American Policy Center » 2009 » January
- Tell Senators to Keep E-Verify out of Stimulus Bill!
- Contact Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Tell him to keep E-Verify, or any component by any name, out of S 331.
You can phone Senator Reid at (202) 224-3542, fax him at (202) 224-7327, or email him via this web form. - Contact Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Tell him to keep E-Verify, or any component by any name, out of S 331.
You can phone Senator McConnell at (202) 224-2541, fax him at (202) 224-2499, or email him via this web form. - Contact your Senator. Tell them to keep E-Verify, or any component by any name, out of S 331.
You may reach your Senators by calling (202) 224-2131. A switchboard operator will connect you directly with the Senate office you request. - Forcing International Agendas Through Local Mayors
- Walker's Misinformation Campaign Against Tom DeWeese Continues
- The Battle to Stop the Constitutional Convention
- TxDot Plays Opossum Over TTC
- New GOP Chairman should remove Party from the International Democrat Union
January 30, 2009
| 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! |
Everyone knows the “stimulus” package is a fraud, loaded with every Socialist’s shopping list. The package will fund everything from Amtrak, to climate change research, to a new version of Hitler Youth (Americorp). But hidden down in its depths is something even worse – Government control of hiring called E-Verify.
The Congress couldn’t pass this dangerous legislation on its own, so as usual supporters tack their trash on to “must pass” legislation.
Worse, those supporters are being helped by powerful forces who are selling this monstrosity as a must-have tool to stop illegal immigration. They are lying! E-Verify will do NOTHING to stop illegal immigration.
We must stop E-verify!!
Here are the facts:
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (HR1, S336), or so-called economic stimulus bills, contain an earmark to renew the fatally flawed E-Verify program in the United States for another five years beyond it’s scheduled expiration date in March of this year. This very dangerous program must be stricken from any Senate version of the stimulus bill.
E-Verify has nothing to do will illegal immigration and everything to do with global surveillance and total government control of your lives. The Senate loves immigration reforms, but E-Verify must be stopped, and we cannot do it without your help!
E-Verify is grossly ineffective in its stated purpose, and as APC has written many times already, E-Verify, once fully-implemented as intended, will require every true American citizen to first receive approval from their federal government before they may be employed in their own country.
NO GOVERNMENT, not local, state, or national, must ever be given total control over whether American citizens can support themselves and their families!
Independent analysis of existing government databases have found unacceptably high error rates. Currently those voluntarily using E-Verify have experienced near double-digit error rates.
Now, this new bill will force more than 7 million employers to verify the legal status of more than 160 million current employees, as well as the millions of future hires. That means that potentially, as many as 17 million citizens and legal US residents will be mistakenly found “ineligible” to work. Besides, illegals and those employers wishing to hire them can simply work under the table, paying cash, hiding the transaction from any official source. Illegals don’t regularly file income taxes, so the hire isn’t hard to hide.
The fact is, illegal immigration is happening because the U.S. government refuses to do its job to secure the border and stop the flood of illegal aliens from rushing across it. Even though Congress has passed legislation demanding that a fence be built, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is dragging its feet, holding up the project. Moreover, DHS is fighting efforts in local communities to allow police to arrest illegals. There is little effort to tighten visa security, or allow law enforcement to track down and deport those who stay here past their allotted time. Those illegals caught committing crimes are still allowed to leave, only to easily and surreptitiously return at their will. The border is a sieve. There is no border control – period.
Rather than work to strengthen the borders and take steps to stop illegals from getting here in the first place, many now seek “internal enforcement” rather than the “rule of law.” In other words, take action after leaving the barn door open.
Instead of doing its job, government now wants to put all the blame and responsibility on American business. Jobs, they say, are the draw to illegals, so business should be the first line of defense. This may sound appealing, but it can have dire consequences if a nation desires to remain free.
Through use of the E-Verify program, an electronic employment verification (EEV) program, DHS proposes employers check the Social Security databases to verify Social Security Numbers to determine if someone is a US citizen. Yet everyone should know by now how thoroughly compromised the Social Security Administration is; identity theft is probably the U.S.’s largest growth industry.
The federal government has proven it has no ability to safeguard the records in its current databases. And the more databases established, the more opportunity for theft. Recently, federal employees have been caught “sneaking a peek” at the passports of a large number of celebrities and even presidential candidates including Barack Obama, John McCain and Hillary Clinton.
Moreover, illegal immigration is big business for some very bad people. They have the means to collect social security numbers (think about all those reports of laptops containing personal records including SS numbers being stolen out of cars and air ports). It’s not hard. But if your life depends on its security, then E-Verify is your worst nightmare.
In August of this year, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) lost a laptop computer which contained the records of 33,000 people who had signed up for its pre-screening program, designed to give travelers quicker access through airport security. The unencrypted information in the database included names, addresses, driver’s license numbers, passport numbers, Social Security numbers, Alien registration numbers, and current credit card numbers.
E-Verify is a sick joke; it not only does not guarantee an applicant has legal authority to work in our country, but legal employees are the ones who will suffer most. If, when applying for a job, a legal American’s name is thrown out of the system, the potential employee has only 8 days to fix the problem. That means taking time to go to the Social Security Office, between the hours of 8:30am and 5:00pm, Monday thru Friday and sitting in an overcrowded, overwhelmed office waiting for a bureaucrat to maybe fix the problem. If they don’t do this they will be fired from their job. This is not how a free society operates.
