Do Property Rights Still Exist in North Carolina?--

July 31, 2006
NC CONSERVATIVE


Do Property Rights Still Exist in North Carolina?--by John Cooper

"Every person restrained of his liberty is entitled to a remedy to inquire into the lawfulness thereof, and to remove the restraint if unlawful."--Constitution of North Carolina, Article I, Sec. 21.Without property rights, no other rights are possible. The brilliant men who forged the constitutional framework of the American system of government - being well acquainted with tyrannical forms of government - knew this fact well.Alexander Hamilton: "A power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will. Property must be sacred or liberty cannot exist."James Madison: "Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions", and:"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort... This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.""Government is instituted no less for protection of the property than of the persons of individuals."John Adams: "[t]he moment that idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the Laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.Daniel Webster: "No other rights are safe where property is not safe."Webster's idea is best reflected in an eighteenth century judicial opinion, wherein the Court noted that "the right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent and inalienable rights of men... The preservation of property, then, is a primary object of the social compact." - Vanhorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 310 (1795).As we know, early American common law descended directly from English common law. What did the English think of private property? Magna Carta - 1297: "No Freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseised [deprived wrongfully of real property] of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any otherwise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful Judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land."John Locke: "The great chief end therefore, of Mens uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property." He also said,"Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience..." --2nd Treatise of Government, 1690William Blackstone: "The principal absolute rights which appertain to every Englishman [are] personal security, personal liberty, and private property."From these quotations we can see that the right to own property is fundamental to Western civilization. But does that "right" mean nothing more than the possession of a piece of paper called a "deed", and the duty to pay taxes to the State every year? Of course not. The concept of a "right" pertains only to action - specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive - of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, un-coerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.The very essence of "ownership", therefore, is a sanction to use one’s property at will without asking permission from anybody - not your neighbors, and not the State. The right to use one’s property is limited only by the equal rights of other property owners. "Private property gives the right to exclude others without the need for any justification. Indeed, it is the ability to act at will and without need for justification within some domain which is the essence of freedom, be it of speech or of property."-- Professor Richard Epstein, University of Chicago, Takings, 1985We all know that the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution were intended to guarantee our right to own property: "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. --Amendment V...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. –Amendment XIVThe Constitution of North Carolina guarantees the right to own and use property as well. "We hold it to be self-evident that all persons are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of happiness. -- Article I, Section 1: "The fruits of one’s labor" are obviously one’s property, whether one is talking about the smaller things one buys each week with one’s paycheck or the bigger things like a car or a home or a piece of land. What does it mean to say we have any "rights" or "freedoms" at all, if we cannot peacefully enjoy that property which we buy with the fruits of our labors? But the bureaucrats and legislators in Raleigh don’t see it that way. They have stood the historical relationship between the governed and their purported "public servants" on its head. It seems like they no longer feel the need to obtain the "consent of the governed" as both the North Carolina Constitution and the U.S. Constitutions require.The bureaucrats and legislators in Raleigh have turned the concept of Riparian Rights on it’s head, too. Riparian Rights are the legal rights of owners of land bordering on a river or other body of water; also, law which pertains to use of the water for that land. Under North Carolina common law, a riparian proprietor owns that portion of the bed of the (not navigable) river which is adjoining his land to the central line of the stream. Furthermore, the riparian proprietor has the absolute right to use the water bordering his property for domestic uses such as drinking, bathing, and watering gardens and livestock for domestic use. But rather than the power of the riparian proprietor extending out into the water as the law guarantees, the State of North Carolina now sees a "Riparian Buffer" extending the power of the State fifty feet up onto the privately owned dry land adjacent to the stream. In this "Riparian Buffer" the "owner" may not use his or her land. By fiat, the state has decreed that no "land-disturbing activity" shall be allowed within 50 feet of a stream, full time or seasonal spring, or even a drainage ditch. No tree or brush trimming, no planting, no garden paths, nothing." "Land-Disturbing Activity" means any use of the land by any person ...that results in a change in the natural cover or topography and that may cause or contribute to sedimentation."This so-called "law" is now in effect in several Eastern NC Counties, and may well be forced on those of us in the mountains where it would effect almost every property owner. But much worse than just riparian law, our legislators have turned the very concept of "the law" itself upside down.In the nineteenth century, "the law" had a precise meaning: A set of general