Letter from Nathan Sproul....

Click on each page to make larger:

Hiring law must be free of flaws - By Glenn Hamer

Hiring law must be free of flaws

Jul. 14, 2007 12:00 AM

"Despite the courageous efforts of Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl, Congress was
unable to enact immigration reform this year. The unfortunate result is that
state governments feel they should address the issue.





Last week, Arizona was among the first to impose strict regulatory
requirements on businesses meant to curtail the hiring of illegal workers.


The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry has long believed, and federal
law requires, that employers who knowingly hire illegal workers should be
punished. However, we oppose legislation that burdens legitimate business,
increases government regulation and makes Arizona a less desirable place to do
business.


In Gov. Janet Napolitano's signing letter she points out several flaws and
omissions in the bill. The Arizona chamber shares her concerns and the
admonition that "we must not harm legitimate Arizona employers and employees as
we seek to curb illegal employment practices."


The governor also notes the new law does not protect critical
infrastructure. Vital services, like hospital emergency care, could be shut down
if someone in human resources makes a mistake. A business with multiple
locations could have to shut down its entire operation because of an infraction
at only one location.


The governor also says that enforcement of the new law is underfunded and
that it does not protect legal workers from discrimination.


Most troubling is the mandate that all businesses use the federal Basic
Pilot Program by Jan. 1. Basic Pilot is a flawed program that is not ready for
prime time. It has a significant error rate at 4 percent, according to a
congressional audit conducted last year. It does nothing to prevent identity
theft and has trouble verifying Hispanic surnames.


A Department of Homeland Security official said it is "impossible" to
accommodate the tenfold use increase in such a short time.


Additionally, the new regulations will increase the cost of doing
legitimate business in Arizona. When the cost of doing business goes up,
Arizona's competitive advantage goes down.


The governor has expressed an interest in holding a special session to
address the law's trouble spots. We encourage her to do so.


This would allow legislators to improve certain provisions of the
bill.Ultimately, we cannot let our federal delegates off the hook. There are a
number of actions the federal government must take before Arizona's law can take
effect.


It is important that kinks in the Basic Pilot Program be worked out to meet
the coming demand. This requires sufficient resources to bring the program up to
speed. These fixes will make Arizona's law more workable, but we can't stop
there.


The only real solution to our immigration crisis is to have uniform,
comprehensive reform at the federal level."

- Glenn Hamer, Phoenix

The writer is president and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Glenn is the past Executive Director of the Arizona Republican Party.

Bruce Ash's Commentary - Gabby Giffords & Her Secret Earmarks

Arizona's Republican National Committeeman BRUCE ASH
has an excellent audio commentary this week:

Gabrielle Giffords and her secret earmarks

CLICK BELOW TO LISTEN:

Bruce Ash's Commentary

Gabby "Pelosi" and her liberal pals can't answer
the questions asked by Bruce.

Liberals Move to Silent Opposition By Jonathan Tallman

Welcome our newest Blogger - JONATHAN TALLMAN

Liberals Move to Silent Opposition

Wednesday, June 27, 2007 11:26 PM
By Jonathan Tallman:

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." To many Americans, that phrase represents one of the great freedoms that this nation was founded on: freedom of speech. As long as we have been a country, we have had soldiers, politicians, lawyers, and everyday American people stand up to protect that tremendous freedom that we possess. Regrettably, the Democrats in congress now seek to sensor those who disagree with their point-of-view.

You might think I'm crazy and overreacting, but the facts tell it all.

What I am referring to, is an updated version of the Fairness Doctrine. This doctrine, put out by the FCC in 1949, set out to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance". By 1987, the FCC overturned the act because they believed that it not only was a violation of the First Amendment, but that it actually prevented constructive conversations with the nation's toughest issues. Now, Senators John Kerry, Diane Feinstein, and Dick Durbin are setting out to once again make this law. Why you ask? To make broadcasting more fair and balanced. Wrong! The Democrats have lost the war of the radio shows, and the only way they can shut down the popular conservative radio shows is by putting these unconstitutional strains on them. The Democrats' belief; if you can't win the debate, stop the debate.

The Supreme Court stated in the Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo decision that the Fairness Doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate". The shock of it all, this doctrine won't just deal with radio; it will deal with television, radio, internet, and any other form of broadcasting where a license is required. That means that any 24-hour news channel needs to abide by these needs. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity will no longer be able to choose whom and what is discussed on their radio shows. Bill O'Reilly, watch out, you may have just criticized too many Democrats in your time. What Democrats fail to realize is that this law will need to apply to their kind as well. Michael Moore would no longer be able to go on his tireless rants without having the opposition there biting at his ankles. Television channels couldn't show a Democrat spouting off about the Bush Administration without a Bush fanatic at their heels.

I am the first to say that their is extreme bias in today's news. CNN, ABC, and of course, CBS, have all favored the liberal line of thinking. Although it drives me insane that the media doesn't look out for the best interest of peoples' minds by reporting both sides of the story, I cannot bring myself to support such a piece of legislation.

I would love to have fair and balanced news no matter what channel I go to, but I would much rather have the liberal bias spread throughout the television airwaves then take away one bit of freedom from our great Constitution.

Jonathan Tallman is a seventeen year-old entering his senior year at Honesdale High School in Honesdale, Pennsylvania. Jonathan is a conservative teenager who is very compassionate about local, state, and national politics. He first began to follow politics in third grade during the impeachment trials of President Bill Clinton. His first presidential election that he was involved with was Bush/Cheney ‘00. Jonathan was president of his class both his freshman and junior year. His sophomore year, he served as a student council representative. In the summer of 2006, Jonathan attended the National Youth Leadership Conference for ten days in Washington D.C. Locally, Jonathan has served as Wayne County Chairman for Swann for Governor 2006. He also served as a committeeman for Senator Rick Santorum in 2006, and a committeeman for Bush/Cheney ‘04. During the Republican primary of 2007, Jonathan worked on attorney Mark Zimmer’s judicial campaign. From 2005-2006, Jonathan served as Pennsylvania’s Youth Coordinator for the Draft McCain Movement. Jonathan also serves as president of the Healthy Alcohol-Free Teens, a group who works to provide alternative activities for teens other than drinking. He is also the president of the Community Foundation, a group that gives grants to local students for public works projects. Jonathan’s school activities include Mock Trial, 2004 Mock Presidential Debate (Jonathan portrayed President Bush), varsity basketball manager, varsity baseball manager, and freshman football manager. In 2005, Jonathan served as an Honorary Guest Page for former State Representative Jerry Birmelin in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives. Jonathan is a member of the National Rifle Association, Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation, and the Republican National Committee and is employed at AAA North Penn.

Response to Sen Jon Kyl

As a lifetime conservative Republican, one who has advocated for our political representatives (Sen. John McCain, Jon Kyl [Victory Breakfast 2000] and Rep. John Shadegg [multiple breakfasts] to do something for the last 20 years in Congress, I have come to the conclusion that we must now do everything we can to accomplish some kind of Immigration Reform immediately

-- BEFORE IT IS THRUST UPON US BY THE DEMOCRATS!

Thank you Sen. Kyl for finally stepping up to the plate and supporting Sen. John McCain even thought the obnoxious Ted Kennedy is involved. We now have nothing to lose - the direction of our Party over the last few years toward the intransigent Social Conservatives has guaranteed us a minority position for the immediate future. When I heard Ed Gillespie here in Phoenix for the first time in the late 90's, I felt we were on the wrong track. Let's try to get back on track!

Dr. Bev Cuthbertson

Bev is the Founder of the Grand Canyon Pachyderm Club, former LD-6 Chairman, and a retired Educator & Education Activist.

DEMS LIKE GOP — LIKE NEPOTISM - By Dick Morris

Published on TheHill.com on June 20, 2007.

Printer-Friendly Version

Anyone who wonders why Congress has a job approval rating of 23 percent, seven points lower than even Bush’s, need only look at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) failure to change the ethics of the Congress. Having pledged to make Congress full-time and put the lackadaisical members to work, she then announced a schedule for 2007 in which House members will have 20 weeks off (and when they work, it’s Tuesday to Thursday most of the time).

