Talk Radio, You're on the Air

Sunday, October 29, 2006



The following are the most intensely discussed and debated issues since I’ve been on talk radio. These are not balanced views, they are my views plain and simple.


We’ve discussed this issue along many different lines. Abortion is presented by its advocates as a woman’s choice. Men should have no say, we are told.

It is not women who are liberated by abortion, it is men.

From the moment of conception there is an emotional bond between mother and child. There has never been a pregnancy which has produced anything other than a child.

The choice in abortion has been dumped in the lap of women. It is she who carries the burden for everything in the so-called “decision”.

21st Century chivalry can be described this way: “I’ll pay for the abortion, OK?”

The man springs for a few hundred dollars for the woman to convert the reproductive part of her body into a death chamber for her baby. The man walks off Scott free. The woman bears the memory of what happened. She must then deal with the trauma of what happened alone, without the man who impregnated her in the first place supporting her emotionally whenever the memories of the abortion are revisited.

When she receives that generous offer to pay for an abortion the pregnant girl or woman immediately knows she was used once for “his” satisfaction and now her body will be used to relieve “him” of his parental responsibility. In other words, he’s bailed out on her and she’s alone.

I recall the conversation I had with a woman who had an abortion in the 1970’s. It occurred in the late 1990’s on WRKO. She talked about seeing a video of a sonogram made of a baby who was about four months in gestation. Her abortion was sometime in her third month. She said she had no idea then what she had done is kill her unborn baby.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of the founders of the National Abortion Rights Action League and one of the leading abortionists having performed thousands of abortions over two decades changed his mind after seeing the effort a baby made to save its life during an abortion. The sonogram of that event made him realize what he had been doing all along was killing babies.

What happens in a failed abortion?

The baby lives.


Just as abortion is in large part a man’s issue, gun control is a woman’s issue.

How so?

When we ban “Saturday Night Specials”, from whom do we keep guns?

The bad guys?


All gun control laws are designed for law abiding citizens to surrender their constitutionally guaranteed right to “keep and bear arms”.

The second amendment to the constitution is quite clear and unambiguous: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

James Madison, the person credited with writing the second amendment said this concerning the militia: “The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.…” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

Thomas Jefferson added: “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government.”
With the second amendment argument settled why did I say banning the so-called Saturday Night Special is a woman’s issue?

Because small and lightweight pistols and revolvers are the basic choice of women for self defense. A 22 caliber Derringer can fit into even the daintiest purse or the pocket of a light jacket. It is easy to learn how to use such a small weapon.

A tiny “Saturday Night Special” is a great equalizer for a woman in danger from a large man.
Women are victims of men far more than men are victims of women.

One other thing about the “Saturday Night Special”. When we have enacted laws banning them, do you really believe criminals have given up even one firearm?

Concerning the famous “Assault Weapons” ban, nothing changed for the criminal, it only affected the honest citizen.

The most common argument from the “gun grabbers” is who needs that fire power for hunting. Answer, no one. Sorry to my hunting friends, you do not have a constitutionally protected right to hunt. However, you do have a right to bear arms.


Because the constitution says so, that’s why.


Most constitutions grant powers to people. The founders of the United States in their wisdom wrote a constitution which described what powers would be permitted to the government by the people. The founders recognized our rights are bestowed on us not by government but by, as the Declaration of Independence announces to George III and the world, “to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them…..” We get our rights from God.

Please allow me to be redundant here. It is important we understand the source of our power.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

The spirit of the Declaration of Independence is the Spirit of our laws and describes where the founders felt our liberties came from in the second paragraph:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

Fresh in the minds of the framers was the history of other governments penchant for the formation of a religion in which to control its population. An overly powerful religion which has the support of the government becomes terribly oppressive and uses its power to stifle dissent.
The Puritans who came to our shores had fled England in search of an opportunity to practice its beliefs without the interference of the official state religion.

However, when they landed here the Puritans acted in the manner of those they had fled. Civil laws were crafted with the connivance of the established religion. The Puritans were free to practice as they saw fit. No one else was permitted the same rights.

Therefore the framers of the constitution saw fit to make the freedom of religion the first item in the Bill of Rights. Freedom of speech, or of the press; the right of assembly, and to petition the Government followed in that order.

The right to bear arms came next.