One of the greatest threats from establishment of a system such as E-Verify is the creation of perhaps unintended results. As Cato’s Jim Harper surmises, “The things to make a system like this impervious to forgery and fraud would convert it from an identity system into a cradle-to-grave biometric tracking system.”
“Mission Creep” is the commonly used description for a program designed for a specific purpose, but is later used for much more. A prime example of mission creep is the Social Security System itself. It was designed specifically as a means for people to deposit money into a government program to provide for their retirement years. Today, there are those who want to take its databank of users and transform it into an identity system to prove American citizenship, using the excuse, “Well, it’s already there!” That’s mission creep.
As reported in the beginning, DHS Secretary Chertoff intends to increase the E-Verify system to include biometric photographs and extended databases. On numerous occasions Secretary Chertoff has expressed his desire to create a national identification card that would include near complete information on its bearer. This would include job, medical, tax, and school records. It would also include biometric and facial recognition, with RFID microchips that could monitor the whereabouts of every American.
E-Verify is one tentacle of the octopus that will be global biometric identification cards and total global surveillance and control! Is it worth it for Americans to endure an existence in a well-controlled matrix of surveillance simply to catch some illegal workers? Communities across the nation are proving that illegals will stop coming here – in fact actually leave – if they are made to feel unwelcome.
E-Verify sets the stage for a national workforce management system with which government can decide who works and who doesn’t. It is designed to ultimately subject all Americans to an intrusive global surveillance system as the information in DHS databanks is being transferred to international systems through such DHS partners as American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO).
The federal government has been given the mandate by the people to close the borders and keep them out. It doesn’t require cradle-to-grave biometric tracking of every legal American to accomplish that task. Facts show that such “internal enforcement” would not reduce the illegality, it would promote it.
Border security combined with real efforts by the government to keep illegals out of the country will do much more to stop the flood than by chaining American citizens to massive, all knowing surveillance data banks.
In short, E-Verify is part of an emerging surveillance state that can and must be stopped now – before it’s too late!
ACTION TO TAKE
We must counter the massive E-Verify Support effort now flooding Capitol Hill. We must call the Senate and demand that the E-Verify provisions in the stimulus package be removed (Frankly, telling them to trash the whole stimulus package is the best idea, but at least E-Verify must be removed).
Visit the American Policy Center website
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!
January 29, 2009
By Tom DeWeese
In June 2005, I reported on the UN’s efforts to recruit the nation’s mayors to directly impose Sustainable Development policy into our local communities. The Mayors weren’t there to simply discuss policy, they committed to an agenda with specific goals. And the results are now clearly being seen in more than 400 communities in 48 states.
First, let me define the policy I’m talking about and describe where it came from. Sustainable Development is the direct opposite of the type of locally elected representative government our Founding Fathers organized for the United States. Sustainable Development expert Michael Shaw explains, it “is the process by which America is being reorganized around a central principle of state collectivism using the environment as bait.” In fact, the policy involves every aspect of our daily lives from food processing and consumption, to health care, to community development to education to labor, and much more. The blue print for sustainable development came from a United Nations soft law policy called Agenda 21, first revealed at the UN’s Earth Summit in 1992.
The best way to understand what Sustainable Development actually is, can be found by discovering what is NOT sustainable. According to the UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report, items for our everyday lives that are NOT sustainable include: Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paved and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment (capitalism, free markets). There are many more specifically listed on UN documents, but these examples should show clearly how Sustainable Development is not compatible with a free society.
It’s interesting to note that most of the Sustainable Development agenda has not been implemented through congressional legislation, rather through the use of government grants, Executive Order and Public/Private Partnerships between government officials and global corporations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as through non-elected boards and committees. As a result, under the banner “going green,” it has become official policy for federal, state and now local governments. It literally represents a revolution in the way the United States operates; yet voters have had basically no say in its implementation.
Now to the mayors. The 2005 conference was a way for the UN and its NGO cohorts to skip around Congress and head straight to local implementation. As part of their participation, the mayors were pressed to commit to specific legislation and policy goals by signing a slate of UN accords. Two documents were presented for the mayors’ signature.
The first document was called the Green Cities Declaration, produced by the United Nations Environment Programme. This document was essentially a statement of principles which set the agenda for the mayor’s assigned tasks. It says, in part, “Believing as Mayors of cities around the globe, we have a unique opportunity to provide leadership to develop truly sustainable urban centers based on culturally and economically appropriate local actions…” The Declaration is amazingly bold in that it details exactly how the UN intends to implement a very specific agenda in every town and city in the nation. The final line of the Declaration explained the UNs’ goal very explicitly: “Signatory cities shall work to implement the following Urban Environment Accords. Each year cities shall pick three actions to adopt as policies or laws.”
That leads to the second document signed by the mayors, called the “Urban Environment Accords.” The document included exactly 21 specific actions (as in Agenda 21), for the mayors to take, controlled by a timetable for implementation.
