Speaker Summaries

Former U. S. Representative Bob Barr spoke to Madison Forum members and guests at the regular luncheon meeting, Monday March 12, 2007.

He began by praising the group for its outstanding leadership enjoyed over the years and an extremely active membership. He said this is one of the organizations that our elected leaders really need to turn to. The credibility that the group has developed over the years is because of the tremendous consistency of not only the positions we take, but the pro-active, positive way we present them really has developed a great deal of credibility.

Mr. Barr said that in this day and age when the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are under assault with such vehemence, it seems, in Washington and even in many of our states, its hard to avoid becoming pessimistic, and a little bit of good news is noticeable when it happens. He said he read a couple of things that happened lately that we ought to highlight, both for the American public and for our elected officials, that fall into that category of good news from a Constitutional liberty standpoint.

One is the fact that for the very first time in our nation’s history, last week a United States Court of Appeals ruled squarely that what the Founding Fathers said when they crafted the Second Amendment is as true today as it was back then; that it presents an individual right to keep and bear arms. There has not been in the course of our nation’s judicial history a U.S. level District Court of Appeals decision that squarely made that point, and the D.C. Circuit made that point in a two to one decision that was rendered last week.

There were six residents of the District of Columbia, including very strangely, a police officer who, although he was able to carry a firearm in the performance of his official duties, he could not keep a firearm at his home. He was one of six plaintiffs that filed this action against the District of Columbia gun ban which dates back 30 years. While the District of Columbia has always maintained, as have gun control advocates in several states, that they support the second amendment, but. Then they go on to support all sorts of restrictions. The Court of Appeals looked at what the District of Columbia had been doing for 30 years by virtue of its gun ban passed in 1976, and said it was tantamount to a denial of a person’s individual right to bear arms. Mr. Barr said the majority opinion is very long, but it is one of the best judicial opinions that he has seen in many years. The two judges walk the reader through the history of the Second Amendment, the Bill of Rights, the language that not only went into the crafting of the Second Amendment, but also the sources that the Founding Fathers drew on, such as the Tennessee Bill of Rights that, also explicitly, as many of the bills of rights that our colonies used, did expressly and explicitly talk about an individual right to keep and bear arms. They looked at the language of the Second Amendment. They correctly focused on the fact that the operative language of the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. The language regarding the militia is descriptive, or informative, or illustrative of a purpose for which that individual right to keep and bear arms, as noted in the operative clause of the amendment, protects. They look at the whole concept of a militia, correctly recognizing that militia has nothing to do with the National Guard, or the military, or the police force. Quite the opposite, it has to do with the people. The opinion also looks at the word “the people”. It looks at the use of the word “arms”. And in every instance common sense and the history that these two judges at least understand normal common sense notions of grammatical construction. They understand the language. They understand the concept; and, from looking at the source documents that our Funding Fathers had in mind. And perhaps most importantly, they reminded us that the right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, anyway. It is an inherent right of a free people, and it preceded the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment didn’t give us that right. It simply guarantees that right against government efforts to take it away. Mr. Barr said it is a magnificent opinion, and even though it is long, it is not convoluted. It is very lucid and one that should be source material for all students of the Bill of Rights as a whole, since these same sorts of questions crop up with regard to other components of the first ten amendments. It really ought to be used by all of us and our friends who fall into this category of constitutional defenders as a source document for many years to come.

It’s not the end of the argument. This was simply a three-judge panel that had the first crack at this decision to come up from the trial court level in the District of Columbia which had upheld the D.C. gun law. When that district court opinion came out the case then went to appeal by the six citizens. It went to this three-judge panel which ruled two to one to reverse the district court opinion. The District of Columbia has indicated that it will appeal to the full panel. This may very well be the case that many of us have been waiting for in which the U.S. Supreme Court will finally have before it a case that will squarely settle the question once and for all. Mr. Barr said it is strange that the question even needs to be settled, since it is so self evident if you just read the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court may use this case to finally decide once and for all that the Second Amendment, like the other provisions in the Bill of Rights reflect an effort by the Founding Fathers to guarantee individual rights that are inherent in the people, not granted by the congress or the Bill of Rights.

