea. The fact is, such a need would probably not arise often once political power brokers began to understand that they must offer candidates acceptable to the people rather than to the special interests. That’s all they really have to do. It’s all we want.
The fact is, the idea of “NONE OF THE ABOVE” has been around for a long time. Over the years, most states have had some kind of legislation introduced supporting the concept. Nevada actually has it on the ballot – but it is not binding. It doesn’t force a new election. It is just a measure of protest. That’s not good enough to make it effective.
One of the reasons it has not been successful is because there has never been a serious national drive to promote the idea. However, with the growing dissatisfaction voters are feeling with the quality of candidates running for public office, particularly in the presidential campaign, perhaps there has never been a better time to start a national discussion on the issue.
The best part is that “NONE OF THE ABOVE” isn’t a conservative or liberal idea. It’s not a Republican of Democrat proposal. In fact, Republican leadership might see it as a good way to break the back of big labor’s influence over elections. Equally, Democrats could see it as a way to stop the power and influence of the Republican’s big business money. However they want to look at it, the bottom line is that the voters win.
So as we sigh and moan over the choices of Obama, Hillary and McCain, let’s start the debate and as Larry the Cable Guy says, “let’s get ‘er done.” Perhaps by the next election cycle we won’t have to take it anymore!
May 22, 2008
Action Alert! Action Alert!
| APC is now offering you a quick and easy way to multiply your efforts and help win more battles! Simply click http://www.referralblast.com/rblast.asp?sid=7137 to send this APC Action Alert to up to TEN of your friends! It’s fast, it’s easy, and most of all, it’s extremely effective in KILLING LEFTIST POLICIES! |
Debate on Senate bill 2191, the “Climate Security Act” sponsored by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I-VT) and John Warner (R-VA), is scheduled to start as early as Monday, June 2. S.2191 is a massive bill that will impose strict upper limits on the emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide from the combustion of coal, oil, and natural gas. It will also establish a trading system for emissions allowances, imposing a substantial “carbon” tax. Passage of this bill will have devastating impacts on economic growth and job expansion, and contains very dangerous regulatory implications. Despite hype to the contrary, any bill with such massive tax increases and regulatory burdens is NOT a “market solution” and the American Policy Center opposes it!
Despite global warming proponents’ claims, there is no “consensus” or “settled science” supporting the theory of human-caused global warming and consequential environmental harm. And it is equally untrue that only a few “skeptics” remain. Quite the contrary, as reported by WorldNetDaily (www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734), “(M)ore than 31,000 (Petition Project) scientists across the United States, including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields including atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties, have signed a petition rejecting ‘global warming,’ the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth’s climate.” Further, in their petition to Congress, these scientists not only urge Congress to reject the Kyoto protocols, but warn “(t)he proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.”
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate,” the petition states. “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Despite what you may have read, carbon dioxide is NOT toxic. If you remember your early science education, carbon is the fourth most common element (based on its mass) in the universe. Carbon exists in every living creature on this Earth; non-living matter, such as rocks and soil, also contain carbon. It’s in the Earth’s mantle, and in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Animals exhale carbon dioxide, and plants take it in during photosynthesis. Plants are a carbon “sink” – they take in more carbon dioxide than they give up. Water is a carbon sink when it contains marine life. Once plants and animals die their carbon sinks into the Earth’s crust. If Congress intends to tax carbon, where will it start? And where will it stop?
According to S. 2191, Congress intends to start by mandating the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establish emissions allowances for thousands of American manufacturers and electricity generators. The EPA conducted an analysis of the bill, as requested by Senators Lieberman and Warner. Among their findings, the EPA said, “There are many uncertainties that affect the economic impacts of S. 2191, key among them are the availability of mitigation technologies and the level of international action on climate change.”
The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis (CDA) released their analysis of the economic impacts of S. 2191 (http://www.heritage.org/research/EnergyandEnvironment/cda08-02.cfm), stating the numbers are “sobering…S.2191 extracts trillions of dollars from the millions of American energy consumers and delivers this wealth to permanently identified classes of recipients, such as tribal groups and preferred technology sectors, while largely circumventing the normal congressional appropriations process. Unbound by the periodic review of the normal budgetary process, this de facto tax-and-spend program threatens to become permanent–independent of the goals of the legislation.” The CDA report further cautions, “S. 2191 promises extraordinary perils for the American economy…(S)ince energy is the lifeblood of the American economy, 85 percent of which comes from these fossil fuels, S. 2191 represents an extraordinary level of economic interference by the federal government.
The National Taxpayers Union’s open letter calling on the U.S. Senate to oppose S. 2191 (http://www.ntu.org/main/letters_detail.php?letter_id=606) states this bill is so important that how Senators vote will weigh heavily in their annual Rating of Congress.
The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and President Emeritus of Rockefeller University, enthusiastically approved of the Petition Project. Professor Seitz received the National Medal of Science, the Compton Award, the Franklin Medal, and numerous other awards, including honorary doctorates from 32 Universities around the world. He wrote “The proposed (Kyoto global warming) agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.”