“Congress shall make no law” was at the heart of their thinking. There was to be no official state religion and no restrictions placed on anyone’s religion. We were (are) free to practice or not practice, at our discretion.

Virginia for one had an official state religion at the time of the adoption of the constitution and was ratified by it. It was understood the government in the Constitution meant the federal and not the state governments. What is further strongly implied is, that’s all the constitution meant. Hands off religion. It says nothing of God or the people’s practices concerning God.

It is highly doubtful the men who crafted the constitution ever had in mind that there was to be a “wall of separation” between God and state, only religion and state.

Voluntary prayer in public places (such as the opening of each session of the U.S. House and Senate, the opening of each session of the U.S. Supreme Court, the use and support of Chaplains in the military or the placing of religious symbols on public land were never intended to be prohibited. “In God We Trust” on our coinage and “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance are perfectly within the limits intended by the constitution.

Keep in mind it was the view of our founders and those who fought and died in the American Revolution our freedoms were extended to us by God.

The extreme measures such as denying access to military bases of the Boy Scouts of America or a Cross as part of a war memorial and others is far beyond the pale.

God Bless America.


The whole nature of our form of government is that it is to protect us from the excesses of others, not from the excesses of ourselves.

Extreme measures concerning smoking, even out of doors, mandatory seat belt laws, laws being proposed for the prohibition of cell phone use while driving, and a myriad of others, and even many of our controlled substances laws are nothing more than the following:

An attempt to control the private behavior of others.
The imposition on others, whether a majority or minority, what a powerful few chose or deem to be correct behavior.
Private behavior is just that and should be left at that.

I have no objection to recommendation to the public on matters such as smoking and health, I do have a problem with the attempt to regulate the use of it through restrictive measures or punitive taxation.

We the people must demand the government stay our of our private lives. It is contrary to the libertine spirit of the Declaration of Independence or the United States Constitution, the two most enlightened documents ever crafted by man.


The United States is faced with four major problems in both the short and long term future. I will deal with the questions of energy, terrorism, and illegal immigration later. While remaining mindful all four of the problems are tangentially related, we will deal with them separately.

The personal and corporate income tax is both onerous in terms of personal freedom and foreign trade.

In this appendix we will deal with such taxes in context of foreign trade.

In foreign trade the United States is operating at a significant deficit amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars per annum.

Why are we at significant deficits?

We cannot compete with other countries’ products in world markets.

Why can’t we compete?

We’re told the American worker is under educated and has grown too fat and lazy. That’s nonsense. The problem is not the American worker or American business.

In most instances our products cannot any longer compete because of cost. Costs in large part created by the government.

There is the myriad of business regulations which increase the cost of doing business. Just the paperwork needed to be done adds to the cost of products and services.

Personal and corporate taxes are an integral part of the price structure of goods and services.

I propose the abolition of both corporate and personal income taxes. Doing that alone would immediately and dramatically lower the price of products and services originated in the United States. I would further eliminate the duty on imported goods and services not produced in the United States. Along with that, a complete revision of all regulatory practices with the intent of eliminating as many regulations as possible.

OK, where will we get the money to operate government?

The value added tax for goods and services sold here. The tax would be on all products and services sold in the U.S. The tax would be on imported goods and services as well.

This will make our products more competitive here and abroad. Continued expansion of our trade deficits puts us at the mercy of foreign powers and causes a further erosion of jobs here. The jobs lost are both in manufacturing and support services. It is an ugly cycle.

We recently experienced the attempt by a foreign government to purchase stevedoring leases at six of our most critical container ports on the east coast and the Gulf of Mexico. China already owns two important facilities on the West Coast.

Trade deficits must be reduced or our financial independence will be severely compromised.


An incredible anomaly has occurred. The United States developed atomic, and then, nuclear energy long before anyone else had. Our track record regarding safety has been outstanding. Critics of nuclear energy point to what happened at Three Mile Island.

The accident at the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) nuclear power plant near Middletown, Pennsylvania, on March 28, 1979, was the most serious in U.S. commercial nuclear power plant operating history, even though it led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community.

It brought about sweeping changes involving emergency response planning, reactor operator training, human factors engineering, radiation protection, and many other areas of nuclear power plant operations. It also caused the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to tighten and heighten its regulatory oversight. Resultant changes in the nuclear power industry and at the NRC had the effect of enhancing safety.