Now Pelosi has come up with her own version of the No Child Left Behind program by asking the Defense Department to allow adult children of members of Congress to accompany them on their taxpayer-funded travel abroad if their spouses can’t make it. Such heartfelt concern for the lonely congressman on a publicly paid junket may be her version of family values, but it is a waste of tax money.

To understand the depth of the abuse of taxpayer-funded travel, look at one of Pelosi’s favorites, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.). Miller has been to the following places for free on the taxpayer’s dime between 2000 and 2006:

Mexico, Lebanon, Cambodia (twice), Israel (twice), Vietnam (twice), Jordan, South Africa, Iraq, France, Italy (twice), Hong Kong, Sudan (twice), Taiwan, Ghana, Laos, Liberia, Egypt and Cape Verde.

And Miller does not belong to any congressional committee that deals with foreign relations! During the same period, he has been to 20 other countries for free, paid for by the Aspen Institute. In all, Miller has spent 161 days traveling courtesy of Aspen.Pelosi’s proposal — and the abuse of free travel by members like Miller — explains why voters can’t stand Congress and illustrates how little improvement there has been under the Democrats.

When his dad became Speaker of the House, Joshua Hastert, son of Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), moved to Washington, closed his record store back home and joined a lobbying firm. He found latent skills at lobbying members like his dad that he never knew he had. Google, recognizing these mythical abilities, hired him as their lobbyist. The Democrats went crazy criticizing abuses like these.

Now that Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.) is the Democratic floor leader, he has not just one but three sons — and a son-in-law — who are lobbyists. One of Reid’s sons, and his son-in-law, has lobbied in Washington; a second son lobbies for the same interests in Nevada; and a third son is an attorney who litigates for them in court.

Reid’s lobbyist-sons worked to promote federal land swaps, mining interests and the University of Nevada at Reno.

Not to be outdone, House Minority Whip Roy Blunt’s (R-Mo.) wife, Abigail Perlman, is director of federal government affairs for Altria — the former Philip Morris corporation. Their relationship is one that was hatched in lobbying. While Blunt was dating Abigail, he quietly drafted language to benefit Altria/Philip Morris and tried to sneak it in the bill that established the Department of Homeland Security — without alerting the Republican leadership.

Blunt’s mission was to minimize the sale of cigarettes on the Internet, a thorn in the side of Altria/Philip Morris. Fortunately, Hastert killed the amendment.

Of the 100 senators, the sons, daughters, husbands or wives of 20 of them are registered as lobbyists, whose job often boils down to lobbying Mom or Dad. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is typical of the conflicts that can arise in such a situation. His son Scott Hatch lobbied for the makers of ephedra while his father sponsored legislation to exempt the diet supplement from federal regulation. Scott got paid $2 million in lobbying fees, while Dad got more than $137,000 from the diet supplement industry.

While Pelosi is working on cleaning up Congress, here are a few suggestions for her:

•Ban anyone who is an immediate relative of a member from lobbying Congress.

•Ban members from hiring spouses and other immediate relatives on their official, campaign committee or political action committee payrolls.

•Ban taxpayer-paid travel by anyone but the member himself.

•Get Congress to stay in session full time, not just 32 weeks a year.If she adopted measures like these, perhaps the American voter would respect her and her party more than they apparently do.

To get all of Morris' columns for free by e mail, sign up at dickmorris.com

See Dick Morris' Latest Appearance on 'Hannity & Colmes' CLICK HERE TO VIEW

Memoirs of A Legal Immigrant - The Birth of Out-Sourcing By Horst Kraus

"It was a bright summer morning in a suburb of Chicago in the year of the Lord 1960. There I was a green card carrying immigrant in waiting. Waiting for the day I’d be permitted to pledge allegiance to a new flag in a new land and receive my certificate of naturalization. Yet this day was almost 5 years down the pike but well worth waiting for.
As a plumber by trade, my boss had sent me to a factory where our work crew, all Union Plumbers installed cooling lines to huge plastic extrusion machines and vacuum presses.

The company that had hired us was growing by leaps and bounds. New equipment arrived constantly and as quickly as we could facilitate its installation, the owners of the company found American employees to fill the jobs producing plastic gadgets from milk bottles to pill bottles from forks and knives and toys and tools all made from plastic.
That morning that made such an indelible impression on me, as we arrived, there was a picket line in front of the gate. Our foreman admonished us not to cross that line inasmuch as we were our self unionized we owed them solidarity, for whatever that meant. It did however not prevent me from asking the picketers what was their grievance.

A young whippersnapper who identified himself as a Union Steward was eager to let me know: “We have organized brother” he said, “we now have a say how this business is run” he continued, “we want job security in our contract and the talks have stalled. That is why we are on strike” I nodded condescending as he gratuitously added “we are going to stay on strike until we get job security even if we have to bankrupt the company”.

My command of the English language at that time was not good enough to engage this lad in a dissertation of economics 101 so I tipped my hard hat and went back across the street to my foreman who had notified our office and we all were ordered to come back to our shop.
It was no more than 6 or 7 month later when I was sent again to this factory. The scene looked quite different. The picket line was no more and the parking lot was full of over-sea shipping containers.

Our assignment was to disconnect all machinery, label and catalog all the piping and pumps and filters and assist the packing contractor to load the machinery into the containers.
As it became known, that company’s union succeeded and drove it into bankruptcy. One of the multi nationals had bought all equipment and was setting up job somewhere else. Taiwan or Singapore or Formosa comes to mind but I am not sure about the destination. The old management team was offered lucrative contracts to start up the operation after it arrived at the new location. I am willing to bet, the young whippersnapper, the Union Stewart, he was not among the lucky ones. His “Job Security” had fizzled down to 6 month on State unemployment benefits.

Such began the era of Out-Sourcing."

Horst Kraus

Horst is the President of the Grand Canyon Pachyderm Club, Secretary of LD-6 Republicans

and is a successful entrepreneur and owns and operates Kraus Investments LC, among a number of other real estate holdings.

We support Senators Kyl & McCain on the Comprehensive Immigration Bill

Commenting on the article that appeared Sunday by Senator Kyl, addressing the “Senate Comprehensive Immigration Bill” we both say: “We second the motion” Doing nothing is not a viable option. Our immigration situation is in chaos and only a comprehensive measure can bring order and system back.

We understand comprehensive means dealing with all relevant details, including all aspects into one equation, thinking and acting all inclusive.

That is our reason for supporting John McCain for President in 2008. Of all the hopeful candidates in the line-up Senator McCain appears to be the only one who can comprehend the importance of cleaning up the current mess and in doing it comprehensively does guarantee there shall be no further continuing loopholes left for anyone to slip through or to manipulate.

Horst & Gigi Kraus

REPUBLICANS NEED TO ATTACK EARMARKS AND STOP WASTING TAXPAYER MONEY - By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published on FoxNews.com on June 14, 2007.

Printer-Friendly Version

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) has handed Republican lawmakers a golden (literally) opportunity to end earmarking during the current session of Congress.

(In our new book, Outrage, we highlight how abuse of earmarking costs taxpayers $64 billion — three times what it was just a few years ago.)

According to Tuesday's New York Times, Obey warned Republicans that “he would ban earmarking completely if Republicans attacked individual projects to score political points.” What an opportunity for the GOP!

Republicans forgot how to act like the fiscal conservatives they were supposed to be when they controlled Congress and permitted earmarks to proliferate. Now, they can atone for their sins by attacking individual earmarks issued by specific Democrats, and by challenging Obey to make good on his threat.

Republicans need go no further than attacking the earmarks of Congressman Alan Mollohan (D-W. Va.), who's currently under federal investigation. Until the FBI started looking at him, Mollohan was the ranking Democrat on the House Ethics Committee! (Is it any wonder why Congressional approval now stands at 23 percent in the polls?)Mollohan has a cute racket going. He gets earmarks inserted into spending bills for non-profit organizations in his home state — some of which he helped to set up — and then he goes into real estate deals with the heads of these same organizations and makes a killing.