Art Robinson, founder of the Petition Project, warned “The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged,” he continued. “During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.
“These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity,” he said. “Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.”
“The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy,” he said.
ACTION TO TAKE
Contact your Senators.
Contact Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
You may reach your Senators by calling (202) 224-2131. A switchboard operator will connect you directly with the Senate office you request.
Tell them to oppose S. 2191, the “Climate Security Act” because:
SEND THIS MESSAGE TO AT LEAST TEN MORE PEOPLE! APC is now offering you a quick and easy way to multiply your efforts and help win more battles! Simply click here to send this APC Action Alert to up to TEN of your friends! It’s fast, it’s easy and most of all, it’s extremely effective in KILLING OPPRESSIVE POLICIES!
May 22, 2008
Action Alert! Action Alert!
Last Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted 17-12 to pass the Iraq War funding bill to the full Senate with a massive Illegal Alien AMNESTY attached. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) submitted the AMNESTY amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008, a bill described by Committee Chairman Robert Byrd (D-W.VA) as “an emergency supplemental for the wars and for meeting critical needs (emphasis mine) here in America.” Because the appropriations bill includes so-called “must pass” funding for the Iraq war, it will be next to impossible to defeat; but if the AMNESTY provisions are not stripped, this bill will grant AMNESTY to approximately 3 million illegal agricultural workers and their families for at least the next five years. Please take immediate and continuous action until these provisions are removed.
There are many reasons Senator Feinstein’s AMNESTY proposal is a really bad idea, including:
Senator Feinstein, along with Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) and Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), are claiming American farmers cannot harvest their crops and feed the world without AMNESTY for illegal aliens. How stupid do these folks think Americans are? We’ve all heard these Pollyannaish cries for several years now, yet past harvests have not rotted in the fields. America does not need AMNESTY for illegal invaders just to eat!
If Senator Feinstein wants to represent the people of Mexico, or any other nation besides the United States of America, she should renounce her U.S. citizenship, and her oath of allegiance to the U.S., and move.
Please take immediate, and unrelenting, action. Time is of the essence; we expect the full Senate to vote on this bill as early as Wednesday, May 21st.
ACTION TO TAKE
Contact the following: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
Assistant Majority Leader Richard Durbin
Assistant Minority Leader Jon Kyl
Your Senators.
Call (202) 224-3121, and the Capitol Switchboard will direct your call to any Senate office you request.
Tell these Senators:
SEND THIS MESSAGE TO AT LEAST TEN MORE PEOPLE! APC is now offering you a quick and easy way to multiply your efforts and help win more battles! Simply click here – http://www.referralblast.com/rblast.asp?sid=7137 to send this APC Action Alert to up to TEN of your friends! It’s fast, it’s easy and most of all, it’s extremely effective in KILLING OPPRESSIVE POLICIES!
May 7, 2008
By Tom DeWeese
The Bush Administration has directly defied, not only the will and intent of Congress, but it is now openly ignoring legislation that the President himself signed into law. As a result a Constitutional crisis is rapidly developing over a project to let Mexican trucks on U.S. roads. As a result, many are now calling for the firing of U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters.
In September 2007, the Bush Administration began a pilot project to allow Mexican trucks to drive on U.S. highways. The project is, frankly, necessary if goals for the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) are to be achieved. The SPP openly calls for “harmonizing” the borders between the U.S. Mexico and Canada. In fact, the Bush Administration sites the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) as its authority to push the project.
Congress was not happy with the program. Several members immediately sighted problems with safety of the Mexican trucks, including the inability of Mexican drivers to read English road signs in the US. Within weeks of the beginning of the project, both houses of congress began to draft legislation to put a stop to it.
Quickly, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) introduced an amendment to the Department of Transportation (DOT) appropriations bill to remove funding for the project. The amendment was passed by a bi-partisan majority of 74-24 and subsequently became part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, signed into law by President Bush on December 26, 2007.
To make it perfectly clear that the legislation was a demand for the Administration to stop the Mexican truck project, Senator Dorgan received a letter from the Senate Legislative Council to confirm the law’s intent. The letter said, “No funds made available under the Consolidation Appropriations Act, 2008, were to be used in fiscal year 2008 to establish or implement a cross-border motor carrier demonstration program to allow Mexican-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond the commercial zones along the international border between the United States and Mexico.”
Can it be more clear? Further, it is the Constitutional duty of the Congress to fund or not to fund programs. Yet, in defiance of this clear intention of Congress, Secretary Peters continues to move forward, spending funds for the truck project unabated and against federal law.
Melissa Delaney, spokeswoman for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Association (FMCSA), indicated the administration will simply ignore the congressional funding issue. In an all-too-familiar display of contempt for the concerns of the American people and in defiance of Congress, Delaney said, “We are committed to incremental steps in demonstrating the safety of the cross-border program, but there is no requirement to have a demonstration project.”
Apparently hoping to convince Congress to back off its plan to kill the program, on October 17th Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters called a press conference. She then instructed a Maryland state trooper to inspect a Mexican truck in front of DOT headquarters, claiming this action would “prove” that Mexican trucks are as safe as U.S. trucks.