The sequence of certain events -- equipment malfunctions, design related problems and worker errors -- led to a partial meltdown of the TMI-2 reactor core but only very small off-site releases of radioactivity.

The bottom line is the built in safety procedures and elements worked as planned. More has since been done to prevent what happened at Three Mile Island from repeating itself.

At the present time there are over sixty nuclear power plants in operation in the United States.
Some of the advantages of nuclear energy are:

With the latest design of plants, the size and scope of modern plants, licensing, capital costs, regulatory delays and high maintenance costs will be far less.

Among the major negatives are the decommissioning of plants. That will be minimized with the reduction of size and longer life of plants.

Between 80 and 90 percent of electrical power generated in France is nuclear. They produce so much electricity they export it. They began their nuclear energy program to free themselves from dependence on middle-eastern oil.

There is no reason the United States cannot begin to replace dirty and dangerous conventional oil and coal burning power plants with nuclear power plants. Our electrical supply can be supplemented by wind power. Proposals such as Cape Wind planned for Nantucket Sound and any other place where we have consistent winds should be encouraged by minimizing the time and cost of plant location.
A University of Massachusetts physicist many years ago recommended the generation of hydrogen by the use electrolysis. His thinking was we can generate electricity by windmills. Sea water could be used to generate hydrogen which could then be brought ashore either through pipes or ships. The hydrogen could be used to power all sorts needs. Electricity, automobiles, centralized heating and air conditioning in large buildings. The byproduct of burning hydrogen is water, clean, fresh water.

I’m not an expert in such things but I can’t believe we cannot develop the technology to take advantage of this renewable resource.

If we’re to become energy independent and possibly an energy exporter again we need to pursue all possibilities, including drilling in Alaska, the California coast, the Gulf of Mexico, George’s Banks and anywhere else we can find the crude oil or natural gas we need.

We can say all we want about conservation but we’re not ready to reduce our standard of living. In our energy and communications based economy it will never go over. The answer is the ability to create ever more energy sources.

When we were a crude society of cave dwellers we burned wood and animal fats for light and warmth. We did that for centuries. A large part of the New England economy was built around whale oil.

We’ve come a long way and our standard of living has moved with it. For us to make quantum leaps in technology will require energy, lots of it.


Both terrorism and preemptive war are new elements in thinking about our national defense. The two are not only new but require an entire change in our approach to warfare. Not only did 9/11 shake us to our roots, the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was not the first such attack on our shores.

The first attack occurred shortly after noon on February 26, 1993. A truck was parked in the underground garage of the North Tower, loaded with fifteen hundred pounds of explosives. It was detonated and created a one hundred foot hole through four sublevels.

The same type of Moslem extremists we are now confronted with in Iraq and Iran were responsible for the attack. Unfortunately the Clinton Administration considered the attack a crime and treated the conspirators as criminals rather than enemy combatants on our soil who were not wearing uniforms.

Six men were convicted in 1997, four years after the attack. They received 240 years in prison sentences each. According to the judge who presided over the trial their attempt was intended to knock down one or both the towers.

The 1993 and 9/11 attacks were acts of war, but by whom?

We now know there were more elements at play than we first thought.

The enemy is based on an ideology which binds extreme Islamists the world over. What percentage of Islam is extremist? I doubt anyone can pin that figure down. The real question is what percentage of the Moslem world will stand up to the fascists in their midst.

More than a quarter of the world’s population is Moslem, about two billion people. If only one percent of their numbers are of the extremist variety we have about twenty million fanatics ready and willing to kill themselves for Allah and some seventy-two virgins. That is a rather extensive world wide army. Add to that those areas of the world where they have had free reign and there is a picture of a world wide network.

Among the financiers of the fanatics has been Saudi Arabia, many in Pakistan, Indonesia, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. Safe haven has also been provided by those countries. The Sudan, Somalia (where a disciple of Bin Laden has taken over the capitol city of Mogadishu) and other countries have been friendly with the extremists.

Much has been made about our invasion of Afghanistan. Objection to that effort is specious at best and led by religious extremists such as the Friends Services Committee and other so-called pacifist religious groups. The then government of Afghanistan, when run by the Taliban, was a partner with al Qaeda. Usama Bin Laden and the Taliban leadership are intrinsically related.