For example, Mollohan got $30 million of tax money since 1999 for the Vandalia Heritage Foundation, which redevelops dilapidated buildings. Then, he and his wife bought five empty lots on Bald Head Island, N.C. — worth $2 million — with Laura Kurtz Kuhns, the head of the Vandalia Heritage Foundation, and her husband!He pulled the same trick by buying a farm for $900,000 with Dale R. McBride as his partner after getting McBride’s company, FMW Composite Systems, $4.4 million in earmarks to make equipment for NASA and the Marine Corps.

Of course, stopping Obey from putting earmarks in appropriations bills will require some earmark addicts among the Republicans to quit cold turkey. Specifically, the two leading earmarkers in Congress — Senators Ted Stevens of Alaska and Thad Cochran of Mississippi, both Republicans — will have to stop their massive spending of taxpayers’ money.

Senator Stevens got $325 million in earmarks in the 2006 appropriations cycle, which works out to $500 for every man, woman, and child in Alaska. He lavished our money on a $1.3 million program of berry research, $1.1 million for alternative salmon projects, and $500,000 for fruit and berry crop trials.

Senator Thad Cochran, who postures as a fiscal conservative, spent our money for a $5.7 million grant for the Wildlife Habitat Management Institute, $1.4 million for Mississippi Valley State University, $936,000 to study “advanced spatial technologies,” $517,000 for aquaculture research, and $50,000 for cotton ginning research (presumably to supplement the efforts of Eli Whitney who invented the cotton gin in 1793.)

Republicans need to start acting like Republicans, not drunken, big spending Democrats, and stopping earmarks is a good way to start. As Dave Obey might say, "be his guest!"_______________________________________________________________________________
To get all of Morris' columns for free by e mail, sign up at dickmorris.com

Special Thanks to Dick & Eileen for allowing us to post this on Politico Mafioso...

THE SAME OLD STUFF, NOT EVEN REPACKAGED - By HJS

But the expiration date was last week

According to USA Today, President Bush is offering to back an amendment to use new fees, fines, and collections to pay for increased border enforcement, estimating the total to be around $4.4 billion. Senator Lindsey Graham had proposed that amendment previously. The newspaper quotes Tony Snow assuring us that "The money would always be set aside for border enforcement." To clarify my meaning of border(s), I refer to the border between Mexico and the United States, and between Canada and the United States. I do not refer to the external border around the so-called North American Community,

That offering from the White House is about as credible as President Bush on anything concerning border security; to me his credibility is nil on that subject. It seems to me that the fines and fees, if any are ever charged to the illegal amnesty-seekers, will be paid for out of the illegal Earned Income Tax Credits the Democrats want them to have. And what about the employers who have been hiring illegal aliens? What fines are they going to be assessed? Prison sentences? Scooter Libby was axed for lying to Feds? What have the employers been doing? Haven't they been lying to the IRS and Social Security, and others? And do the illegal aliens who illegally supplanted Americans in their jobs--give those jobs back? Or is the administration going to continue the same lie of "jobs American don't want"? Rest assured, as soon as any bill is signed, any enforcement of anything except amnesty will be withdrawn. The president, the Democrats, liberals in general, and global businesses want those borders open. They have remained open since the last amnesty bill, which was supposed to secure them. This administration for almost seven years has not secured them. Does anyone really and truly believe that any "Immigration Reform Bill" or any other bills for that matter, are going to close the borders? We want to trust the president and we need to trust him, but we cannot with anything concerning Mexico. The slooooow fooot-draggging of the Corps of Engineers in fence building is just one of the visible signs.

The newspaper went on to say that President Bush agreed that "The need for reform is urgent. Our immigration system has been broken for years." Exactly. With almost seven years into the administration it finally has his attention? The need has been urgent since the last time the immigrants demanded amnesty! I might also ask why is the president insisting on bringing into the United States Mexican trucking companies to compete with our own trucking companies? And why would we want a Mexican airline to fly routes within the United States? Isn't it enough that Mexicans and other illegal aliens have been coming in droves to unseat Americans from their jobs (The Jobs Americans don't do--even though the Americans have to be laid off in favor of illegals who work cheaper and do not need benefits). Jobs American won't do--like construction! Yeah, right! Just whom is that man kidding? Look! The primary industry for illegal aliens today is not agriculture, it is construction! And with the builders and contractors substituting low paid workers for these construction jobs, did the price of housing decline? I am afraid that the name of that game is greed!

President Bush thanked builders and contractors for endorsing his vision of comprehensive (pro-amnesty, anti-enforcement) immigration. What builders and contractors would they be? Are they the ones that hire a legal subcontractor who has 10 or more illegals in his crew, each making less than standard wages and no benefits? Are they the ones paying under the table, avoiding payroll taxes, workers comp, and other benefits, letting them sleep in the contractor's garage--oops! I'm sorry, they're only his cousins up here on vacation the last eight months. The contractor cannot check for status: "I am not paid to be a policeman, and it's the Feds' job anyway, and the illegals are only here to feed their families." Is that one of the major reasons why the median wage earner makes less than his father or grandfather did forty years ago? Is this one of the major reasons why the rich is becoming exponentially richer and the poor lose everything--jobs, homes, families, future, and perhaps very soon their country? When a worker today needs medical treatment and has no benefits, and is turned away from a hospital with a room full of illegal aliens awaiting care, what is he to think? What are American workers supposed to think after they are laid off and watch through the fence as dozens of illegal aliens pick up the tools the American workers had to leave, and continue the jobs the Americans lost? It was bad enough when the jobs were trasnfered overseas. Now the businesses do not even bother doing that. They move you out and the foreigner in before your seat gets cold. The woman spokesman on the Amnesty Train, didn't she say her landscaping business relies on illegal aliens for labor? And nobody arrested her?

President Bush said that deporting all illegals is impractical and won't work! That is just another lie! It will not work because the administration doesn't want it and the congress doesn't want it. The liberals don't want it and big business doesn't want it. Now let me say this: There are some, SOME, among the 20-30 million that we may want to stay here for various reasons. But not if they are in jobs Americans WILL DO! The IRS knows who is who, so does Social Security. You can bet that as soon as the illegals are declared eligible for social security payments they will show up at the payment window. Will we say "Book 'em, Dano?" No way, Jose!

President Bush said "All the issues must be addressed." Well, Mr. President, I just mentioned a few issues that permeate this entire country, how about addressing them! The president also said "We need to do this without animosity and without amnesty."
Well, we have seen what "without amnesty" means and we are not buying it. And without animosity? How dare the president who said what he said about us last week, talk about animosity? We, friends, are Americans and we know what is right for America. And what George W. Bush is pushing is definitely not right for America. Animosity?

Almost every person in this country is either an immigrant or from a family of immigrants. Our parents, grandparents, or great-grandparents came to this country to adopt it as their country even before the country adopted them as citizens. They loved this country and fought and died for this country, for their neighbors, never asking if this or that war was legal or sanctioned by some inept international organization. They lived and died defending our way of life, and the rest of us worked and lived along with our neighbors to make this country better. Of all of my relatives and the families of friends from all over, I do not know of a single instance in which one of them came to reconquer any parcel of America and give it to another country.

What we ardently want for this country is for every other country to have its fair share of legal immigrants to come here every year. I said before that we do not care what nationalities, what races, or what colors seek legal refuge in our shores, as long as they, like immigrants of the past, want to be Americans like us, and to adopt as their own our civilization and our culture. We are not a multicultural society and should not be--the catastrophe of Europe should be a lesson for everyone on that subject. But 20-30 million people arriving illegaly from one country all thinking it is their birthright, does nothing good for our culture and civilization; it paralyzes the civilization and causes nothing but trouble of all kinds. Look at our border areas and the signs and placards of the racist anti-American organizations--just read and hear what they think of us! "We belong here, Gringo, you don't."

The president said that "doing nothing is not a solution." That is strange! Wasn't that his solution for almost seven years now?" Wasn't that President Clinton's solution?