Mr. Barr continued, saying there’s a lot to be written about this, but in this day and age when we have the Attorney General of the United States going before the congress, as he did on January 17th, saying there is no right to habeas corpus in the Constitution, defying common sense, history, and the specific language of the Constitution; when you have the FBI being criticized even by a very supportive Attorney General, as also happened last week, for violating the terms and abusing the powers of the Patriot Act; where you have a government accountability office issuing a report criticizing the government for moving forward with another of these data mining programs, notwithstanding the fact that cove information awareness had been prohibited. Where you have all those sorts of things happening with unfortunate frequency, it is nice to see something like that opinion that came out of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Mr. Barr mentioned another issue to keep on the radar screen is the Real ID Act which was passed a couple of years ago by the congress as part of a piece of immigration legislation. The Real ID establishes for the first time in this nation’s history a national identification card. Washington doesn’t call it that, but that is what it would do. It would establish a national identification card and some form of national data base. And therein lies another problem. We would be mandating that the State of Georgia, the wishes of its citizens to the contrary, and the governments of all the other states would be required to furnish information to the federal government with no idea of the extent of the information or how it could be used. And the states would have no control over the information or who would have access to it. All this was scheduled to happen in May of 2008. Several states have been very pro-active, even more than Georgia. Georgia has made some overtures toward removing itself from this real ID process, but not very aggressively. Some other states haves been doing a better job of both putting political pressure on Washington by taking specific legislative steps in their states to remove themselves from compliance or being a part of this real ID bandwagon, or alternatively toward taking specific steps publicly while not legally removing themselves draws attention to the inherent problems in the Real ID Act.

As a result of that and as a result of the Department of Homeland Security’s inability, despite of having worked on this matter for well over two years, to come up with a timely set of regulations to implement the Real ID Act, the government announced the week before last that the period before the Real ID Act goes into full effect has been extended a couple of years. This is good news, but it’s only good news if we the citizens who care about what the federal government is trying to do take the initiative to exert pressure on the congress to stop this Real ID Act, period, not just continue it, not just try to get some sort of piecemeal handle on it, but to stop it, and also to work here in Georgia to brace up our governor and state legislators to really take a very close and pro-active look at the Real ID Act and at least do the right thing for the people of the state of Georgia, even if we can’t get the federal government to do the right thing for the people of this country. So, that process is now moving forward – a little bit slower – but still moving. There were draft regulations, and the draft regulations have now been issued for the implementation of the Real ID Act, and there is a 60-day comment period. Mr. Barr said he would read the regulations and intended to submit written comments. He said the Madison Forum might want to do the same. He suggested we all take a look at them. He said they are not easy reading. They are federal government regulations, and they are designed to be obtuse, and unclear. They are designed to be disingenuously presented. So, he said, look at them very carefully, and if we see, individually, or as a group, areas that are of concern, at least go on record. It can be done by e-mail, or send the materials in. It is a relatively open process to submit the materials. Whether or not they pay any attention to them is another matter, Mr. Barr feels that it is important that as many individuals and organizations as possible who care about our privacy on record notion of having a national ID card with a virtual complete loss of whatever little privacy we might have left virtue of the development and maintenance of some form of national data base or data bases with all this information in them.

Mr. Barr said he knew we are following these things, but it’s really the first time in recent months that he thinks we can look and say there’s some good news along with a lot of the bad news that’s coming out, and it’s important to recognize that, and seize on it, and work those issues where we see a little bit of light at the end of the tunnel.

Georgia Supreme Court Justice Harris Hines spoke to Madison Forum members and guests at the March 31 breakfast meeting. His topic was “Changing Georgia”.

He began by saying that James Madison was responsible for getting George Washington to participate in the Constitutional Convention by telling him – “General, you are the indispensable man”.

He spoke about a court case he was involved in that went to the Georgia Supreme Court and then was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case concerned the ability of police to search a home if one owner says yes and one says no. The Georgia Court’s decision, with Justice Hines in the majority, said yes they could search with one party agreeing. The Supreme Court’s decision was that, no they could not search unless both parties agreed.

Judge Hines quoted a friend who told him in the late 80’s or 90’s that the 21st Century would be the Southern Century. He quoted a number of statistics that approve this to be true. Of the four most populous states, two are in the south – Texas and Florida. Georgia is the 9th most populous state. As of the last census, Georgia population grew by 1.7 million people, and our population today is probably about 9.2 to 9.4 million. The population of Cobb County is bigger than the state of Wyoming. During the 1990s Georgia’s growth was the fourth largest in numeric increase of the 50 states. The percentage increase was 26.4%. There are some predictions that Georgia will grow by 50% in the next 20 years.