The real questions deal with preemptive war. This is a whole new concept for the United States in response to terrorism sponsorship by disparate governments.

I think we have to start with the concept that war is hell and never good. Something else about war is if we don’t have the will to wage it we will never be able to have peace. Simply put, war is never an easy decision.

Preemptive war presents an even greater burden.

I don’t know whether the following parallel fits in this discussion but it makes some sense to me.

Let us say there is someone in your neighborhood who has a history of extreme violence against his own family. He has lashed out at his neighbors and invaded their homes, only to be repelled and thrown out in each event. This neighbor has also used all sorts of weapons against his family and neighbors alike and has threatened you and a family friend of yours and paid some young thugs to commit crimes against your family. You call the police and ask them to disarm the neighbor. They procrastinate. He shoots at you whenever you drive by his property to observe him.

You learn some of your alleged friends are supplying him with weapons and other things to hurt you with. His threats become more and more ominous.

The police won’t take action even after they warn him to throw his arms away.
Your friends continue to help him.

Would it be wrong for you to overwhelm him if you are able to do so?

Not an easy call is it?

That was the dilemma we were faced with before we entered Iraq.

Now the scene turns to Iran and North Korea. What should we do?


Of all the problems we are faced with, probably the most dire is illegal immigration. I did a four part series on illegal immigration for my web site, This is the series as it appeared July 18 to 21, 2005:



Generally speaking the Republicans have been better on more issues than Democrats. The economy, national defense, taxes, judicial appointments, etc. The public has understood that and transformed the U.S. from very Democrat to where the Republicans control the White House, congress, most governorships, state legislatures, and most county and local offices across the nation (with the exception of Massachusetts which remains the bluest of the blue).
However there is one issue which should transcend partisan politics, much the same way national defense did during World War II.Which brings us to the question:

Who is better on the immigration, the Democrat Party or the Republican Party?

Answer, they're both out to gore you (a sophisticated way of saying a phrase used by kids today). You know, stick it to the middle class and those at the lower end of the income ladder. Inner city people needing entry level jobs need not apply. High tech workers competing in the same way a roofer or landscaper does.

(The more likely to take tough steps is the U.S. House of Representatives. Congressman Tom Tancredo of Colorado, Ron Paul from Houston, James Sensenbrenner of Minnesota are fighting gallantly to deal fairly with the question of illegal aliens. The problem is the party leaders all tilt to the White House which is hopelessly mired in it’s amnesty nonsense.)
Neither party recognizes yet the pressure which is building about the insane manner we are dealing with immigration questions. The president offers us with guest worker programs (the amnesty mentioned above). Yes, you’re permitted to laugh. Democrats here are offering in state tuition for the children of illegals. Who gets it in the neck here? Poor inner city blacks and some legal Hispanic immigrants and those from Puerto Rico on both counts and welfare whites with limited educations and therefore hope to improve their lot as well. In short anyone hoping to get a toe hold and climb the latter out of misery on their own.Here’s how it works.
We are fed the line illegals come here and do work ordinary Americans refuse to do. There’s two things wrong with that answer. Lies and more lies. Negotiate a price and you'll find Americans to do any sort of work. They always have and will. Some employers simply don’t want to pay, that’s all. Crooked construction companies breaking all the rules place unfair competitive pressure on honest companies. Crooked cleaning services? Ditto. Landscaping? Ditto. Name the field. Big retailers. Yup (remember Wal-Mart?). Even security cleared cleaning personnel hired by a company from Canton, Massachusetts working at Logan International Airport.

It's not merely the low skill jobs. Our universities are producing record numbers of aliens in high tech fields. We're told no Americans can do the work. Our kids are too lazy or stupid to learn in college. Did anyone think to check on the education being provided, especially in the core communities? It stinks at best.

Aliens arrive on student visas and overstay the visas. After a year or two they have licenses, and are established to have the appearance of legality. So once again, our workers end up with the short end of the stick.