rules of conduct toward others which applied equally to all and meant to prevent unjust conduct. The North Carolina Constitution is one set of such laws. Unfortunately, our legislators and bureaucrats no longer see themselves as constrained by the lawful limitations placed on them by the Constitution. In effect, they have become "lawless" because they now see "the law" as any rule or statute that they can get a majority to agree to, regardless of whether or not the power to pass that "law" was granted them by the Constitution. F.A. Hayek put it this way: The so-called legislature was no longer (as John Locke had thought is should be) confined to giving laws in the sense of general rules. Everything the "legislature" resolved came to be called "law", and it was no longer called legislature because it gave laws, but "laws" became the name for everything which emanated from the "legislature". The hallowed term "law" thus lost all its old meaning, and it became the name for the commands of what the fathers of constitutionalism would have called arbitrary government.The Constitution of North Carolina Article II, Sec. 24 reads: The General Assembly shall not enact any local, private, or special act or resolution: (e) Relating to non-navigable streams....but clearly they have done so in passing H.B. 1160, The Clean Water Act of 1999, and making sections of it apply only to local areas. Furthermore, with their "Notwithstanding..." language, the legislature cavalierly waived all requirements of previous environmental laws designed to insure public accountability. Basically, the legislature gave the unelected Environmental Management Commission free reign to write whatever rules their friends in the Sierra Club wanted.PART VII. AUTHORIZE TEMPORARY RULES TO PROTECT THE CAPE FEAR, CATAWBA, AND TAR-PAMLICO RIVER BASINS. Section 7.1. Notwithstanding G.S.150B-21.1(a)(2) and Section 8.6 of S.L.1997-458, the Environmental Management Commission may adopt temporary rules as provided in this section to protect water quality standards and uses as required to implement basinwide water quality management plans for the Cape Fear, Catawba, and Tar-Pamlico River BasinsThe power of the legislature is further restricted by Article XIV, Sec. 3. Which directs the body to enact only "general laws uniformly applicable throughout the State" and forbids the legislature from making "special" laws which apply only to certain areas. But clearly they have done so by singling out the property owners in the Neuse, Tar-Pamlico, and Cape Fear watershed areas of the State for special restrictions on the use of their land and special and taxes to the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund. It is clear that eventually the legislature will be forced to either rescind this unconstitutional "law" or to compound their mistake by putting it into effect for all property within the State...which was probably their intention in the first place.The people of North Carolina want clean streams to look at and waterfalls to play in, but don’t want to pay for the privilege. And therein lies the temptation for many government dreamers who have great visions but limited resources. Why not simply regulate property in such a way as to practically take it without actually taking title? Government wins on all counts under this scenario: it uses the property how it wishes, and the poor owner still pays the taxes. And the "environmentally-conscious" legislators get re-elected. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote in Armstrong v. U.S., the Fifth Amendment guarantee... [is] designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear the burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole"; Ultimately, while localities may and should regulate property, they cannot and should not do so in way that unfairly extorts from a few individuals the cost of a public good.If one takes a moment to consider which countries around the world have cleaner air, streams, and rivers, it becomes obvious that the cleanest countries are those with stronger property rights. The countries with the despoiled and polluted landscapes are the ones with lesser or nonexistent property rights. The reason is obvious: Private owners take better care of their property than a far-away bureaucrat could ever do. "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.-- C.S. Lewis Seventy years ago there existed a government which held the following view of private property: "Let them then own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State...is supreme over them, regardless whether they are owners or workers... --Adolph HitlerUnfortunately, the government of North Carolina seems to be bent on adopting the same concept of property ownership as was held by the National Socialists in Germany. We "subjects" in Western North Carolina can "own land" all we want, as long as we use it only in ways approved by the Water Quality Board, the Sedimentation Control Commission, the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Environmental Protection Agency, and all the other various bureaus in Raleigh and Washington, D.C.The North Carolina Constitution, Article 1, Sec. 35 admonishes us to frequently return to fundamental principals in order to preserve the blessings of liberty, so let’s do that. History has amply demonstrated the results of what the National Socialists in Germany thought of property rights and of liberty. But what did the founders, jurists, and philosophers from the early days of our Country think about those two concepts?Virginia Bill Of Rights, 1776: "SECTION 1. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."Thomas Jefferson: "Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of."Samuel Adams: "The Natural Rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; second, to liberty; third to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can." AfterwordI wrote this several years ago in response to a government land grab here in North Carolina. I discovered while doing the research that many other states are affected as well. The EPA is the prime mover behind the "Riparian Buffer" effort, and supplies most of the funding to the individual states. Several court cases in the intervening years may have changed some things, but the fundamental desire of government to take over you property remains the same.--by John Cooper(philosopher@engineered-home.com)
31 Jul 2006 by Editor