Let me pose a very simple question. Since 9/11, we lived with the terrible fear of terrorists walking into this country with dirty bombs and nuclear weapons of one sort or another, weapons that could kill thousands and make some areas uninhabitable for decades. Why wasn't this reason enough for the borders to have been sealed long before now? Why wasn't it important then? It would seem that American citizens are not a priority for some folks. Look! The borders are still not closed and the administration is holding border security hostage for a bill that they want and we don't. Who is calling the shots, Tony Soprano?

To paraphrase another governor who once ran for president: Open borders today, open borders tomorrow, and open borders forever! That doesn't appear to be the question anymore. It seems to be the solution! Forget the immigration reform bill--it's dead! Enforce the 1986 bill! Enforce the 1986 bill!

HJS

Sen. Jon Kyl in today's Arizona Republic...

Today's 'Arizona Republic' has an excellent article by

Senator Jon Kyl. Here is the article:

Reforms take first step to fixing border

Jon Kyl

My Turn

Jun. 17, 2007 12:00 AM

"Americans are frustrated because our government has failed to live up to its responsibility to control our borders and stop the flow of illegal immigration.

Since the current immigration bill was pulled off the Senate schedule a week ago, at least 50,000 new illegal immigrants have crossed over our borders.

Every day the situation continues to get worse. Something has to be done about it.

The immigration bill being considered in the Senate is far from perfect. If I were the only one writing this bill, it would be very different. But it is the first strong, bipartisan consensus for enforcing our laws and securing the border. Much of the existing law, enacted in 1986, is unenforceable - especially the requirement that employers verify eligibility for employment. To cite just one problem, employers have to rely on documents that are easily counterfeited. So it is not enough just to say "enforce the law" - existing law needs to be strengthened.

Some argue that having no bill is better than this immigration bill. That's a hard argument to make while illegal immigrants (more than 10 percent of them serious criminals) continue to pour across our borders, burdening our schools, hospitals and judicial systems, and crime and violence are rampant. Not to mention the national security threat posed by a border porous enough for terrorists to sneak across.

Ten days ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid moved to end debate on the bill. Some senators complained that they still had amendments to be considered, and I supported their right to offer more amendments.

Unfortunately, rather than work with senators to find a way to complete work on the bill, the Democratic leader yanked the bill from the floor and scheduled a politically motivated "no confidence" vote on the U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Some prematurely cheered the demise of the immigration bill. But supporters of the bill asked Reid to give it a few more days so everyone can have their say and complete action on the bill by the end of the month - and he has agreed to do so. "

TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE - CLICK HERE

Does the "Haney Rule" apply to All Maricopa County Republican PC's?

A very interesting, week long debate has been taking place over at the Sonoran Alliance that has turned into a Q & A about the "Haney Rule" regarding the punishment of Republican Precinct Committeeman who endorse ANYONE other than Republicans. Here is the rule as written in the MCRC Bylaws:

Located on Page 17 of the MCRC Bylaws:

Section 5 - Elections Neutrality
B. Endorsements of Non-Republican Candidates

No member of the MCRC shall lend an endorsement to a non-Republican candidate in any election. Should a MCRC member endorse a non-Republican, that MCRC member will lose his voting privileges, including proxies, for the rest of his term.

Does this rule apply to ALL Maricopa County Republican PC's? Let's see:

RECORDER'S INFORMATION SYSTEMS CENTER
MARICOPA COUNTY PARTY - Republican
PRECINCT BALLOT NAME ELECTION: 1006 TYPE: PRIMARY DATE: 09/12/20060473 MARCONI NUM TO ELECT: 5 SIGS 10

ADKINS, TOM ELECTED 75
QUELLAND, DONNA ELECTED 82
QUELLAND, DOUG ELECTED 84
STANFIELD, JACK K. ELECTED 75
WEIERS, JIM P. ELECTED 84

http://recorder.maricopa.gov/electionresults/092006PM.pdf

Information is on page 24...

Jim Weiers, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives, IS an elected PC in his District (LD-10). What did he do that may have broken this rule?

He publicly endorsed Liberal democrat Leah Landrum back in the 2006 Elections. Yes there was a Republican running for that office; Daniel Veres was the Republican candidate for that seat.

Does this mean Speaker Weiers will lose his vote as a PC? NO it doesn't. This rule was adopted so that the people who oppose Rob Haney can be punished.

Imagine if one of Haney's so called RINO's did this?

If your going to make rules, let's see them applied to all....

The Downtown Teaching Hospital - A Vital Cog for the Future of Arizona!

The update of our teaching Hospital in down town Phoenix is a vital health care public policy action for the future of the State. This hospital is an internal part of the downtown development for a safer and improved quality of life. In Phoenix what happens is a dog fight rather than work and collaborates to create a world class facility. This facility would fill a void in both Health care and training of new health care professionals so seriously needed.

The Speaker of the House makes the fights even worse by issuing a subpoena for ALL the records of the development of this hospital. This is of course, nothing but a cover up of our Arizona crisis of NO Leadership. The Weiers smoke screen information that was already been volunteered by the medical school and the Arizona Board of Regents.

Jim Weiers knew first hand that what was requested by the Joint Legislative Budget Committee was being compiled with and following a meeting with committee members and the President of Arizona University the requested materials where being provided. As reported in The Tucson Citizen, all the information is available on the TMC Web Site But again as reported in the Citizen “Clicking on a Web site won't fulfill a Weiers love for grandstanding.” Weiers subpoena is no more that his attempt to put his foot print on one of Arizona’s most important investments for its future.

The Banner group, The Maricopa County Hospital District and The University of Arizona have not worked collectively on what is a serious regional-state issue. Instead of solving a major problem each has put a stake in the ground to protect its self interest. The use of Tax Payer funds that where authorized by Maricopa County Tax payers to resolve the crisis of an out dated hospital.

The combining of efforts is essential for the development of this seriously needed Modern Teaching Hospital in Down Town Phoenix. Phoenix has committed to this ASU-UofA Medical College facility again with major Tax Payer funds. What leadership should be doing is rather than filing a Subpoena should arrange for these parties come to the table and combine their efforts.

Interesting contribution to this scenario is The Dean Tax that U of A has been able to fund their teaching efforts without Legislative control. Adding back the DISH funds that where sweep in short revenue years. As was done with the replacement of HURF Funds, DISH Funds should be put back into the revenue stream to support the Hospital teaching needs of Arizona. The shell game of funds again is done in the dark by our legislative leadership. This also should make tax payers as the question "What is legislative leadership hiding from the public" with their moves of funds.

Of the 24 hospitals in Maricopa County, The Maricopa County Health System is the number one health care provider by almost 30,000 patients. The next hospital is one of the Banner facilities, which may have more to do with trying to carve out the gravy in health care in down town Phoenix, as Banner wants to do with their back room deal with UofA. The teaching hospital will provide the kind of service that is very seriously in need in Phoenix and Arizona. The replacement or re-model of the current Maricopa County Hospital and keeping the 190 teaching doctors at the present hospital will help to support the growth of students in the program is achievable. This combined group will be able to continue the high quality of care being provided in this teaching hospital.

What needs to happen is a summit for all these health care providers. This must be arranged and required to bring an organization and action plan that serves the needs of this upside down situation.

The combining of the new hospitals in downtown Phoenix provides, the long rang positive cash flow for this new teaching hospital, provides Cancer treatment center. The finest burn unit in the western United States and the combined facility could be the finest in the nation.

A possible outcome is for the U of A work with The Maricopa County Health District than contract with Banner to be the manager of the new hospital. This would be a strong method to provide a true Public-Private partnership!

What this has turned out to be it is about Power and Control nothing to do with Good Public Policy.

Legislative Leadership must earn the title and provide true leadership in difficult problem--not try to buy it. The fact that Phoenix is the only large city in the United States without a Central City Medical school is again proof that Weiers has not a clue what makes up a strong and vibrant City and State.

This kind of lack of leadership must be corrected. This so called leader, who spent $200,000 of Lobbyist special interest money to beat his former seat mate, that included $100,000 money from The Republican party. Jim Weiers seamed to only be interested in his: “POWER” NOT GOOD POLICY.