By the way, who do you think will suffer most when the insanity the Massachusetts house and senate (all Democrats here) pass the lower tuition law favoring illegals? When the seats are filled those in the greatest need in the inner city need not apply. Then the young illegal has a degree and cannot legally work in the U.S. Any inner city denizen who votes for these leaders is an idiot and their children will inherit the misery. (It’s so simple. There are only a certain number of seats in our state colleges at “in state tuitions”. When they're filled, guess what. And what of those from bordering states who work and pay income and other taxes here in Massachusetts, their kids have to pay the higher rates. 3 to 4 times as much.)
The big problem in the eyes of our “leaders” is how to catch and return the ten + millions (or is it closer to twenty + millions or more) of illegals already here and at the same time stem the flow over the borders?
Simpler than you think.
Question one is why do illegals come here in the first place?
Try these for size:

Jobs, jobs, jobs. Jobs are job one. Eliminate that huge magnet.
Simple, begin to make the penalty for hiring an illegal immigrants progressively more onerous. For example, one or two hires which are obvious mistakes, a slap on the wrist. Next time, severe fines and at some point jail the recalcitrant. You hired them, you serve time. Go to the top of the corporation, not some human resources person at the bottom.
  1. Publicize the companies hiring the illegals.
  2. Revoke our laws concerning educating the children illegals.
  3. No public services to illegals short of emergency humanitarian care.
  4. No drivers’ licenses.
  5. No automatic citizenship for a child born here to an illegal alien. The child should be listed as having the mother's citizenship.

In other words, remove the benefits of sneaking into the U.S.

Reform our immigration laws so as to make the sponsor financially responsible for immigrants brought here. Currently that matter is virtually ignored.

Most of us are aware of the severity of the security problems posed by the illegal alien community. As we can plainly see the potential for landed aliens and their children already pose a serious threat to our own security and safety. However there are other reasons to secure our borders which range from financial to cultural suicide if we do not.

The next couple of days we will spend time reviewing the reasons why not securing our borders is insanity.If we do not, historians will look with amazement how an entire civilization had so much to lose and did so little to prevent it being lost.


Yesterday we reviewed the visible parts of the problem of illegal immigration. The next three days we will concentrate on specific problems and solutions to the major elements of illegal immigration.

Among the illegal immigration problems faced by ordinary Americans are medical care, education facilities, poor pay, poor working conditions, and many others living problems we don’t readily associate with illegal immigration.

Those willing to be scofflaws and look the other way benefit. Those who play by the rules slowly drown in the problems.We’ll start with one of the most visible, the hospital emergency room.When your child has a fever, injury, or other emergency medical condition you rush off to the emergency room. All or most of the expenses were (note I say were) picked up by your insurance. That isn’t the case any longer.


Uninsured illegal aliens are why.


The disproportionate use the services by illegal aliens who pay nothing.

There is no free lunch, someone always pays.

Hospitals along the Mexican border are now closing emergency rooms by large numbers. In some communities whole clinics and hospitals have vanished. They could no longer afford to supply “free” “emergency” services to illegal aliens.

At one time the emergency room was the last resort for out of work or otherwise dispossessed and penniless persons. Most of us looked the other way even though the ultimate costs were passed on to us through our insurance premiums. It is in the nature of Americans to extend a helping hand whenever the need arises.

Beginning in the 1970s illegal immigration spread throughout the land. We have made life for illegals much more comfortable than it is in their native lands. The overwhelming percentage of those aliens landing here illegally are merely looking for a hand up, not a hand out. This probably explains why the largest single group of illegals is Latin American followed by Southeast Asian, and now the Middle Easterner.

Which border is riddled each day with thousands upon thousands of people attempting to enter illegally, the Mexican or Canadian?

If you guessed Mexican, move to the front of the class.

Why do you think that it is the Mexican border which is so pourous?

Is it because the Canadian border with the US is manned more heavily that fewer run the border?

Or the terrain more inhospitable?

The weather maybe?


The Canadian economy, while not great, is able to sustain the Canadian people and their needs. Not so with Mexico or parts of Central and South America. This is especially true with Columbians, Venezuelans, Ecuadorians and Brazilians. While the large majority of border intruders is Mexican the numbers attempting illegal entry via the Mexican border are growing weekly, even from the Middle East.

The economies of the above countries, as it applies to the working person, are in horrible shape. Things are so bad in Mexico the second largest source of wealth creation is the dollars sent home by the illegals living and working here.

Lots of organizations based in Mexican, Arab, and other immigrant communities began organizing in the late 60s among legal and illegal workers. These organizations worked for legalization, union rights, and against Immigration and Naturalization Service raids and other immigration law enforcement.