For example, under the topic of energy, action item #1 called for the mayors to implement a policy to increase the use of “renewable” energy by 10% within seven years. Energy actions items 2 and 3 dealt with reducing energy consumption. These action items are classic examples of the UN trying to go around the U.S. Congress and federal energy policy and force a backdoor implementation of the UN’s Kyoto Accord, which the U.S. has never ratified.
Perhaps the most egregious action item offered in the Urban Environmental Accords dealt with the topic of water. Action number 19 called for adoption and implementation of a policy to reduce individual water consumption by 10% by 2020. Interestingly, the UN document begins by stating: “Cities with potable water consumption greater than 100 liters per capita per day will adopt and implement policies to reduce consumption by 10% by 2015.”
There is no scientific basis for the 100-liter figure other than to employ a very clever use of numbers to lower the bar and control the debate over water consumption. One must be aware that 100 liters is equal to about 26 GALLONS per person, per day. According to the UN, each person should have less than 26 gallons each day to drink, bathe, flush toilets, wash clothes, water lawns, wash dishes, cook, take care of pets, and more.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, Americans actually need about 100 GALLONS per day to perform these basic life functions. Consider also that there this no specific water shortage in most parts of the United States. Water is not an international issue – it is a very local one. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, annual water withdrawal across the nation is about 407 billion gallons, while consumption (including evaporation and plant use is about 94 billion gallons). So, such restrictions, as outlined in the Urban Environmental Accords are really nothing more than a major campaign by the UN to control water consumption. Yet, the nation’s mayors are being pushed to impose policies to severely restrict Americans’ free use of water.
The rest of the Accords deal with a variety of subjects including waste reduction, recycling, transportation, health, and nature – as stated, issues literally dealing with every aspect of our lives. Perhaps the most outrageous promise of action by the mayors is action item #16, in which they agreed to “Every year identify three products, chemicals, or compounds that are used within your city that represents the greatest risk to human health and adopt a law or eliminate their sale and use in the city.”
There you have it. The mayors had to promise to ban something every year. Yep, that’s the UNs’ version of a free society. But here’s a question for the mayors. What if there isn’t a “chemical or compound” that poses a risk? What if the community actually needs them? What if jobs are at stake? What about private property or free enterprise? Not a consideration. The mayor’s gotta ban something anyway – he signed an agreement. That’s not to be taken lightly, with environmental protection at stake.
Consider this bit of real live insanity as an example of how serious it can get. In the 1990s, Anchorage, Alaska had some of the most pristine water in the nation. It literally had no pollution. Yet, because of government-mandated clean water standards, the federal government ordered the city to meet strict federal rules that required the city to remove a certain percentage of pollution from its water. The city simply couldn’t do it because there wasn’t that amount of pollution to be removed. But the government insisted that the law be upheld – no exceptions. Therefore, in order to meet the federal requirements (and avoid huge fines or jail terms), Anchorage city officials were forced to pollute its pristine water by dumping fish parts into it so they could then clean out the required quota. So, it is not far fetched to say that, if your mayor has to ban the ink in your fountain pen to meet his quota – ban it he will.
Again, the UNs’ meeting with the mayors took place in 2005. Today in 2008, what are the consequences? Plenty. Meet ICLEI, a non-profit, private foundation, headquartered in Canada, dedicated to helping your mayor implement all of his promises. Originally known as the “International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), today the group simply calls it self “ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability.” In 1992, ICLEI was one of the groups instrumental in creating Agenda 21. Now it is driven to help impose it from the local level of government.
Many Americans ask how dangerous international policies can suddenly turn up in state and local government, all seemingly uniform to those in neighboring communities. The answer – groups like ICLEI. The group has made its mission to push local communities to regulate the environment – and it’s having tremendous success. According to a report published by the Capital Research Center, ICLEI is now operating in more than 400 cities in 48 states (except Hawaii and South Dakota). The group is shooting for 1,000 member cities in the next three years. ICLEI is there to help the mayors keep their promises and meet their goals.
Climate change, of course, is the ICLEI mantra. That’s the real excuse for all of the draconian controls and bannings of valuable tools of civilization. ICLEI’s programs are designed to decrease each cities “carbon footprint.” That can be costly to the taxpayers. But mayors, who sign promises on UN documents to ban at least three valuable commodities per year, love them. In fact, ICLEI is very popular with the mayors and city council members because it not only shows the community leaders how to promote climate change, but it also does the work for them. Never mind that cities have to pay dues to ICLEI in order to gain access to their impressive list of programs.
Here’s just some of the programs ICLEI provides cities and towns, in order to spread their own particular political agenda in the name of “community services.” They include: Software products and associated training to help set the goals of “greenhouse gas reductions”; Access to a network of “experts, newsletters, conferences and workshops – to assure the indoctrination of city employees is complete; Toolkits, online resources, case studies, fact sheets, policy and practice manuals, and blueprints used by other communities – you are not alone; Training workshops for staff and elected officials on how to develop and implement the programs – wanna bet they never seem to mention that thousands of scientists around the world now say man-made global warming is a myth and none of these programs are necessary? Probably doesn’t make it into the workshop; Technical assistance in designing and implementing the program; Notification of relevant grant opportunities – this is the important one – money – with severe strings attached; and finally, important for the mayors, Assistance in publicizing local climate protection successes.