Opportunity for “press” is all Jim Weiers seems to be capable of achieving. Just ask The Arizona Veterans who have lost their former Director Pat Chorpenning from the agency because of the Smoke screen Jim Weiers and Jack Harper put up to again provide cover for ZERO Leadership .

Remember the days when our elected leaders made the hard decisions no manner what the political cost was. Good direction of public policy is not done with one finger in the air to see where the wind is blowing.

Clancy Jayne

Phoenix resident,Former state legislator,Small business owner.

He can be reached at cljayne@aol.com.

Oh yeah? Jobs Americans Won't Do? Right! - By HJS

I guess by now everyone has heard or read almost everything about the raid on the Del Monte food processing plant in Portland, Oregon. As with the Swift Company raid, some of the data coming out of the raid is very interesting and shows just how far wrong the administration is in their propaganda. A summary of the details are as follows"

165 workers were detained to be processed for deportation. [That means 165 American workers would not be employed or could be underemployed.]
3 people were indicted on immigration, illegal documents, and identity theft charges.
More than 30 were released because of humanitarian concerns--with a notice to appear. (Good luck).
The Portland Mayor was critical of the process. Although he "understood" the three arrests, he said: "to go after local workers who are here to support their families while filling the demands of local businesses for their labor is bad policy." [Note the standard, sound-byte type of scripted comment that is repeated continually after such raids. It might be interesting to know who writes these scripts.]
The special agent in charge of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement regional office in Seattle had to give his own comment: "The mayor is former law enforcement and he understands that we don't always agree with the laws placed in front of us. I don't make the laws. I enforce the laws." He added the following statement: "If we need to change these laws, it's up to Congress and Washington, D.C., to come up with a comprehensive approach to immigration reform." [The statement is uncalled for from a law enforcement officer.]
Another special agent documented that only 48 of the 600 workers at the plant had valid social security numbers.
According to Federal prosecutors, 20 of the Social Security numbers being misused belonged to people 60 or older, and 29 more belonged to deceased people. [Perhaps one is yours or someone you know, mine, my deceased parents... Whoever is/are responsible for that harmful process should be good candidate(s) for tars-feathers-and-rail riding.]

More than one person involved with the company or another civil rights group characterized the raid as inhumane. "They are only here to feed their families."

[Actually, they stole into the country illegally, stole or illegally purchased Social Security documents that were faked--some of which belonged to other people--and improperly took jobs that rightfully belonged to American citizens. Right! What about the unemployed Americans who had to feed their families? How about American families ripped apart because of no jobs or jobs that do not sustain a minimal standard of living? How about hungry American children? The American worker should never be at risk of his job being taken from him--and this is what is happening--and given to someone that does not even belong inside our borders and should be deported forthwith.]

In an indirectly related story, the Feds are adding to their database (600,000 names at the moment) to find and deport alien fugitives, but many cities will not allow their police forces to assist in finding them, giving the usual excuses--but they are just not taking a chance on the politics of the situation. It is much more important to be a mayor than an honest and loyal citizen. Other groups say that aliens who stole into this country illegally and took jobs away from American citizens do not belong on a database listing criminals. I seem to recall many politicians assuring us off-handedly that it would be impossible to locate and deport the aliens. Well, of course it would be, dummy, if you tell your police forces not to help, meddle with the databases to keep illegal non-citizens from being entered into the system, and you allow immigrant advocacy organizations to keep suing the government, trying to harass and delay justice and you keep trying to intimidate the authorities.

Have you noticed that everyone that does not seem to care what happens to our American workers, Church leaders, politicians, police, advocacy groups, etc., are not at risk for losing their jobs to the illegal aliens. We have more than one egregious problem with our borders and with illegal aliens. Perhaps someone should explain it to the President; he does not seem to know. If he does know and is not taking the required action to close the borders, then we have an even bigger problem.

Lots of things can be looked at and lots of cases can be reviewed to determine how we should react to humanitarian problems that the illegal aliens caused themselves by being illegal aliens. But we should not be strong-armed into doing anything as long as the borders are open. IT'S THE BORDERS, STUPID! SECURE THEM! Until then, we will not discuss the humanitarian, economic, or other issues the illegal aliens want discussed. By the way, forget amnesty! That is not going to happen! And unless the people WE sent to Washington start table-pounding and fuss-raising to get those borders secured, someone may get their jobs too; and it won't be illegal aliens.

To repeat what I have said previously, we welcome legal immigrants to this country all of the time. We welcome people who want to be like us, to work like us and who love the things we love--freedom, seeking the American dream, fulfilling the idea that your kids will be better off than you and be great Americans. We could care less about nationalities or races or religions--we just don't care. We don't even care if you turn out not exactly like us, we just hope you'll try. And we hope you will find success. Just do the right thing to come into our country.

HJS

read the full text, click here. To see another report, click here. To read about the database, click here.

A Dying Republic? - By HJS

Republican Congressman Mike Pence said on Monday that the American people in 2006 heard the President's views on immigration reform: "There must be a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation." Unfortunately, what we heard and saw on C-Span last week was not it. It looked more like irrational pandering to LaRaza and other groups whose attitudes seem to be that it is their country, not ours. That type of attitude does not a viable candidate for American citizenship make.

Mike Pence agreed that the ultimately defeated bill was not the middle ground. The bill was described by Thomas Sowell on Tuesday as "Bipartisan Betrayal." Sowell continued that "It should be too obvious for words that decisions about who is to come into the United States and live among Americans should be made in the United States by Americans." However, he added, "In reality, however, for years that decision has been made in Mexico by Mexicans and by others who chose to cross the border from Mexico into the United States with impunity, knowing that even if they were caught, they would at worst be turned back--and could try again."

Pat Buchanan on Tuesday described the bill as "Amnesty for 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens, and for the businesses that have hired them--a bill backed by LaRaza and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, The Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post." But Buchanan also warned "But opponents of this bill, which would reward mass criminality with mass amnesty and eventual U.S. citizenship, ought not to rest. For President Bush is coming back to resuscitate the monster, and this bill has more support in the Senate than the 45 votes it got Thursday. Some Republicans and Democrats who voted not to shut off debate are privately committed to amnesty, if they can be given political cover and face-saving amendments to take home."

What Pat is not describing is government of, by, and for the people.

I have been saying continually that the borders must be secure first, before anything else is planned. It is obvious to me that since they have not be secured yet--nor have any really decent attempts been made, and the administration is holding them open pending securing from our senators and congressmen another approved amnesty bill, that there is no intention of securing the internal borders now or forever.

Thomas Sowell's take on that is "The net result has been empty promises about controlling the border, paired with various schemes to legalize the illegal immigrants, and washed down with fraudulent statements that insult our intelligence." He goes on to say, "There is no logical reason why these two issues must be dealt with together, though there are political reasons why elected officials want to do so. Passing border laws described as "tough" gives Congress political cover when they legalize the illegals."

And the underlying reason for keeping the borders open and free citizenship offered to illegals when obviously it is betrayal of American workers' interests? We have said it before, and perhaps we should say it in a different way. It is the same general reason why American companies moved out of the United States into economically depressed countries. Pat Buchanan writes, "What is the hidden agenda of the global companies, which evolved out of what were once great American companies? They want a limitless supply of low-wage immigrant labor and an end to penalties for hiring illegals. They want the freedom to shut factories here and move them to nations where wages are low, benefits nonexistent, and regulations lax. They want to be able to move products back to the United States free of charge. They want to be rid of their American workers, but keep the American consumers.

"They want to be able to go to out to Asia and hire bright kids and bring them to the United States to replace middle-age U.S. workers who cost too much. They want to be able to outsource their white-collar jobs to India at a fraction of the wages they pay Americans."

In speeches recently, I mentioned the Tennessee Ernie line: "I owe my soul to the company store." Our greedy corporations are changing that. We won't be working for that company, unless we agree to take lower than life-sustaining wages. But then we could not afford to buy nor not buy at the company store. A person is only as free as his range of options. If the bill passes as the President wants, our range of options will begin to dwindle considerably.