In the mid-1970s, the first immigration legislation reform debates in Congress began and various proposals took shape, beginning with New Jersey Rep. Peter Rodino’s (remember him from Watergate hearings?) bill – a precursor to sweeping immigration legislation introduced in the early 1980s.During the administration of President Jimmy Carter, a Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy was established, and its 1981 report, saying that illegal migration was the country’s number one immigration problem, largely influenced what became the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.

In response to the introduction of sweeping immigration legislation, including an “Omnibus Immigration Bill” from the Reagan Administration, so called grassroots-based coalitions emerged in Washington State, California, Texas, Illinois, New York, and other states. They were able to persuade the African American community that more immigration was a good thing for them. It all boiled down to numbers and political power for the Democrat Party and its closest friends like the Rainbow Coalition.

They began to network in opposition to the Simpson/Mazzoli immigration bill, and were also active in supporting the growing number of Haitian and Central American refugees seeking asylum in the U.S. from repression in those countries. They were instrumental in the great Haitian boatlifts of the eighties.

The formation of the Rainbow Coalition in the preceding year gave shape to a broad electoral alliance led by Rev. Jesse Jackson. Immigrant rights issues held a prominent place.

In 1986 Congress approved the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). It provided legalization for certain undocumented workers, including agricultural workers, but also set in place employer sanctions, making it illegal for employers to hire illegals. You could say it was a Republican compromise of sorts. The left and liberal groups got more people here who traditionally vote Democrat and the big growers, mostly big Republican givers got their cheap labor.

The 1980s brought some coalitions of people fearing the erosion of the American culture. Immigration in the past few decades has changed from absorbing the foreign born into the melting pot and each generation becoming more “Americanized”. We've come to resemble a tossed salad than the melting pot today.

Most of the earlier immigrants yearned for their old culture but understood to make it in America their children and grandchildren needed to become fluent in English and become culturally American.My own experience was probably fairly typical of most of those families who have been here more than one generation. My grandparents migrated here from Canada, Northern Quebec on my father’s side and my Mom’s family the Maritime Provinces.

My Mom's and Dad’s generation was steeped in French Canadian traditions (and religious practices with the parish the cultural and social center for émigrés in the 1890s and early 1900s). All were fluent in French (the older Canadian version) and did so spoke French at every opportunity. They maintained membership in cultural groups of like minded people. They supported their own French language newspapers and radio programs. However both families learned the road to success in America was not holding the past too closely and “melting” into the American pot.

I studied French throughout grade and high school and can speak it with some command even today. Most of my siblings and cousins do not. Only a small number from one part of the family continued to “be” French Canadian.

The family progressed very nicely because of its Americanization.

Grandpa Arthur Lauzier observed the economic advancement of “French” families in his neighborhood was directly proportional to the learning of English. Those most severely handicapped by the Great Depression of the 30s were those reluctant to let go of their past and live in the moment.

Since the late 70s or early 80s we’ve seen a retreat into the past by immigrants. It makes them more reliant on their leaders and a limited numbers of businesses catering to their limitations. In a word they get ripped off. The legal alien identifies with the illegal and gets held back as well.During the 1990s there were ballot initiatives in many states concerning various problems caused by illegal aliens and even legal aliens who expect services designed for their culture and accessed in their native language.

In Part III we’ll review one of the worst pieces of legislation of my lifetime, NAFTA.

What’s NAFTA got to do with illegal immigration?Plenty.


Free trade, these buzz words conjure up images of two of the great economic thinkers in history, Adam Smith and Frederick Hayek.

Free trade is what made the U.S. an economic dynamo. All states are treated equally in matters of trade among the states per what has become known as the interstate clause in Article I, Section 8 of our constitution. One little clause had/has a huge impact on our economic success.How could anyone be opposed to a free trade agreement in any form?

The North American Free Trade Agreement was passed by the congress and signed into law by President Clinton in January 1994. The major unions in the country gave a great deal of lip service against NAFTA but never really made much of an effort to stop it. Even the late congressman Joe Moakley of South Boston, Massachusetts, always in the pocket of organized labor, caved in to the pressure applied by President Clinton.