As the Capital Research Center’s report details, “Local governments gratefully outsource their work to ICLEI, which even offers hiring advice. The group recommends that cities hire a ‘sustainability manager’ to coordinate an inter-departmental green team representing city administrative, public works, environment, facilities, budget, economic development, planning, social services, and parks agencies to share ideas about how to improve internal operations to make them more consistent with environmentally sound practices.”
As I’ve reported endless times, sustainable development is a top down control by government, invading every aspect of our lives. The above list of interactions, even at the local level show just how invasive it can be. A full time “sustainability manager,” even in small towns, can devote 100% of his time to assure that every nook and corner of the government is on message, including the budget managers, the welfare department, and, of course, the developers. It’s not about protecting the environment, it’s about reinventing government with a specific political agenda.
ICLEI has money- lots of it, along with a lot of high-level government contacts, and they use them. The target is your local community, your home, your place of business, your child in school, your car, your light bulbs, your drinking water, your food consumption, your tax dollars, and every other aspect of your lives.
ICLEI and others are dedicated to controlling your locally elected public officials to quietly implement an all-encompassing tyranny over every community in the nation. And your mayor is probably helping them do it – in the name of environmental protection, of course. It’s not necessarily their fault. The mayors have been targeted and are now in a vice grip between international forces like the UN and Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) like ICLEI.
The United States is not a global village run by elders who hand down the rules from on-high. We are a nation of governments elected by the citizens. There is supposed to be discussion, debate and disclosure so that all citizens know where, when and why an issue is being presented – and then they are to vote on it.
Today, however, global forces which do not accept the unique American form of government sneak behind the curtain, avoiding controversy and honest debate. They target unknowing local officials, wine and dine them, and blind them with power and influence. The only possible result can be the tyranny of a powerless electorate stripped of their rights, property and self-determination.
Mayors across the nation must be clued in to the fact that ICLEI and its ilk are not their friends, rather they are the purveyors of a self-made crisis hysteria using fear rather than truth and logic to impose their agenda.
Tom DeWeese is the President of the American Policy Center and the Editor of The DeWeese Report. The DeWeese Report is now available online.
January 23, 2009
By Tom DeWeese
For the past few weeks I have basically been stalked by a guy named Bill Walker, promoting himself as an expert on the Constitution, specifically on the issue of a Constitutional Convention.
Walker has attacked my position on the Con Con, specifically my premise that once such a convention has been called and the delegates are meeting there is no way to control the agenda. In making that point, I an other opponents to a Con Con have cited a letter written by Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Berger, in which he says, as we do, that the agenda of a Con Con cannot be controlled.
Obviously the contents of that letter damage Walker’s argument. So he has set out to prove the letter is a fake. His entire premise is based on a mistaken date listed on a copy of the letter that was posted on a web site called www.sweetliberty.org. The letter posted there is not the original and it carries a date of 1983.
The actual letter, written to Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schalfly, was written in 1988. When Walker began to threaten me because I had referenced the letter, I contacted Phyllis and asked her if the letter was valid. She assured me it was, and said she would go to her files, find the original and post it on her web site, which she did. It can be seen here. Walker has made a big deal out of the fact that I hadn’t linked to the Schlafly letter on her site in any of the alerts and articles I had posted. The reason for that is quite simple. It wasn’t posted by Phyllis until after she and I talked on the phone the day after receiving Walker’s first e-mail stating his premise that the letter was a fake. I had never heard those charges prior to that and neither had Phyllis. Her immediate reaction when I told her that, was to quickly (within the hour) scan and post the original letter on her web site – which she did.
I then made a mistake. I issued a news release detailing Walker’s threats to me, and then inadvertently reinforced his delusional conspiracy theory by repeating that the letter was dated 1983. It was an error that I have since corrected, both in writing and on radio interviews I have given. The Berger letter was written in 1988 – after he had retired from the Supreme Court. Phyllis told me he wrote it to her when they were both serving on the Bicentennial Committee and she asked him about the Con Con issue. He wrote her the letter as a result. There was no sinister motive, just two policy wonks discussing an issue.
That is the story of the Berger letter. Period.
Walker also likes to accuse me of lying about my motives in fighting a Con Con. He accuses me of trying to destroy the Constitution by preventing such a convention. The fact is, I oppose it because I want to preserve the Constitution. I believe now is the worst possible time for such a thing to happen. America is too divided and there are powerful forces who seek to severely change our nation. They have stated many times that the Constitution is an antiquated document not fit for our “modern” times. I fear the changes they would make to what I consider the greatest governing document ever conceived. That is my only motivation for fighting a Con Con.
Walker doesn’t seem to understand the difference between political action and law. Resolutions introduced into a state legislature calling for a Con Con are political action. They are not law until voted on by the legislators. My action has been to attempt to persuade them from supporting such a measure, as we succeeded in doing in Ohio. To enter into debate and political action to influence the outcome of the voting process in the legislatures is my right, as protected by the Constitution. If, after my efforts to stop the Con Con resolutions, the required number of states go ahead and passed them anyway, then they become law. It’s a big difference and my actions have no association with “destroying” the Constitution. What a silly argument for Walker to make.