But the bill has not passed yet! As Pat says, "The nation has begun to awaken to the reality that the vision of the global corporation and the transnational elite cannot be realized without the death of the American republic. And so they are in a fight that is long overdue."

I for one do not want to envision the Americans under the boot-heel of the American corporations. There has to be a better way of government--and that way has been shown us by our founding fathers in our great Constitution. The people, all of them, must speak out against this sham "immigration reform" and say NO to anything that is against our interests. The first order of business is to SECURE THE BORDERS NOW, or no deal ever! Any further negotiations will depend upon how quickly the borders are secured--and I mean the North American internal borders, not just the peripheral borders of North America. And let's go back to being a republic again, a republic with jobs for American workers, and an immigration paradise for new friends from all over the world who want to be part of us.

HJS

For the full text of the referenced material, click on each of the names below:
Mike Pence Thomas Sowell Pat Buchanan

THE BILL AND THE IDEA THAT FAILED - By HJS

Some folks would like to know why the Senate immigration bill failed last week and others believe they already know. The people who really do not understand why such a bill could fail, when it was a “bi-partisan” effort and given the smokescreen name of the “grand bargain” do not really understand the situation. Of that group one might include the man in the White House who ordered it be done. Perhaps if someone explained it to him clearly, he may get the idea that when he wants something done that important, two things must be present. First, it has to be a good idea to begin with—and amnesty (or whatever it is they want to misname it) is never a good idea. And second, one doesn’t try to ram it down our throats with tasteless propaganda, and insult the Republican base when they spit it out to see what it really is they are being told to swallow.

According to Carol Platt Liebau, attorney, political commentator, blogger, and talk show host near L.A., “A New York Times/CBS poll taken May 18-23 found that 69% of Americans believe that illegal immigrants should be prosecuted and deported; 82% of those surveyed said the federal government should be working harder to ‘keep illegal immigrants from crossing into this country.’ And according to a Rasmussen poll, by a two-to-one margin (60% to 28%), Americans set a higher priority on gaining control of the nation’s borders than regularizing the status of illegal immigrants, while 75% opined that it’s very important for the United States to ‘improve border enforcement and end illegal immigration.’”

What is it about public opinion that the president and the senators did not get? The priority to the American people, according to the polls—along with the phone calls, letters, emails, bloggers, and letters-to-the-editor—was border enforcement! Were the senators so enamored with their grand compromise that they were willing to keep a totally inadequate and unbalanced bill popping back and forth over the net for another week, watching it become more unbalanced everyday and with every new amendment that plucked two feathers off for one inserted? Finally, even the senators themselves voted it unsatisfactory. Many of the people watching C-Span knew it on Monday. Many of the senators still seemed optimistic Friday morning.

According to Liebau, “Key amendments were voted down. Those who objected to the legislation did so in large part because they suspected that the bill’s supporters were not serious about securing the border and enforcing immigration laws already on the books. Their reservations were justified when a majority of the Senate defeated common sense amendments.” One of the measures she discussed was a measure from Senator Norm Coleman “that would have prohibited ‘sanctuary cities’ from passing laws preventing law enforcement from sharing information about illegal aliens with the federal government.” Another such amendment by Senator John Cornyn “would have ensured that members of terrorist-related organizations, known gang members, sex offenders, alien smugglers who use firearms and felony drunk drivers were either barred from the U.S. or prohibited from obtaining any immigration benefits.” One could prudently wonder why one party is so fond of these types of persona non grata. The American workers could justifiably wonder why such malevolent people are considered more important by one party than the workers of their own country who are losing jobs to them and who are somehow expected to welcome them here with open arms regardless of their own desperate fight for survival.

The ringing in the ears of the Senate does not have to be the death knell of immigration reform. It could also be the announcement of a new approach to the process. The people of this country said that securing the borders and enhanced enforcement should be the first order of business. We do not need a new bill for that; check the 1986 Amnesty Law. It’s in there, in case the senators haven’t noticed. There are hundreds of millions of reasons why we should close the borders and enhance the enforcement, and no reason whatsoever for not doing so! Well, there is one, but it is not a good one--a few elements in this country want those borders wide open! But the Senate could not possibly favor the too few over the so many, could they?

Once the 1986 law is finally satisfied and the people can finally give a sigh of relief, the Senate could then take up the question of how many people we actually need—from all countries from which people apply—and start looking at the best and the brightest. Oh! Incidentally, the Senate also may wish to consider compensation to the American workers who lost jobs in the past and could not get jobs because of failure of the government to maintain the border security they were mandated to do. When one considers that every action has a reaction, failure to act has a reaction also. When you don’t plug the dike and the ensuing flood ruins the crops, whoever failed is responsible. Many people have been hurt by the failure of the government to plug the leak in our borders. The government now owes them.

Read the full text:
Some folks would like to know why the Senate immigration bill failed last week and others believe they already know. The people who really do not understand why such a bill could fail, when it was a “bi-partisan” effort and given the smokescreen name of the “grand bargain” do not really understand the situation. Of that group one might include the man in the White House who ordered it be done. Perhaps if someone explained it to him clearly, he may get the idea that when he wants something done that important, two things must be present. First, it has to be a good idea to begin with—and amnesty (or whatever it is they want to misname it) is never a good idea. And second, one doesn’t try to ram it down our throats with tasteless propaganda, and insult the Republican base when they spit it out to see what it really is.

According to Carol Platt Liebau, attorney, political commentator, blogger, and talk show host near L.A., “A New York Times/CBS poll taken May 18-23 found that 69% of Americans believe that illegal immigrants should be prosecuted and deported; 82% of those surveyed said the federal government should be working harder to ‘keep illegal immigrants from crossing into this country.’ And according to a Rasmussen poll, by a two-to-one margin (60% to28%), Americans set a higher priority on gaining control of the nation’s borders than regularizing the status of illegal immigrants, while 75% opined that it’s very important for the United States to ‘improve border enforcement and end illegal immigration.’”

What is it about public opinion that the president and the senators did not get? The priority to the American people, according to the polls—along with the phone calls, letters, emails, bloggers, and letters-to-the-editor—was border enforcement. Were the senators so enamored with their grand compromise that they were willing to keep a totally inadequate and unbalanced bill popping back and forth over the net for another week, watching it become more unbalanced everyday and with every new amendment that plucked two feathers off for one inserted? Finally, even the senators themselves voted it unsatisfactory. Many of the people watching C-Span knew it one Monday. Many of the senators were still optimistic Friday morning.

According to Liebau, “Key amendments were voted down. Those who objected to the legislation did so in large part because they suspected that the bill’s supporters were not serious about securing the border and enforcing immigration laws already on the books. Their reservations were justified when a majority of the Senate defeated common sense amendments.” One of the measures she discussed was a measure from Senator Norm Coleman “that would have prohibited ‘sanctuary cities’ from passing laws preventing law enforcement from sharing information about illegal aliens with the federal government.” Another such amendment by Senator John Cornyn “would have ensured that members of terrorist-related organizations, known gang members, sex offenders, alien smugglers who use firearms and felony drunk drivers were either barred from the U.S. or prohibited from obtaining any immigration benefits.” One could prudently wonder why one party is so fond of these types of persona non grata. The American workers could justifiably wonder why such malevolent people are considered more important by one party than the workers of their own country who are losing jobs to them and who are expected to welcome them here with open arms regardless of their own desperate fight for survival.

The ringing in the ears of the Senate does not have to be the death knell of immigration reform. It could also be the announcement of a new approach to the process. The people of this country said that security the borders and enhanced enforcement should be the first order of business. We do not need a new bill for that; check the 1986 Amnesty Law. It’s in there, in case the senators haven’t noticed. There are hundreds of millions of reasons why we should close the borders and enhance the enforcement, and no reason whatsoever for not doing so! Well, there is one, but it is not a good one--a few elements in this country want those borders wide open!

