North American Union Moving Forward

This week, President Bush will be meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon at the Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello resort in Canada. The topic of discussion will be the Security and Prosperity Partnership. While the White House continues to dismiss the North American Union as a "silly conspiracy," documents obtained in FOIA requests suggest otherwise.

The Washington Times picked up this story on the front page today. I found one paragraph of this story specifically interesting.

"The White House dismissed suspicions of a coming North American Union as a 'silly' conspiracy theory. 'Americans are going to remain Americans, Canadians are going to remain Canadians and Mexicans are going to remain Mexicans,' a senior Bush administration official said on the condition of anonymity."

The irony? Even when the White House is trying to dismiss claims of the North American Union it has to use anonymous officials. Why didn't it come right out and say, this is not a plan to cede away American sovereignty? Because that would be denying the truth.

Worldnetdaily.com reported that 21 members of Congress sent a letter to President Bush urging him to open up the backroom deals being made about the SPP.

"The last paragraph of the letter called upon the president 'not to pledge or agree to any further movement in connection with the SPP at the upcoming North American summit.'

"The letter concluded that, 'in the interest of transparency and accountability, we urge you to bring to the Congress whatever provisions have already been agreed upon and those now being pursued or contemplated as part of this initiative, for the purpose of obtaining authorization through the normal legislative process.'

"Signatories to the letter included the following members of the House of Representatives:

• Rep. Terry Everett, R-Alabama
• Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-California
• Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colorado
• Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas
• Rep. Nancy Boyda, D-Kansas
• Rep. Walter Jones, R-North Carolina
• Rep. David Davis, R-Tenn.
• Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Georgia
• Rep. John Boozman, R-Arkansas
• Rep. John Duncan, R-Tenn.
• Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Virginia
• Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia
• Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Florida
• Rep. Sue Myrick, R-North Carolina
• Rep. Jo Bonner, R-Alabama
• Rep. Gary Miller, R-Calif.
• Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa
• Rep. Greg Walden, R-Oregon
• Rep. Michael Rogers, R-Alabama
• Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Michigan
• Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Alabama
• Rep. Todd Akin, R-Missouri

Thankfully members of Congress and the media are picking up on this plan to cede away American sovereignty.

GOP just doesn't get it

Yesterday, at the St. Petersburg Chamber of Commerce, Republican Party chairman Mel Martinez confirmed that, sometimes, the GOP just doesn't understand. Sen. Martinez scolded Republican presidential candidates Giuliani and Romney for taking a tough stance on illegal immigration and opposing the President's immigration reform. The St. Petersburg Times reported.

"Presidential contests are about leadership. ... It's about leading on the tough issues," Martinez told the St. Petersburg Area Chamber of Commerce. "It was easy to say, 'This wasn't good enough, this isn't right, I don't agree with Martinez.' ... But at the end of the day what is your answer? How would you solve this?"

Well the first step is to deport illegal immigrants, put the national guard back on the border, and toughen penalties against employers. And do not grant illegal aliens amnesty.

Isn't it simple logic, that if you increase some thing's desirability that more people will want it? Well how about offering citizenship in the greatest country in the world to the people of a corrupt third-world country? That's a pretty big incentive. And it will only increase the number of immigrants who seek to cross the border illegally.

Why doesn't the Republican Party get it? When tens of thousands of people called their senators to oppose the immigration bill, didn't that send a clear message? When GOP donations dropped off by almost 40 percent, didn't that send a clear message? The American people do not want amnesty, and they don't want illegal immigration. What ever happened to politicians representing the people?

Well, thankfully, most of the Republican Senators did represent America, and voted down the bill. Yet, Sen. Martinez still finds reason to criticize.

Georgetown professor Yahya Hendi spoke at a gathering of Saudi Arabians yesterday, saying that Muslims are improving their image and position in society. The Washington Times picked up this Reuters news clip.

"Mr. Hendi said U.S. Muslims were working on 'nationalizing' Islam as part of the fabric of U.S. society, including cutting funding links to Muslim countries.

"Mr. Hendi, who met with President Bush days after September 11, said Muslims exhibited a tendency to shun political action such as voting and running for office because it was considered akin to surrendering to U.S. culture."

This position contradicts itself sorely. If Muslims want to integrate in our society, then they will have to realize that voting is a basic part of being a responsible citizen. And just for the record, that holds true for the 50 or so percent of eligible voters who do not exercise this right.

But seeing voting as a submission to U.S. culture is a fundamental flaw. Our forefathers died for the right to have a Constititutional Republic. Voting is not U.S. culture, it is basic freedom and liberty. And Muslims see this as weak and surrender, at least, according to Mr. Hendi.

Now, Mr. Hendi presents a rather tame image of Islam. However, the website Their Own Words presents a startling counterpart to this image. Ahmad Bahr, Acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council said on Sudan TV said, "America will be annihilated, while Islam will remain… Allah is greater than America, by whom many are blinded today."

"We should have no conservatives in the media"

With liberals trying to resurrect the unconstitutional Fairness Doctrine, society has increased its scrutiny of the media. And while Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton attempt to censure conservative talkshow hosts, the liberal print and television media has gone mostly unmentioned.

News Corp. owner Rupert Murdoch has drawn much attention recently. He finalized purchase of the Dow Jones company, including a much debated takeover of the Wall Street Journal. While DJI owners the Bancroft family fought off the Murdoch empire for several months, after much negotiation and haggling over editorial protections. the Wall Street Journal is now apart of the Murdoch machine.

Many journalists have decried the Murdoch takeover. Hopefully, he will provide one avenue in print media where conservatives can get a fair hearing. But that is exactly what liberals don't want - a fair hearing.

What, you say? Liberals want to censure conservatives? Absolutely.

Robert Licter, director of the Center for Media and Public Affairs said, "Murdoch brings together two things that many journalists think ruins their profession: money and conservatism."

Money ruining journalism, perhaps. But conservatism?

There you have it. From the horse's, or more appropriately, the donkey's mouth. The Fairness Doctrine has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with suppressing conservative freedom of speech.