Further, Walker contends that 650 states have already passed resolutions calling for various Con Cons over the years. I haven’t disputed that. It may be true. Perhaps Congress has ignored them in violation of Article V, as Walker contends. That fact has nothing to do with my actions today. Since Congress has not called such a Con Con, the opportunity is still open for me to oppose these latest calls. Lawyers can deal with how Congress reacts to the Con Con calls. I will continue to oppose new resolutions as they appear.
The bottom line is Bill Walker is attempting to create a conspiracy where none exists and he is attacking people, attempting to damage their credibility, based on a false premise (a wrong date and an incorrect web site). His charges are simply comical and serve only to confuse the important Con Con debate.
Tom DeWeese is the President of the American Policy Center and the Editor of The DeWeese Report. The DeWeese Report is now available online.
January 16, 2009
By Tom DeWeese
The phone call came to my home late on Tuesday night telling me that the next morning the Ohio House of Representatives would be holding hearings on a resolution to call for a Constitutional Convention. We knew this was not good news. But the news was even worse. To our shock, records indicated that if Ohio were to pass such a resolution, it would be state number thirty-three. Only thirty-four states are needed to officially kick the convention apparatus into gear. We were only two states away! And we had only 18 hours to prepare for battle.
Now, sponsors of the resolution were not wild-eyed Leftists who sought to purge the Constitution. Rather, they were patriotic Republican conservatives who were vitally concerned about the massive spending spree and bailouts taking place in Washington, D.C. The issue, said the sponsors, was to add a balanced budget amendment to the U.S Constitution.
So why were we so concerned about the idea of a “Con Con?” Why were we ready to fight to stop it, especially if it could lead to controlling the outrageous waste of tax dollars in Washington? The reason is simple. These legislators were operating on very bad advice.
The fact is, once 34 states petition Congress to convene a Constitutional Convention, the matter is completely out of the States’ hands. There is absolutely no ability to control what the delegates do in the convention. Attempting to instruct delegates to only discuss a balance budget is absolutely impossible. Instead, once the convention starts the delegates become super delegates which can take any action they desire concerning the Constitution. In short, at the convention the Constitution can be literally put on an operating table at each delegate can take a scalpel (pen) to it and change any section or even the entire document if they desire.
Section V of the Constitution, which covers the issue of Constitutional Conventions and Amendments, gives absolutely no guidelines as to how it will be run, how delegates can be selected and who can do the selecting. Once the 34 states make the request, the entire matter is in the hands of Congress to decide.
The current Congress could control the entire delegate selection. States may not even be represented. If the states are allowed to choose delegates then what would be the method? Will the governor or the state legislature appoint delegates? Or could it be a bicameral panel or blue ribbon commission?
Or could it be a plebiscite – a vote of the people? If so, then who would be eligible to vote? Would it be all eligible voters? Or taxpayers only? Or would we possibly, in the interest of “enfranchisement” allow all citizens and potentially foreign nationals to vote for this “special election?” There are no guidelines and anything is possible.
And what would be the qualifications to be a delegate? Would it be exclusively lawyers? A mix of professionals? So-called “proportional representation” of all special interest groups – NGOs. Will some be excluded because of “extreme” convictions? What will the criteria be? All of these choices would be made by Congress – that same one now controlled by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
Now some have argued that no matter what such a convention does, it still must be ratified by two thirds of the states, making it very difficult to do bad things against the will of the people. A history lesson is in order.
There has been only one Constitutional Convention in the history of the nation – that was in 1787. At the time, the nation was held together by the Articles of Confederation. The states were having a difficult time with commerce among themselves. So it was decided to hold a Constitutional Convention to simply discuss how interstate commerce might be better organized. As the delegates were selected, some were given specific orders by their states to discuss nothing else beyond the commerce issue.
However, as soon as the delegates arrived at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, they closed and locked the door, pulled down the shades and met in secret for a month. When they were finished, they had created an entirely new nation. We were very lucky that the convention was attended by men like Ben Franklin and James Madison. They produced the most magnificent document ever devised for the governance of man.
Today, we have Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Do you trust them to produce a document of such magnitude? Or would they at least take care of the present one? We live in an era when the Supreme Court looks to foreign laws to assure our own are worthy. We live in an era when many believe that the Constitution is out of date for our times. They are itching to get their hands on the old parchment. And as history has shown, they can do anything they want to it, including writing a completely new document.
And there is more. Concerning the argument that whatever they do, the states must ratify it – thus serving as a safeguard to tomfoolery, consider this fact. The Articles of Confederation required that any changes be ratified by 100% of the states. That was the document that was the law of the land – until something else was put into place. But, when the new Constitution was put to the states for a vote of ratification, they needed only two thirds to approve it. Why? The fact is, Article V of the new Constitution was literally in power – even before the Constitution which contained it was approved. Now, what do you think Reid and Pelosi and company would do with that precedent? What if the new document said ratification only required a vote of Congress – or some special commission? The precedent of 1787 says that could happen. So much for protection in the states.
These are the reasons why my colleagues and I looked at the Ohio resolution with such horror. There has never been a worse time in the nation’s history to consider changing this grand document. The Con Con delegates could literally put the Constitution on an operating table and use their scalpels to slice it up, creating an entirely new form of government. Do Americans really want to risk that in these uncertain times?