As a result of the 2000 census, Georgia gained two members of Congress. At the same time, two more populous states, New York and Pennsylvania, each lost two members of Congress.

Of the ten largest banks in assets in the U.S., five are headquartered in southern states. Four are headquartered in North Carolina, and one – SunTrust – is in Georgia.

To illustrate growth by profession, Judge Hines said the Georgia Bar Exam is given twice a year, and slightly over 50% of the people taking the bar exam in Georgia graduated from an out-of-state law school. He feels this indicates that Georgia is an attractive state for professionals.

The most watched news channel is CNN, which is headquartered in Atlanta. And the most recognized world-wide company, Coca Cola, Is also headquartered in Atlanta.

Judge Hines said he feels that the principle pillar of our air defense for the next 20 to 50 years will be the F-22 Raptor interceptor jet which is made here in Cobb County at Lockheed.

The most popular hand gun used by law enforcement in this country is the Glock, and the company’s U.S. headquarters is in Smyrna.

Judge Hines said that despite the downturn in the housing market, he feels that Georgia’s economy will continue to grow.

He went on to speak about the good things happening in education. In 2001 the average SAT score for entering freshmen in Georgia Tech was 1321. At the University of Georgia, the score was 1201. Judge Hines attributes this to the HOPE Scholarship. Prior to the HOPE Scholarship of those who made between 1500 and 1600, 23% stayed in Georgia to get their advanced degrees. Since the HOPE Scholarship 76% stay in the state of Georgia and go to a college or university. He said he thinks this speaks extremely well for our state. He went on to say that where there is a difficulty is in our high schools. In our public high schools we only have slightly more than 50% who enter a public school in the ninth grade get a regular four year high school diploma. This is one of the worst statistics of the 50 states.

Some of the issues Judge Hines thinks will be seen in courts include faith based initiatives in education, because of the issues in high schools, and educators are looking for alternatives. The arguments that will come to the legislature will be based on what can be done on a basis of separation of church and state.

Another issue already in the courts is the question of whether or not a person could serve on a jury without being a Georgia or U.S. citizen, along with other issues about what a non-citizen can or cannot do. Another issue is, must the Miranda warning be given in the language of the person being arrested. Another issue is the implied consent.

Another issue Judges Hines says will be revisited will be the death penalty. He said he has presided over three such cases, gavel to gavel. The only body that can determine the death penalty is a jury. Some of the questions coming up will be, what does life without parole really mean considering factors such as age and cost. Small counties can’t afford the costs of felony trials. Another aspect is litigation from prisons, charging cruel and unusual punishment, considering our burgeoning prison population. In 1983 Georgia’s prison population was 15,209. In 1993 prison population was 27,762; in 2003, 46,981, and now it’s over 50,000 people. 50 to 51% of the present prison population has never worked. The job of trying to rehabilitate people with little education, no work experience, and getting older is an almost impossible task.

Another issue Judge Hines sees coming up is judicial elections. In Georgia judges run non-partisan. The Georgia Constitution of 1983 for most all courts of record has judges running non-partisan races. The Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court have six year terms. The principle trial court, the Superior Court has four year terms. The state courts have four year terms. The last time there were partisan elections was in 1982. Judge Hines says his understanding is that the Republican caucus in the State House has said that they were not going to extend non-partisan races down to any judgeships that are not there. A Supreme Court case - Republican Party of Minnesota v White - and an 11th Circuit Court of Appeals case – Weaver v Bonner heard in Atlanta have dramatically changed how we see judicial elections. The decisions essentially said they do not favor judicial elections, but if you are going to have judicial elections, they are going to be pretty much like anything else. So, candidates will probably cast themselves as non-partisan Democrat or non-partisan Republican.

A resolution was introduced in this year’s legislature that Judge Hines doesn’t think will go anywhere. The resolution calls for one Supreme Court Justice from every congressional district in Georgia, which would give us 13 – more than the U. S. Supreme Court. But what happens if we pick up another district in the next census, or what if we lose a member of Congress. He says he doesn’t think it has much traction from either party.

He said he missed on decisions concerning campaign contributions, and on imminent domain and condemnation of private property for public use. He said he felt it was right for the Supreme Court to decide in the case of Gore v Bush because it was of such magnitude.