It is interesting that many of the most conservative members of congress, free trade to the core, opposed NAFTA along with the most liberal members. But that was not enough to stem the tide. It passed narrowly in the house.

What has this got to do with illegal immigration? Plenty.

One of the sales points of NAFTA to conservatives was it would help improve the economic health of Mexico, thereby reducing the pressure on our Mexican border by people attempting to enter here illegally.

I can’t say with certainty whether conservatives were assuaged by the argument or whether it gave them cover with their constituents.NAFTA harmed many of our older mill cities in the Northeast, cities like Holyoke, Lawrence, Haverhill, Lowell, Brockton, Fall River, New Bedford and many others in other states like Woonsocket and Pawtucket in Rhode Island and Manchester and Keene in New Hampshire.Real jobs were lost, in large numbers. How many of them wound up in Mexico? Those fleeing the country are not leaving jobs. They’re fleeing joblessness. (Where did the American jobs go?)

At best, NAFTA is an unmitigated flop, at its worst, a massive con-job on us. I lean toward the latter rather than the earlier.Obtaining trade information on what’s going back and forth across the border with Mexico is difficult to obtain. The unemployment rate in Mexico and how that compares region by region now versus pre-NAFTA days is not readily available from the government of Mexico. Since the pressure on our borders has continued to grow rather than level off or actually drop I thinks it’s reasonable to conclude unemployment in Mexico is higher and growing despite NAFTA.

Under NAFTA, we’ve increased the amount of produce and meats imported from Mexico. I doubt that was the intent of NAFTA. There are increases in all sorts of other products as well.Are these “Mexican” goods actually made in Mexico?

There have been many questions raised on whether Chinese goods are coming through Mexico with the purpose of bringing the goods into the USA at a much lower tariff than the Chinese products would have entering the U.S. as goods made in China. I can’t prove it but it smells that way. Sniff! Sniff!

So now we’re experiencing the worst assault on our borders ever.

Ten to twenty million aliens living here illegally and the prognosis is for more. The Mexican government is funneling those coming to Mexico from as far away as Brazil to our border. There are large numbers of Chinese and Middle-Easterners crossing the Mexican border. Why so many foreigners fleeing to Mexico? They’re not fleeing to Mexico, they're heading here through Mexico. We know this to be fact because the INS is intercepting them on the Mexican border in progressively larger numbers. The government has even published booklets on how to escape observation and then what to do once in the U.S. including how to apply for forms of identification including their own Mexican Embassy IDs which are accepted by many states.

Mexico is attempting to dump its unemployed and otherwise dissatisfied citizens as well as criminals here because it is trying to relieve the political pressure to care for its own.

Ross Perrot warned us NAFTA would not make things better in Mexico, that it could conceivably make them worse. On this issue he was right on target.

Tomorrow in the fourth and final part of this immigration series, specific incentives attracting illegals which can be removed will be discussed and other areas which can make us safer.We’ll also discuss the potential for serious national security risks posed by the open border with Mexico.


Needless to say we have kept an ear on 680WRKO and eye on Fox News. The events once again unfolding this moment in London (July 7, 2005) illustrate just how vulnerable our two countries are. Since we’re among the freest societies on earth we are therefore the largest targets.

We are not the Great Satan because of our fondness of Israel or because of the Crusades, or any other reason one can conjure up. We are the target simply because we encourage liberty and the idea people should govern their own lives. Our First Amendment in the Bill of Rights places a Moslem driven government out of bounds.

To put it bluntly, the fanatical Islamists could not operate under the US Constitution. Keep in mind Islam means submission (Etymology: Arabic islAm submission (to the will of God), something foreign to the British, we Americans, and people in general. Those who do not submit must be eliminated. We are the enemy no matter what we do or don't do. We could dump Israel, abandon all our initiatives in the Middle-East and the rest of the world for that matter and nothing would change.

The worrisome part of all this, the American Muslim has become secularized to the point where he accepts living in harmony with Christians and Jews and Pagans. The newly converted Muslims in the remainder of the world are more virulent than the older Arab Moslems. Indonesia and parts of Africa everything in the name of Allah is acceptable.