Also, the actual number of states said to already have ratified the Con Con varies with each inquiry. Most records indicate that thirty-two states have already passed resolutions to call for a Con Con. But they did so in the mid 1970s. Those resolutions had remained dormant for thirty years. How long is a resolution good for? Does it last forever? Or does it expire with the legislature that passed it? Most sources also indicate that three of those states have actually passed resolutions to rescind their petitions. Other sources say 37 states have passed Con Con resolutions on a balanced budged issue and that 10 states have passed resolutions to rescind. Regardless of the numbers, proponents said they found no provision in Article V for states to rescind a call for a Con Con after it was made. They say it’s like trying to “unring a bell.” Instead they intend to push for resolutions from a full 34 states and then challenge those rescinded in court. That is not a fight any of us want to take on. The bottom line is, the situation is very confused and only these points are clear – there are no rules, no one can control what is debated and therefore the effort to press for a Con Con is very dangerous.
So there we were, the night before the hearings in the Ohio House. Already on the legislative calendar was a scheduled vote on the resolution, waiting until they could get these pesky hearings out of the way. Only they hadn’t counted on the power of our grassroots network.
My associate in Ohio, Chuck Michaelis, working with a network of organizations, was able to get 10 people to converge on the hearing room in the Ohio State House to testify against the resolution. No one was there to testify on its behalf. Meanwhile, as the hearing was underway, my American Policy Center issued a nationwide “Sledgehammer Alert” urging activists to call and e-mail Ohio legislators. As the hearing went on, hundreds of calls and e-mails began to pour in. By the time the hearing was over, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Lou Blessing, announced that a terrible mistake had been made and no vote would be taken on the resolution.
Undaunted, a defiant Senate, the next day filed the resolution there. But within a few days it was clear the battle was over. In the first week of January, the Ohio Legislature announced that the issue was dead, at least in Ohio.
However, on the same day the Ohio legislature was issuing that statement, we received word that Senator Emmett Hanger of Virginia intends to introduce the very same resolution into the Virginia legislature soon. The battle begins anew.
Update (Full News Release from American Policy Center): On January 11, 2009, I received a threatening e-mail from a man named Bill Walker. He is co-founder of a group called “Friends of the Article V Convention,” and one of the proponents of the Con Con. Walker said he had “irrefutable” evidence that at least one of the documents we were using for our anti-Con Con arguments was a fraud. He was refereeing to a famous letter to Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly from former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger.
The Burger letter is a major and damming piece of evidence against a call for a Con Con because is verifies our fears that states could not control the subject matter discussed at the convention. In the letter, Burger stated, “The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.” This is damning evidence to those who continually assure legislators that they can control the subject of a Con Con.
Walker obviously needed to discredit the letter for his own purposes, and chose to threaten me in hopes of scarring me into stopping use of it. In his e-mail to me he said, “Unless I have heard from you that you are publicly refuting the letter and thus the assertions in it, I intend to state you knew the letter was a fake all along.” He also threatened to “destroy…” my public credibility.
My first act was to verify with Phyllis Schlafly that she indeed had the letter and that it was from Burger. She did and it was. She has now posted it on the Eagle Forum web site.
APC’s position is clear. We oppose a Con Con because the subject matter cannot be controlled and we have no guarantee that we can win state ratification fights if changes to the Constitution are offered. We fear, instead that in today’s climate of radical socialism and American ignorance about the Constitution that this is the worst possible time in our nation’s history to start to mess with the greatest governing document of all time. We will continue to oppose any and all attempts to do that, no matter how noble the reason for the call. Our intention is to protect the Constitution, not, as I’ve been accused, to destroy it.
Tom DeWeese is the President of the American Policy Center and the Editor of The DeWeese Report. The DeWeese Report is now available online.
January 14, 2009
On January 6, 2009, The Dallas Morning News carried a headline which read “Trans Texas Corridor is dead, TxDot says.” The article went on to report, “The Texas Department of Transportation announced this morning that it has officially killed the Trans Texas Corridor, saying that despite the project’s visionary aspects, it is clearly not the choice of Texans.”
The fact that TxDot is taking this action to disown the Trans Texas Corridor is testimony to the incredible job by grassroots activists who have opposed the TTC and the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). We have made life miserable for these officials who have tried to force such policy on us in virtual secrecy. They’ve been caught and so they have bailed out.
The “American Land Foundation” and “Stewards of the Range”, two major opponents headed by Dan and Margaret Byfield, have been successful in organizing 9 local commissions in communities directly in the path of the TTC. Those commissions are largely responsible for delaying and blocking TTC routes.
Said Byfield, “While their statement has largely been released for political reasons, they are at least retreating and regrouping – a major victory for the nine local government commissions formed in Texas to fight the TTC…” Byfield went on to explain that the TxDot pronouncement is a direct result of grassroots opposition to the TTC. “ Since the first local government commission was formed and began using the coordination strategy developed by Fred Kelly Grant, TXDOT has had to make several changes in their strategy to implement the super corridor concept.” He went on to detail the way TxDot has changed its strategy over the past year as opposition grew:
• Their environmental studies have been delayed for over a year as they are challenged by the local governments through coordination.