Judge Hines said that he feels the most significant problem affecting our state and nationally, it is births to unwed mothers. It is a synonym for poverty. The national average is about 37 %. In Georgia it’s probably close to 39%, and it continues to grow. 78% of the 13,000 children who go through the doors of the Fulton County Juvenal Court in a year don’t know who their fathers are or where they are. He quoted a statement from David Blankenhorn, an expert in this field, who said “The single most accurate predictor of criminal activity is – is there a father in the house”.

D. A. King addressed Madison Forum members and guests on “Illegal Immigration and all it entails” at the regular luncheon meeting April 9, 2007.

He began by separating the subjects of Immigration and Illegal Immigration. There are many proud legal immigrants and green card holders in this country.
He said immigration into the United States of America is to him, and probably for most people, is a sacred process.

Mr. King said that what we are talking about today is the fact that the President of the United States has refused - not failed - refused to secure the American borders in a war on terror. We are talking about illegal immigration and illegal employment, and the latter is the magnet for the former. He d=said whenever we talk about illegal immigration try to remember that if it wasn’t for the corporations and the employers who are committing criminal acts by hiring illegal aliens we would not have this crisis that we have at present with illegal immigration With that said there are a lot of different party views, and Mr. King made it clear he is not a member of any political party because it gives him the freedom of speaking to and about anybody of any party affiliation without allegiance. He mentioned the Libertarian Party platform which clearly advocates for “open immigration”.

Mr. King said illegal immigration is not, neither should it be, a partisan issue. Whether you are a member of the Libertarian, or the Republican, or the Democrat parties or a member of the Green Party, we have a system of laws in this country. In 1787, when Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of a government the Constitutional Convention had created, his reply was not that we created a nation of immigrants. His reply was not that we had created a vast marketplace. His reply was that we have created a Republic. And he gave a warning “if you can keep it”. He said he feels chills on his arms whenever he says this.

Mr. King said we were told, long ago, that we have a Republic, a nation governed by the Rule of Law. His only position is now and always will be that the law should be equally applied, just like we were taught in the 60’s. We have a system of laws that says our borders should be secured against invasion. We have a system of laws that says it is a crime to enter the United States of American illegally and without inspection. We have a system of laws that says it’s a crime to hire, assist, harbor, shelter, transport, or encourage an illegal alien to remain in the United States. Those are all felony charges. Our government is not enforcing those laws, and when they do it, it is very selectively and done with the greatest amount of political show so as to create the impression of cracking down on employers or cracking down on illegal aliens.

Mr. King said it was news to a lot of people about a month or six weeks ago that Bank of America had begun to issue credit cards to people “without Social Security numbers”. He said this is not a new occurrence. The banking industry in this country has been opening accounts for, issuing credit cards to, and making mortgage loans to illegal aliens since the year 2000. One of the pioneers of that endeavor was a now former state senator named Sam Zaparipa. This man is the founding partner of a bank with three branches here in Atlanta called United Americas Bank. They are very clearly making mortgage loans to illegal aliens. Zaparipa does not deny that. He merely points his finger at banks like Bank of America, SunTrust, and Wachovia. Actually most of your large banks are doing exactly what you read about Bank of America doing. Bank of America got unlucky. They got the publicity hit. But four months ago there was a press release by a bank in California announcing their intent to go after the mortgage loan business of illegal aliens. It is a crime to encourage an illegal alien to remain in the country. The banking industry was very successful in lobbying Congress to accept the Mexican ID called the Matricula Counsular ID. It is a photo ID issued by the nation of Mexico to its citizens who are in this country illegally. The FBI Office of Intelligence went to Congress in the year 2003 and testified to Congress that the Matricula Counsular ID, the Mexican ID, was a security threat to the United States because it was so easily obtained and so easily forged so as to be unusable. They pointed out a fact, that Mr. King says he likes to point out to people, that the Matricula Counsular is not accepted by most banks in Mexico. But the banking industry in the United States was successful in convincing our Congress to not pass legislation prohibiting acceptance in this country. So what banks are doing is they are taking a Matricula Counsular card and an individual tax identification number from the IRS and issuing loans and opening accounts. The individual tax number is called an ITIN. The IRS regulations make it very, very clear that it is not to be used for any purpose other than filing your income tax. Uncle Sam wants his money. Whether or not you are in this country legally or have a Social Security number if you earn money, the IRS wants a piece of it, so it issues these ITINs. In direct violation of these regulations the banks are accepting those numbers as valid ID. He says it couldn’t be more of a set up scheme is they put a sign in your front yard explaining to you what they are doing. They are being allowed to do this. Last spring, Mr. King said, he went, at his own expense, to a seminar in Kentucky put on by the Federal Reserve in which they had invited American bankers, American bank inspectors, IRS representatives, and they were teaching bankers, while he sat there and recorded it and made a pack full of notes; they were teaching bankers the ins and outs of how to open accounts and make mortgage loans to what they labeled as “Hispanics”. Mr. King said he has a lot of Latino and Hispanic friends and they don’t need any more rules or regulations than anyone else. But an illegal alien does have some special requirements for opening, so he sat there as people from the Federal Reserve, and the IRS, and bank inspectors taught these bankers how to do this. He heard bank inspectors say, to explain what they did not want to see, break up large cash deposits into smaller bundles so it doesn’t raise any red flags when you are inspected. He heard the IRS explain that, yes it is against regulations to use the ITIN as valid identification, and then the woman drew her breath, and said but we can teach you how to use it as an identifier. Mr. King said he had a really good time at this meeting, because when they were finished he asked a battery of questions. They were very, very happy to see him leave the room, but they are still doing it. One man can make a difference, but one man fighting the entire banking industry with the complicity of the United States government; it’s just not going to happen. If your bank is accepting the Matricula Counsular and the ITIN, they are set up with the intention of doing business with people who are in this country illegally. There is no other possibility. He begged us, no matter how long we have been doing business with whatever bank we are using, even if we don’t close the account, go to the Customer Service Representative, ask to see their manual that shows what kind of ID they accept, find out if they are accepting the ITIN and/or the Matricula Counsular. He said he has gone to four or five banks doing this, and they immediately say “no, we would never do business with illegal aliens”. He said it takes about ten minutes for the Customer Service Representative, herself, to figure out what he had just told her is in her manual. So banking is important.