Automatic Birthright Citizenship"

July 31, 2006

Automatic Birthright Citizenship": An Emerging Crisis by Tom Shuford

“Anchor babies” are the American-born children of illegal aliens or of visiting foreign nationals: These babies, under current interpretation of U.S. law, automatically become U.S. citizens and most qualify immediately for a variety of benefits . . . Over time, they can open the door to citizenship to other family members. Last week, there was a flurry of national news stories announcing the current estimate that 300,000 such babies are born each year in this country. (Al Knight, columnist, Denver Post , June 22, 2005) The updated estimate by the Center for Immigration Studies is 383,000 such births annually as of 2002. That is 10 percent of all U. S. births. Some experts believe the number is closer to 500,000. Whatever the count, automatic birthright citizenship is a powerful incentive for illegal immigration.(2) This curious policy derives from a century-old misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. The purpose of the Citizenship Clause was to guarantee the citizenship of freed African-Americans. The phrase “ and subject to the jurisdiction thereof ” is not a redundancy. The phrase has a limiting purpose, as constitutional scholars can demonstrate. Until recent decades, however, there were no ill consequences of the court's misinterpretation of the “jurisdiction” phrase, because illegal immigration was either minimal or temporary. Circumstances have radically changed. Congress needs to amend U. S. immigration laws to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are not citizens or legal permanent residents. The challenge in fixing the problem is political, not constitutional. For as Al Knight observes: There are, of course, pro-immigration groups whose members wouldn't blink, let alone protest, if the number [of births to illegal alien mothers] was 10 times that high . . . Automatic birthright citizenship is a potent weapon targeting U. S. sovereignty. Open borders groups will not be disarmed without a fight. This essay will address three realities: 1) the effects of automatic birthright citizenship, 2) a proper understanding of the Citizenship Clause, and 3) the legislative remedy. Sketches of a Nation Unraveling In my work as chairman of the House Immigration Reform Caucus, I have traveled frequently throughout the Southwest . . . I have witnessed scores of Mexican women come to the border just to wait until they go into labor. They then ask to be rushed, not to a Mexican hospital, but to an American maternity ward. Hospitals near the border say illegal immigrant women who are near term in their pregnancies actually sit in their cars in the parking lot, waiting to go into labor . . . ( In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security , 2006, by Tom Tancredo, U. S. congressman) From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram : Babies born to mothers living in the country illegally comprised nearly three-fourths of the births at Fort Worth ' s public John Peter Smith Hospital this year, the Star-Telegram reported Dec. 14. Of the 5,775 deliveries during fiscal year 2005, which ended in September, 4,207 [73%] were the children of mothers without immigration documents. (“ Immigration emerging as big issue in 2006 elections,” Feb. 20, 2006) From the Los Angeles Times : “birth tourism”: ...One might say it is the ultimate gift that South Korean parents can give their newborns. Those who can cough up the $20,000 or so it costs are coming to the United States by the thousands to give birth so their newborns can have American citizenship . . . So many are doing it that a mini-industry has developed here of agencies that refer expectant mothers to travel agents, immigration lawyers, prenatal clinics, hospitals and even baby-sitters, arranging what are, in effect, package tours for pregnant women. (“Korean Moms Want ‘Born in USA' Babies,” May, 2002Automatic birthright citizenship produces many other “curiosities”: Yaser Esam Hamdi was born in 1980 in Baton Rouge while his father was on a temporary visa working for Exxon as an engineer. The family shortly returned to Saudi Arabia. In 2001 Hamdi was captured with the Taliban in Afghanistan. As an enemy combatant, he was transferred to Guantanamo Bay. There authorities learned Hamdi was a fellow “American.” Lawyers pounced. They eventually got Hamdi a hearing before the Supreme Court. “And subject to the jurisdiction thereof” The “jurisdiction” phrase of the Citizenship Clause means what you, with your common sense, would think it to mean. Let me offer an excerpt from the testimony of Dr. John C. Eastman, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law, Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence before a U. S. House of Representatives subcommittee on immigration on September 29, 2005: Historically, the language of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, from which the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (like the rest