• They scrambled to form “corridor advisory committees” and “corridor segment committees” all under their control to give the appearance they were listening to local citizens, after the first commissions were formed.
• They changed their preferred alternative on the I-69 TTC route after three commissions had been established on the new corridor path. (We expect them to go back to the new corridor concept if they can find a way around the local government commissions.)
• And today, they announce they are no longer pursuing the full TTC concept, making with it key concessions that indicate a step back for TxDot and the Spanish firm holding the first design/build contracts.
• Concluded Byfield, none of these concessions would have occurred if the nine local government commissions had not formed and required the agency to coordinate the project with them. Although we have caused them to alter their approach, don’t believe the headlines that the fight is over.
Opponents to the TTC should be very proud of their accomplishment in forcing TxDots very powerful and determined hand. It is a testament to the fact that grassroots activity is a powerful force.
However, we must also stay vigilant to TxDot’s next move. Just because they are conceding defeat on their first effort, certainly does not mean they are giving up. History has shown us that, when faced with strong opposition, the perpetrators of these bad polices go underground like the bugs they are and then resurface with a new plan – which is just the old plan with a new name.
Key to the real agenda is this quote from the news report: “Each of the dozens of projects that were linked together under the rubric of the TTC – including the Loop 9 project in Dallas and the I-69 project in the south – will remain as stand-alone projects.” That’s an obvious smokescreen to make Texans think the TTC is dead.
TTC opponents are not falling for the TxDot claim of surrender. Terri Hall, Founder/Director of “Texans Uniting for Reform & Freedom” (TURF) and a major activist against the TTC said, “It’s clear from the TxDOT Director’s speech, that it’s only a name change and the Trans Texas Corridor is, in reality, going underground. Hall cited a quote from the Austin American Statesman newspaper which said “Those ‘smaller projects’ will apparently include the 300-plus miles of what has been called TTC-35 from San Antonio to the Oklahoma border and the I-69 project from the Rio Grande Valley to Texarkana. But they will not be called the Trans-Texas Corridor.”
As The Houston Chronicle put it, “The renewed effort now will operate under the name ‘Innovative Connectivity Plan.’”
Said Hall, “No law has been changed, no minute order rescinded, no environmental document re-done (as is required by federal law), and there are still two contracts signed giving two Spanish companies the right of first refusal on segments of the corridor previously known as TTC-35 & TTC-69. So by every real measure, the Trans Texas Corridor goes on full steam ahead. What today’s hype was about is a political ploy to make the public go back to sleep while it gets built under a different name. While we welcome genuine responsiveness from TxDOT and a true repeal of the Trans Texas Corridor, this hardly qualifies.”
Celebrate this first victory and get ready to engage the enemy again. TxDot’s action gives us one major message – we have them scared. We can and will stop the Trans Texas Corridor.
Tom DeWeese is the President of the American Policy Center and the Editor of The DeWeese Report. The DeWeese Report is now available online.
January 8, 2009
By Tom DeWeese
The race is on for a new chairman of the Republican Party. The outcome is important because the party has become so lost over the past few decades. No longer is it the party of limited government, low taxes and free enterprise. To the contrary, under the reign of terror by the Bush Administration, the GOP had been the force behind the largest growth of government in the history of the United States: record-setting budgets and deficits, assaults on our national sovereignty, invasion of our personal privacy, destruction of private property rights, illegal amnesty, international ID cards and the collapse of the greatest economy in the world.
Yes, it’s certainly time for a change in GOP leadership and direction. The candidates for Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman include former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, former Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele, current RNC Chairman Mike Duncan, Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis, South Carolina party chairman Katon Dawson, and Chip Saltsman, the presidential campaign manager of former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Each of these candidates is working to convince the GOP rank and file that they are the more conservative candidate and best qualified to lead the Republican Party back to its roots of limited government. It’s a tall order.
But here’s a true test of where they really stand. One question every true Republic should ask the wanna-be chairman is this: Which document would you choose as the guiding principle for your vision of government – the Decla ration of Independences, as written by America’s Founding Fathers, or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as produced by the United Nations?
Do you think that is a strange question to ask a potential chairman of the Republican Party? Would you assume that he would naturally stand with the Founding Fathers? Then you are about to be surprised.
Not many Americans, particularly Conservative Republicans, have heard of the International Democrat Union (IDU), but most would be very surprised to learn the names of its membership and its true goals.
Formed in 1983, the IDU says it’s a “working association of over 80 Conservative, Christian Democrat and like minded political parties of centre and centre right.” Some of the political party members of the IDU include the German Christian Social Union; British Conservative Party; Norway Conservative Party…and the U.S. Republican Party.
In the IDU’s 2005 Declaration, issued after a meeting in Washington, DC, it stated, “Our common goal is free, just and compassionate societies. We appreciate the value of tradition and inherited wisdom. We value freely elected governments, the market-based economy and liberty for our citizens. We will protect our people from those who preach hate and plan to destroy our way of life. Free enterprise, free trade and private property are the corner stones of free ideas and creativity as well as material well-being. We believe in justice, with an independent judiciary. We believe in democracy, in limited government and a strong civic society.”