Once the 1986 law is finally satisfied and the people can finally give a sigh of relief, the Senate could then take up the question of how many people we actually need—from all countries from which people apply—and start looking at the best and the brightest. Oh! Incidentally, the Senate also may wish to consider compensation to the American workers who lost jobs in the past because of failure of the government to maintain the border security they were mandated to do. When one considers that every action has a reaction, failure to act has a reaction also. When you don’t plug the dike and the ensuing flood ruins the crops, whoever failed is responsible. Many people have been hurt by the failure of the government to plug the leak in our borders. The government now owes them.

HJS

Read the full text: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CarolPlattLiebau/2007/06/11/why_the_immigration_bill_failed

I'm With Fred!

For those of you interested, Fred Thompson's Draft Fred website has changed to an official website. Not much to it yet, but here's the link:

http://www.imwithfred.com

Part Two - Youth Bulge Upheaval - By HJS

YOUTH BULGE - UPHEAVAL

In part one Dr. Heinsohn’s report, he noted his changing the Youth Bulge phenomenon to occur whenever 30 percent of the men in a population are between 15 – 29. The youth bulge is not the product of famine or unemployment, but in fact, the demand is not for food, but for positions that guarantee recognition, influence, and dignity.

After discussing Europe and the Middle East in part one, he turns again to Europe, but also discusses the United States and the welfare state in general. hjs

A class of losers- Would it not be a solution to let the superfluous sons come to Europe?“What happens in Europe is that all the countries — there are no exceptions — are ageing nations that do not fully reproduce themselves. Thus they have embarked on a process where they eat each other’s talents. Why are they not looking for talent in Africa, where the population has grown from 100 million in 1900 to an estimated 2 billion in 2050? Why not in Islam, where we have a similar population explosion? Why is America looking for talent in Germany, why is Denmark looking for Poles?

Because the third world countries do not have the educational level that is needed in the developed countries that can only maintain their position through innovation. For that purpose they need young people who have grown up in a high-tech society. It is not because Africans or Muslims are not as intelligent as others, they are just not socialised in a way that makes them useful in our societies.”

- In Denmark we now have a number of highly educated immigrants and their descendents from Muslim countries — doctors, lawyers etc. But many of them are as unintegrated as are many of the uneducated. They remain as extremist and as Islamicist as if they had not received a higher education.

“I will leave the evaluation of Danish conditions to the Danes. However, we experience the same phenomenon in England. There we have a population within the population, namely the Pakistanis, who have the highest birth rate in the country, and who are most dependent on social transfers.

In the Western countries we have a social system that is hardly being used by the local population. On the other hand there is an immigrant population whose women cannot compete in the local workforce. For Danish and German women the welfare benefits are too low to be attractive. Not so for the immigrants. So what we see in England, France, Germany and the Netherlands are immigrant women who take low-paid jobs which they supplement with public benefits. It is not a fantastic income but sufficient for them. And this creates a career type for women only, which their daughters carry on.”

“But the sons do not have this option. They grow up on the bottom of society without the intellectual skills needed to improve their social position. It is these boys who burn Paris, who burn parts of Bremen. Some of them make it to university and become leaders of the others — not poor, but young men with low status who believe that they are oppressed because of their Islamic faith, but in reality it is the welfare state itself that has created this class of losers.”

“If, on the other hand, one goes to Canada, where I have lived part of each year for the last 20 years, they have a completely different policy. They say: Our immigration policy has a simple base. Every newborn Canadian and every new Canadian who comes from abroad has to be more intelligent than those who were here before. Because only through innovation can we keep our position in world competition. Therefore I want my son to be smarter than me. And believe it or not: Of 100 adult Canadian immigrants, 98 have better professional qualifications than the Canadian average. In Germany and France the corresponding number is 10 per cent. So we went for quantity, and they went for quality.”

“And why? In Germany because people were afraid of being called racists, and it looks like all European nations suffer from the same fear of making choices.”The Fifth Village - Might some of it also be explained by the leftist parties importing their own voters?

“In France we have seen that Africans and Algerians have voted for Ségolène Royal. Add to that another phenomenon that we can observe in Germany among other places. Here some of the ‘ethno-Germans’, as we are now beginning to call them, and who make up 85 per cent of the German population, are starting to emigrate. Annually about 150 000 Germans leave the country, most of them for the Anglo-Saxon world. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are ready to receive 1.5 million well-educated immigrants yearly, and they are doing everything to ease the way for them.”

“It is no wonder that young, hard-working people in France and Germany choose to emigrate. It is not just that they have to support their own ageing population. If we take 100 20-year-olds, then the 70 Frenchmen and Germans also have to support 30 immigrants of their own age and their offspring. This creates dejection in the local population, particularly in France, Germany and the Netherlands. So they run away.”

“Europe has just finalized its immigration principles in January 2007. And they are quite different from the Canadian ones. Our first criterion for letting people into the EU is whether they have been victims of discrimination. Next principle: If the person already has family in EU, he has privileged access. Third principle: People who are already illegally in Europe should be legalized. And finally, only in fourth place do we have the Anglo-Saxon principle that the immigrant should fit into our labour market.”

“The purpose is to make Europe look stronger than the Anglo-Saxons when it comes to ‘soft power’.”“I am very pessimistic about the future. Europe’s situation reminds me of the principle that is called ‘The Fifth Village’ in Brandenburg and Mecklenburg, who have experienced population decline. So four villages are being abandoned and the remaining population is moved to the fifth village. However, that does not increase the birth rate in the fifth village. And after some time the fifth village will also be populated by old people, and there are no young people in the vicinity to work for their pensions.”

“The same will happen to the approximately 40 nations between Brittany and Vladivostok. Some of them will become Fifth Villages and will have a new lease on life, others will just implode. I predict that all the Slavic nations will implode. Same thing with the three Baltic states and all of the Balkan states. The question is whether Germany and France will become Fifth Villages. I see Scandinavia as a Fifth Village. The same thing with the Iberian Peninsula and with Ireland and England. But I am not sure the rest of the continent will make it.”

The young are leaving- But will we even deal with nations in the future? If Europe gets a Muslim majority, it is not certain that Danes, Germans, Frenchmen etc. will bow to sharia law. Might the result be that the indigenous populations will withdraw to their own enclaves, from where they will try to defend themselves, as we have seen in Bosnia?

“That is of course a possibility, but one must ask oneself who is it that will stay and fight? I might because I am more or less forced to stay here. But if I were an 18-year-old ethnic German, done with high school, then I would do like most others are already doing. I would want to study in the Anglo-Saxon world and then I would emigrate. I would not want to stay and fight. The Anglo-Saxon world needs 50 million well-qualified immigrants within the next 30-40 years, so well-qualified young people from Western Europe will have every incentive to go there instead of staying and fighting.”

“A possibility is to aim for Chinese immigration. If we in Germany had the same number of Chinese immigrants as they have in Canada, we would have 3 million. But immigration from China has not even been considered in Europe.”“China is the fastest ageing nation in the world after Germany, Japan and South Korea. We usually view China as a sleeping giant. I on the other hand see China as a source from where the Western nations will skim the best. And they will get them. Currently, rich Chinese are preoccupied with moving their riches to Switzerland because with the few children being born in China, people in their 40s have no chance of ever getting a pension. China is down to a fertility rate of 1.6 children per woman. The country is already losing 500 000 of its best every year. The young see no hope of ever being able to build a pension plan in their home country. Therefore they settle in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Canada etc.”

“In East Germany they have just decided to demolish an additional 400 000 apartments. There are no people for them, and the empty apartments ruin the banks by depressing the rents and the prices of housing. In West Germany we are also losing population. We have to stop taking the least suitable immigrants. To attract young and competent people, we might give them a house. That was the way Brandenburg secured the French Huguenots in the 17th century. But I doubt it will work today.”

Demographic rearmament?- Would it be possible to imagine that Europeans might suddenly start to multiply as a moral obligation to maintain the people and the culture? It was what happened after the British had conquered French Quebec. The Catholic priests put pressure on the French families to put up to 15 children into the world, and this demographic effort was successful.