Mr. King said that the Madison Forum’s luncheon speaker last month wrote a column in the Washington Times last month attacking him and “draconian big government Republicans” for complaining about or raising issues with Bank of America for having the audacity to complain about the Bank of America’s doing business with illegal aliens. He said he cannot say any more about this except that he finds it incredible that the same former congressman who voted for the 1996 Immigration and Nationality Act would have problems with the United States government being even asked to enforce the banking laws.

Mr. King said that what we are seeing on illegal immigration and illegal employment is the fact that our government is not enforcing our laws and not punishing employers, is a pattern. After studying the issue for a long time, he realized very early on that there is more to this than somebody getting their lawn mowed for $5 an hour, or having a steady supply of $10 an hour busboys and dishwashers. Something is happening that we are not being told about, and he did a lot of research. There is a very concerted effort to, if not erase, at least eliminate the importance of the borders between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Borders are expensive. Right now we have about two to three million people crossing our borders illegally every year. There is a pattern here. Mr. King said he is going to shift his efforts from just talking to state and federal legislators about illegal immigration, and he is going to start, starting next month, pointing out to them things they should already know. The effort is this – borders and the tariffs that they create add a needless expense in the minds of corporate America and the globalists in this world. If you can eliminate the delay and the cost of, for example, going from southern Mexico to Chicago, you will have added between 11% and 15% to your profit margin. If you can create the free flow of goods, services, and people you will have not only eliminated those tariffs, but you will have created a free movement of people from places in which they make less than half of what we make here and many cases less that 10% of what we earn here. You can have a never ending unimpeded supply of tax payer subsidized labor. Right now we have that same process, but technically it is an illegal process. It is a crime to come from southern Mexico, for example, or Guatemala, or Ireland and come to this country and work without authorization. The goal is this – to create the free movement of goods, services, but mostly of people. He said this is not something he invented, but something he learned from reading what’s out there. He showed a document put our by the Council on Foreign Relations titled “Building a North American Community”. He said we are going to start hearing the term “North America” over and over again until it rolls through the mind without even thinking about it. He said when he grew up we heard about the United States or America, because it was our country. People are trying to create “our continent”, the ”North American” good, the security of “North America”, the prosperity of “North America”, a “North American” family, the citizens of “North America”. He said the publication is not very exciting reading, but it is very educational. He said on member of the Council on Foreign Relations is a man by the name of Robert Pastore. Pastore is everywhere. He used to teach at Emory. His book, which came out pre-9/11 in 2001, is called “Toward a North American Community”. He said you can download the book from his website. He said you can also read testimony of Robert Pastore to the United States Senate, June 5, 2005 in which he told a committee “what we need to do now is to create a North American Community”. He will tell the Senate. He will tell anyone who will listen that we have to create a free flow of goods, services, and people. Mr. King said this is what he is going to begin to devote his time to. He said their may be people who haven’t heard of this and think he is crazy. He doesn’t care. He said we are losing our country one little bit at a time, and the quicker people realize the true goal, the better off we will all be.