Such a statement gives one the impression that the IDU is on a mission to spread the ideals of the American Revolution around the globe. Here, at last might be an international organization that brings the good news of our own Declaration of Independence to the far corners of the oppressed world. No other document on earth more strongly declares the principles of liberty that made the United States the guiding light of freedom in the world. With the Republican Party as an active member, it would certainly be expected that American documents and principles would be the basis of policy for an international organization that declares it promotes “free enterprise, free trade, and private property.”
But a careful look at the IDU’s founding Declaration of Principles reveals a very different message. The second paragraph of the IDU document states: “Being committed to advancing the social and political values on which democratic societies are founded, including the basic personal freedoms and human rights, as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights…” That, of course, is the United Nation’s Declaration of Human Rights that the IDU document is promoting as its guiding principle.
There are two conflicting philosophies of governance in the world. One, the American view, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, states that all people have rights they are born with and that government’s only job is to protect those rights at all costs. The Declaration says that these rights are forever and unquestioned. It is the foundation of human freedom. It is what makes the United States a Republic, where the rights of minorities (even of one) are firmly defined and protected.
The other philosophy says that government grants our rights, professing that all such rights give way to an undefined common good whenever it’s warranted – which is often. That means that all so called rights are subject to the whim of whatever gang is currently in power at the time, dictating the definitions of what constitutes the “common good.” Today that is commonly called a democracy, where the power of majority rule can and does obliterate the rights of minorities.
As an example of how this second system works in practice, The Constitution of the old Soviet Union said that Soviet citizens had most of the same rights as Americans. Except that it also said individual rights were secondary to the common good. In the case of the Soviet Union, the common good was defined as creating a worldwide communist utopia where individual wants and needs simply didn’t count. We all know how that worked out for the Soviet citizens.
While veiled in language designed to sound much like the Declaration of Independence, the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights actually takes this second approach, outlining specific rights it says we should all have. It says nothing of “unalienable” rights, instead referring to “rights under the law.” Who or what is the law, according to the Human Rights Declaration? It says, “the will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.” Now, at first look, that sounds like America. Democracy. People voting – the opposite of dictatorship. But such a concept ignores the very root of American freedom – that our rights are guaranteed, no matter what the majority thinks or wants. Moreover, Article 29, Section 3 of the Declaration says “These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.” So much for “unalienable” rights.
Suppose the majority of people vote to abolish your business (Wal-Mart?) or take your home (to protect bird habitat?)? The reason is always to protect the common good, or the children, or the environment, or whatever is the fad of the day. This is called majority rule, but it is still just another form of dictatorship. It’s what led to the ravages of the guillotine in revolutionary France. It’s rule by fear; fear of the wrong gang changing the rules; fear of standing against the crowd. Majority rule is simply a lynch mob – or more graphically, three wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch.
This is the root of the philosophy entrenched in the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights. It is the basis for the political policy behind Sustainable Development and the Supreme Court’s Kelo decision on eminent domain. It’s the philosophy that dictates a common good must be served, no matter the consequences. Personal liberty must give way to the whims of the crowd.
Now, based on its endorsement of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights rather than the unique American founding document – the Declaration of Independence — this destructive, anti-human philosophy is entrenched and being passed off as freedom by the International Democrat Union. The IDU is an international organization that dares pretend to speak for those of us who advocate limited government and human liberty. The IDU documents are filled with rhetoric about compassion for human rights. Yet, does it show compassion to support policy that says no one’s property is safe from confiscation; no one’s dreams may be fulfilled if they aren’t approved by a jealous mob?
Is this truly what the Republican Party now supports? Well, that’s a question for those candidates now campaigning for its chairmanship. All say they seek a new direction to move the party back to its roots. So here is the question every Republican in the grassroots should ask each of these candidates: Will you remove the Republican Party from the International Democrat Union and again use the Declaration of Independence as your guide for the proper role of government? It’s a fair question they should be ready to answer.
Action to Take
Every concerned American should directly ask each of the candidates for the GOP chairmanship if they intend to remove the Republican Party from membership in the IDU. Their answer will tell you everything you need to know about their philosophy and political goals. If they refuse to act on the IDU then you will know they have no intention of restoring the Republican Party to its roots of Constitutional-mandated limited government, free enterprise and individual rights.
Write to each candidate at their personal website -
1. Ken Blackwell: http://kenblackwell.com/
2. Saul Anuzis: www.anuzisforchair.com/
3. Mike Duncan: www.mikeforchairman.com/
4. Katon Dawson: www.katondawson.com/Home.html
5. Michael Steele: www.steeleforchairman.com/
6. Chip Saltsman: http://chipsaltsman.com/
Most, except Duncan, can be contacted on Facebook, and all (except Duncan) can be reached on Twitter.
As Grover Norquist (president, Americans for Tax Reform) said, “Never again should the RNC chair be appointed by anyone. Every center-right activist should have a say in questioning the candidates and communicating with RNC members who cast votes…just like lobbying your Congressman and Senators. The route to a freer America begins with each of us caring enough to engage on this first election in the campaign for 2010, 2012 and beyond.”
Tom DeWeese is the President of the American Policy Center and the Editor of The DeWeese Report. The DeWeese Report is now available online.