The above is the first thing we need to know about our enemy. So long as we revere liberty, we are the enemy and must be eliminated. No different than how the Nazis viewed Jews. We should reject out of hand any notion that we have brought this hatred on ourselves. No more so than Jews or Armenians deserved being victims of genocide. (Genocide is a method of warfare even now in Africa....there they use famine as the weapon, as Joseph Stalin used in the Ukraine in 1932-33).All this is important to make us understand we are the target because of our culture of love, respect for others, and respect for the rights of all. Those are our sins. And we are un-repentant.

The weapons aligned us are both conventional and non-conventional. The civilian is the number one target. Terror and fear is their stock in trade. Islamic extremism is their vehicle.

We have created a climate for illegal aliens to live in comfort (relative to their origins) thus increasing the numbers crossing our borders and the numbers of illegals ensconced within our borders make the job of discovering those with evil intentions even more difficult. Finding the terrorist is like looking for the proverbial “needle in the haystack”.

We must inform all illegal aliens and companies who hire them we will do the following within 90 days:

We will randomly commence examining companies large and small, for illegal aliens. If in doubt, re-examine the information they have on employees or pay the consequences.

Create a reward system for those who blow the whistle. Bounties work. As the commercial concerning copyrighted software being used illegally said, “Unless you have absolutely no former employees who think they'd like to get even, you’d better come clean.” Add the bounty incentive and it's a potent force.

Declare that public schools will no longer educate the children of illegal aliens.

All driver’s licenses will be reviewed and all other professional licenses as well (hairdresser, electrical, plumbing, barber, etc.)

All social services except for emergency humanitarian aid will end.

We will undertake any other means to find and return illegal aliens and deport any legal aliens who harbor them.

Here's why:

The face of the terrorist is becoming increasingly difficult to pick out in a crowd and the larger the crowd, the more daunting the task.

Operatives could already be here but we’ll have more difficulty bringing them to the surface until we get control of the borders.

The old Soviet Union had hundreds of small nuclear devices, including a couple of hundred “suit-case” nukes which weigh 150 to 250 pounds. Most are missing. Terrorist organizations often have large amounts of money to spend to or purchase such items.

For years we’ve heard that the USSR had already delivered small nuclear devices on our soil. Many intelligence observers suggest Bin Laden has insinuated the U.S. will have its own Hiroshima. What does that sound like to you?

Are there any terrorists with WMDs here awaiting the signal from one of the many terrorist leaders around the world.

It is a matter of critical importance our national security and borders are under our control and that cannot happen with up to 20 million illegal aliens here already.


Are we facing a crisis in public schools?

Maybe yes, maybe no. The reality depends on who and where.

The first question is, “Is the government responsible for educating our children?” There are two ways to answer that question.

The general view is, it is to the benefit of the nation as a whole to have an educated populace. The decision on this responsibility was answered more than a hundred years ago and is not currently being debated except in deep philosophical debates.

When we accept that it is the responsibility of the government to make an educated populace a reality, the next question is, “Which of the following is the government responsible for? Providing the education or providing for the education?”

The historical consensus has been providing the education.

There have been many examples of a quality education provided by some government educational systems and evidence of abject failures to provide same.

There are public school systems which are offering outstanding education. There are also systems which are and have been failing in their responsibilities to students for may years.

It is not my intent to identify which schools are good and which are bad. The students and parents are usually well aware whether their school is dedicated to excellence or something else.
If a child is in a crummy school system and the parents are not financially able to move to another community or place their child in a private school the child is likely to be part of the “undereducated underclass” for life.

I think the “providing for” an education is the answer to the above question.

I favor school vouchers which can be used in both public and private schools so parents can have a choice. Those with children in better performing schools would not consider making a change to another school. The old adage of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies well here.

The school voucher for poor to lower middle-income parents would allow them the choice their wealthier fellow parents have at their disposal. It becomes an equalizer, a leveler of the playing field. The children, with a start closer to the starting line would have more opportunities in life.

Who benefits from all this?


We are paying either way, so why not get more bang for our tax bucks.

In this way the parent becomes a consumer of the education products for their children. Parents would be responsible for determining who is best suited to educate their children.

It has been the experience of the many professional educators in our family that even parents with difficulties of their own both socially and educationally, want something better for their children.

When given choices more parents will rise to the obligation of choosing what is best for their children. When the opportunities are present than currently exist, the vast majority of parents will participate in positive ways in the process of educating their offspring.

<< Home


October 2006  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?