To get the idea across he called it “connect the dots” because that’s how he got to this, how he learned this. One dot – right now there are border patrol agents risking their lives all over our northern and southern borders trying to keep people from walking into this country from all over the world. Not just from Mexico – from Iraq, from Indonesia, from Islamic countries who mean us harm. He went to the southern border with Chip Rogers and several other legislators. When you actually see a border patrol agent chasing ten illegal aliens, you realize that we are prosecuting less than 2% of the illegal crossers, and you have to ask yourself “why”. A lot or people want to hear about the costs of illegal immigration. He said he doesn’t care. If one dollar of tax payer money is going to one person who is not eligible for that tax dollar, it’s too many. But a study came out last week that said that each illegal alien will cost about $22,000 a year, a million dollars from United States taxpayers in his lifetime. There is another side to this. Illegal aliens are less than 5% of the labor pool in this country. People are trying to change that. It they can make that cheap labor legal and then make it maybe 50% of the labor force in this country, they will have saved a lot of money. Another dot – illegal aliens on average are arrested six times in this country for whatever charge you can think of before deportation proceedings are ever begun. After those deportation proceedings are accomplished they are then many times released on their own recognizance because we have an extensive appeal process. Right now the dot is there are about 600,000 criminal illegal aliens convicted of any crime you can think of from child molestation, to drug dealing, to homicide running the streets of America because we don’t have the manpower to pick them up. Another dot – Border patrol agents stand a better chance of going to prison in this country for doing their jobs than drug smugglers who are illegal aliens, drunk drivers who kill Americans who are illegal aliens.

The people who are creating this call it the “North American Community”. Its goal is the integration of the three countries in North America to create the free flow of goods, services, and people. In case he is not believed, Mr. King quoted an Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial on September 7, 2001.

“The ultimate goal of any White House policy ought to be a North American economic and political alliance similar in scope and ambition to the European Union. Unlike the varied landscapes and cultures of European Union members, the United States, Canada and Mexico already share a great deal in common, and language is not as great a barrier. President Bush, for example, is quite comfortable with the blended Mexican-Anglo culture forged in the border states of Texas, California and Arizona.”

Mr. King said he has shown this to Senators, Congressmen, and many others in many places. Most people cannot accept this. We are programmed to accept what is main stream and what we have heard on the news. Our very survival as a nation depends on our own grasp of reality. We have to do some research on our own.

Mr. King said the clincher for him is Federal Legislation in two bills. Last May he sat in his office and watched CSPAN as the United States Senate voted to create another amnesty for illegal aliens. We had an amnesty for illegal aliens in 1986. We were told in 1986 that the answer is to make these illegal aliens legal, and then the government promised to begin to sanction the criminal employers. And then they were going to secure our borders. 21 years later we now have in this country in excess of 20 million illegal aliens. We are now being told that if you will let the government legalize these illegal aliens it will then begin to sanction the criminal employers, and it will then secure our borders. Does that sound familiar? This is the language from last year’s Senate Amnesty Bill S2611 in which it talks about visa coordination between the three countries. It talks about the progress made by Canada, Mexico, and the United States to enhance the security of North America, and exploring methods for Canada, Mexico, and the United States to waive visa requirements for nationals and citizens of the same foreign countries. It means that if you are a Mexican or a Canadian you don’t need a visa to go into or out of the United States. It is the free movement of people. It is a loss of control of our borders. That is a loss of our sovereignty. That is the loss of our Republic. The same language is in this year’s Flake-Gutierrez Bill. He asked everyone to call their Congressman and ask when he is going to speak up against this language. He said this is the smoking gun. There is a resolution in Congress called HCONRES40 that Congressmen can sign on to and say they oppose any concept of creating a free slow of goods and services across our borders, erasing our sovereignty, or the free movement of people. Mr. King said it is a borderless continent they are going for and he hopes we will look into this, make the people who are in charge of our government look into this, and demand a position on it from everybody.