This childish charade prompted Teamster President James Hoffa to ask, “Does the Bush administration think we’re stupid? It’s insulting to the intelligence of the American people to suggest that a staged truck inspection before the news media proves anything.”
In fact, actual inspections of the Mexican trucks prove that they are not safe to be on U.S. highways. A law firm (Cullen Law Firm of Washington, D.C.) has been compiling safety inspection reports on Mexican trucks in preparation for a lawsuit to stop the trucks from crossing the border. Their findings on Mexican truck safety are frightening and very telling about the agenda of the Bush Administration.
According to the Cullen documentation, in the span of one year, September 2006 to September 2007, four of the Mexican companies participating in the Bush administration’s test trucking program collected more that 1,700 safety violations. One company was Trinity Industries de Mexico, which was cited more than 1,100 times, averaging 112 violations per truck.
Another major concern about the safety of the Mexican trucks crossing our border is the ability of the drivers to read and understand highway signs. The Bush Administration has falsely assured that the drivers are required to be proficient in English before crossing the border. A brochure aimed at Mexican drivers on the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s website says, “Did you know? You MUST be able to read and speak English to drive truck in the United States.”
Yet, under heavy questioning during a Senate hearing in March, 2008, Transportation Secretary Peters and DOT Inspector General Calvin Scovel reluctantly admitted that Mexican drivers were being approved at the border as “proficient in English” even though they could only explain U.S. traffic signs in Spanish.
Here is the verbatim exchange between Senator Dorgan, Peters and Scovel. Dorgan asked, “Does the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration test for English proficiency at the border include questions about U.S. highway signs?”
“Do you show a driver an octagonal STOP sign at the border and qualify him if he explains the sign means ‘ALTO,” Dorgan asked with obvious agitation, “ALTO is the Spanish Word for STOP,” he said.
“Yes,” Scovel answered, hesitatingly. “If the stop sign is identified as ‘alto’ the driver is considered English proficient.”
“In other words,” said Dorgan, “the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is allowing Mexican drivers in the demonstration project to prove their proficiency in English by responding to the examiner’s questions in Spanish?”
Mary Peters responded, “U.S. highway signs comply with international standards. I drive frequently in Mexico and I always recognize the octagonal ‘ALTO’ signs as ‘STOP’ signs.”
“Excuse me, Madame Secretary,” said Dorgan, “the question is not whether you understand Mexican highway signs when driving in Mexico but whether Mexican drivers entering the U.S. in your demonstration project can pass an English proficiency test by answering the questions totally in Spanish.”
Answered Peters, “But answering in Spanish, the drivers explain they understand the English-language highway signs.” Countered Dorgan, “If you answer in Spanish, you’re not English proficient.”
Continued Dorgan, “My main concern is safety. We’ve established (in the Senate hearing) that there are no equivalencies between Mexican trucks and U.S. trucks. There are no equivalent safety standards. Mexico has no reliable database for vehicle inspections, no accident reports or driver’s records. Now you tell us Mexican drivers can pass their English proficiency tests in Spanish. The Department of Transportation is telling Congress – ‘We’re doing this and we don’t care’–” Senator Dorgan concluded.
In a news release issued just prior to the March 10, 2008 Senate hearing, Peters tried to take the offensive against Senate efforts to stop the Mexican truck project. In the release she said, “Our drivers and our workers don’t deserve a timeout for success and prosperity. So my message to Congress is clear. If you want to help American businesses thrive, support American agricultural success, and champion American highway safety, then keep on trucking with cross border shipping.”
Obviously Secretary Peters is pandering to American workers. None of what she said is true. American workers are being destroyed by agreements like NAAFTA and the SPP. Wages are down. American jobs are disappearing and America’s trade deficit is out of control because of these agreements.
Moreover, American trucking companies are not seeking “markets” in Mexico. They don’t want to drive their trucks into that country. As James Hoffa said, “It’s ridiculous when the State Department issues regular warnings to alert U.S. citizens to the dangers of kidnapping and murder if they travel Mexico’s roads…No trucker wants to drive a load of automobiles into Mexico to park them somewhere.”
Hoffa went on to say, “It’s a disgrace that Mary Peters is still in office. She has broken the law and defied the will of the American people by exposing them to dangerous trucks from Mexico.” The Teamsters Union has filed suit to stop the Mexican trucks from crossing the border and has called for Mary Peters to be fired.
The fact is, the Bush Administration, represented by Mary Peters, is determined to force the Mexican truck project on the American people because of agreements it has made with Mexico to open our borders. Further, it has made agreements with international corporations, through Public/Private Partnerships, to use the power of government to allow them to plunder the U.S. economy with little regard as to the impact on the American people.
As Senator Dorgan said, the Bush Administration doesn’t care what Americans think about these policies. Mary Peters should be fired as a way to send a very strong message to the Bush Administration that the American people are fed up with its arrogance. Her firing would be a major blow to efforts to impose the North American Union, which of course President Bush denies exists. Fire Mary Peters first, and we’ll get the rest of the gang later.