Gunnar Heinsohn does not give much of a chance to such a strategy. It would require draconian measures, which the Europeans would not accept. Promises of money will not work except for people with little education and low status — which just makes the situation worse.

“Look at the Polish people,” says Heinsohn — who was born in 1943 in the city now known as Gdansk, but which he still calls Danzig, the son of a German submarine captain who lost his life near Newfoundland five months before his son was born. “Here is a nation with proud traditions. Poland saved Europe from the Mongols, the Turks and the Bolsheviks and ended up bringing down Communism. And yet they have a lower birth rate than the Germans. They are down to 1.2 children per woman. In addition, over the last 15 years they have already lost 2 million of their best people. Perhaps emigrants tell their parents that they are coming back, but they won’t. That is why I am saying that countries such as Poland, Latvia and Lithuania are doomed. They have no attraction for immigrants. The same thing is happening with Russia.

Who wants to move to Russia? And look at the newest members of the EU, Bulgaria and Romania. Romania is the first country in the world where there are more retirees than active workers, and we let them in. The same with Bulgaria, which has the world’s fastest-dwindling population. The young are moving out, and with a clean conscience, because they believe that tomorrow Brussels will pay for their parents. So the EU has accepted 27 million people who wanted to get inside to secure their pensions. And in the European centre they are still overjoyed to have attracted millions more than the USA. That will make us strong, they believe.”

“So I see few possibilities. However, in my book I cite the example of California, which experienced a turn-around around 1990, which meant that even the white population — excluding the Latinos, who have a much higher birth rate — went from 1.3 to 1.8 children per woman. It is not full reproduction but a significant change nonetheless. It was a huge surprise because California is the world’s most advanced region. By the end of the 1980s the prognosis was that the birth rates would continue to fall, but in the beginning of the 1990s new studies found that Californian women were no longer satisfied with just working, and shortly afterwards the birth rates went up.”

“In Europe it was dismissed with the explanation that Americans are so conservative, but that is not true in California, which has in many ways been the pioneer of the West. However, I cannot see a similar change in Europe. Of course France has 2 children per woman, but out of five newborns, two are already Arabic or African. In Germany 35 per cent of all newborns already have a non-German background, and non-Germans commit 90 per cent of violent crimes. As I have said — mothers are paid to put children into the world and so are their daughters, whereas the men take to crime.”

“Or take the Tunisian example. A woman in Tunisia has 1.7 children. In France she may have six because the French government pays her to have them. Of course, the money was never intended to benefit Tunisian women in particular, but French women will not touch this money, whereas the Tunisian women are only too happy to.”- So we need to discriminate?“That will not work. It is too late. The moment you start discriminating, you will be dragged into each and every international court in existence. This is what the Anglo-Saxon world has escaped by discriminating at the border. Not based on race or ethnicity but based on qualifications. They are discriminating against the unqualified. Yet they reject them with a friendly piece of advice. When a person has been refused entry in Ottawa or Canberra, friendly immigration authorities will advise him to go to Germany. Because they have a different system there.”

The end of the welfare state- How do you see the political situation in Europe in twenty years? No welfare state, no democracy?

“Concerning the European continent apart from Scandinavia, Ireland and England, I believe that even the pessimistic population prognoses will turn out to be too optimistic. They assume that the young people will stay in Europe and bring up their own children, but that will not happen. A study from 2005 showed that 52 per cent of the Germans between 18 and 32 wanted to leave. They might not mean it but they are entertaining the thought. The really qualified are leaving.

The only truly loyal towards France and Germany are those who are living off the welfare system. Because there is no other place in the world that offers to pay for them. America, Canada and Australia count on receiving our best qualified youths, and they will get many of them. That will put an end to innovation and put a damper on economic growth in Europe. In Germany we are already forfeiting billions upon billions in revenue because we lack qualified people to take on the jobs. We have two million jobs that we cannot fill - and a welfare-dependent population of six million, and the two do not meet. The welfare group grows each year because of new babies, but the vacant job slots are not filled.”

“It is a case of two nations that are closed off to each other. The welfare state cannot continue. We cannot hope to cover the demographic holes through immigration from China either, since the Chinese do not want to emigrate into a welfare system where they will have to pay for an ageing population’s pensions in addition to a welfare population of millions.”

“We have to say that there is only one category of people who can count on help from the government and that is the mentally or physically handicapped. Nobody else should expect help. This sounds cold and cynical but our welfare states were founded the 19th century when families had 10 children. When their father fell to his death from a scaffold, somebody had to look after the family. This is not the situation we are facing today.”

“If you go to Australia, you will not be paid to have children. You may get a slight tax relief. On the other hand a citizen of Australia can keep 80 out of every 100 dollars he earns.”- How could it go so wrong in Europe that had this grandiose vision of peace, cooperation and progress and unlimited trust in its own abilities?

“It started to go wrong around 1980. But the great turn in Germany came as late as 1990. That was when we opened the gates for a mass immigration of roughly speaking unqualified people. Between 1990 and 2002 Germany allowed an immigration of 13 million. At almost the same time it started to go wrong in France. We can only avert this burden on the welfare state through legislation. We have to pass a bill to the effect that new children born after a certain date will have to be paid for by their parents. It will be a revolution. But it is not even being discussed here in Europe.”

Clinton’s social reform“But let me point out what happened in the USA. During the election campaign of 1992 Bill Clinton, in a famous phrase, promised to ‘end welfare as we know it’. In 1935 the USA had passed the ‘Aid to Dependent Children’-act (from 1960 known as ‘Aid to Families with Dependent Children’, ed.), which guaranteed every mother with small children help from the state. Again it was a question of the father who had fallen from the scaffold, and very few received support because of this law.

However, in 1965 morals had changed. Until then it would have been unthinkable to a mother — whether she was white or black — to become pregnant, hide the identity of the father and then let the public pay for her kids. Now she did not even have to push the father out of a tall building. This caused an explosion of the number of welfare-dependent American families. From 1965 to 1995 their share rose to 10 per cent of all American families and 15 per cent of the children. That was the reality Clinton had to face.”

“Most of these welfare dependents were blacks, and that made racists claim that the problem was in the black genes. But the Republicans and the Democrats worked together on a new law, ‘Temporary Assistance for Needy Families’, which was a smart law. It told American women: We will give you welfare up to five years. You decide whether it should be five years straight, or whether you want to divide the five years into shorter periods. The new law was passed in 1996 and took effect on January 1, 1997. It caused several top officials in the Clinton administration to walk out in protest stating the law was a racist attack on the weakest — single mothers and their children. They had predicted that by 1997-98, the number of adversely affected would have grown from 12 to 14 million. As it turned out, it was these well-meaning people who were the racists. The black girls were smart enough to go on the pill with the result that the welfare-dependent population shrank from 12 million to 4 million. It was the most successful social reform in history.”

“In Europe we have not even begun to discuss such a reform.”Leave the youth bulges alone- Lately there has been a discussion as to whether we in the West can accomplish anything in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan or with populations such as the Palestinian. Why not let them fight it out among themselves? “Some American strategists are beginning to question whether the USA, with its one-son families, ought send out troops to fight populations with many sons. That is the mistake we have committed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If you have to go in because you have been attacked, then you must do it, but as soon as the danger has been defeated, it is necessary to withdraw. It is up to the Iraqis and the Afghans themselves to ensure that there is a balance between the size of the population and the number of positions society can offer. And as far back in history we look, we can see that this balance has been maintained by young men killing each other. We have done it in Europe, and it has happened elsewhere. We cannot allow them to send their young men over the borders to kill others.”

“My personal view is that when faced with a youth bulge, we should allow it to play out with the consequences we know. We should stay away. If we interfere, we cannot avoid siding with one party and help killing that party’s opponents. Then the population will see us as doing the dirty work for one side or another.

Instead we might arm the most sympathetic side, which was what the French did in Algeria after the Islamists started killing the secularists in 1992. France sent weapons aid to the secularists. Back then nobody said that we ought to send money and food to the families of the Islamists, as they do in Palestine.”