of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment) was derived so as to provide a more certain constitutional foundation for the 1866 Act, strongly suggests that Congress did not intend to provide for such a broad and absolute birthright citizenship. The 1866 Act provides: “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power , excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States” As this formulation makes clear, any child born on U. S. soil to parents who were temporary visitors to this country and who, as a result of the foreign citizenship of the child's parents, remained a citizen or subject of the parents' home country, was not entitled to claim the birthright citizenship provided in the 1866 Act. In a nutshell The Supreme Court followed the intent of the framers of the 1866 Citizenship Clause until 1898. In that year, in the Won Kim Ark decision, the court rejected the reasoning of the framers in granting citizenship to the American-born child of legal permanent residents who, at time of birth, were still subjects of the emperor of China. The decision was flawed, as Dr. Eastman's testimony indicates. Notwithstanding, “ to read the [limited] holding in Wong Kim Ark as determining that the Constitution also mandates automatic citizenship to children of temporary, illegal immigrants not only presses the Constitution's text beyond the breaking point, but significantly intrudes on Congress's plenary power over naturalization.” (Eastman, Wall Street Journal , December 7, 2006) A comment is in order on the quality of the1898 Supreme Court that rendered the Wong Kim Ark decision: This was the court that, with nearly the same line-up, inflicted the infamous separate-but-equal doctrine on the United States less that two years earlier in Plessy v. Ferguson. ” The high court is capable of catastrophic error. Plessy v. Ferguson , like the 1858 Dred Scott decision, caused a world of woe. The current inventive interpretation of the Citizenship Clause, based on the limited holding (the Chinese parents were, after all, legal residents) and flawed reasoning of Won Kim Ark, likewise, has disastrous potential. Broad and absolute “automatic birthright citizenship” must be abolished. Remedy 87 members of the House of Representatives are cosponsors of H.R. 698, which “would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or legal permanent resident aliens.” At the link above, check to see if your representative is among the 87 sponsors; if not, make sure he or she will support H. R.698 when it comes up for a vote. I talked to a congressional staffer who monitors immigration bills. Momentum is building for H. R. 698. An amendment to the same effect was considered for inclusion in H. R. 4437 (the enforcement-focused measure that passed the House by a margin of 238-180 last December). But no vote was taken because it was too controversial, too new. The support was not there. That is changing. MY INTERPRETATION: Few realize the seriousness of “automatic birthright citizenship” — because the issue is poorly covered, if at all. Moreover, it would be easy for the news media to demonize legislators who take it on. But the Internet is changing the flow of information and analysis. More people are aware of this issue. Until two years ago, Ireland was among the very few nations who — like the U. S. — still had automatic birthright citizenship. Ireland got rid of it with a ballot initiative which garnered the support of 80 percent of Irish voters. Americans do not have the direct ballot option. But the vote in Ireland indicates what the popular support for H. R. 698 could be if the public knew about it. (3) The key is grass roots pressure on legislators. To contact your legislators at Google, type “ contact your representative ” and then “ contact your senator. ” Connections I have used the metaphor of a road along which are milestones marking America's progression towards a state of pathological openness leading to internal disintegration. One milestone on this road is the 1982 Plyler v. Doe decision. The Supreme Court, in an expansive application of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, forced taxpayers in communities across the nation to educate children illegally in the United States. Another milestone is the 1999 nullification of California Proposition 187, which would have denied a range of services to illegal aliens in that state. The nullification of 187 was the work of one federal judge (whose rationale was based in part on Plyler v. Doe ) and of a newly-elected governor who found a creative way (“mediation”) to drop the state's appeal of the ruling. Add to those a third milestone: the 1898 misinterpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which has led to the current policy of “automatic birthright citizenship.” Notice the common element in these first three milestones: the Fourteenth Amendment. Its lofty generalizations lend themselves to inventive interpretation by ambitious judges. In this there is tragic irony. For what was crafted to secure the rights of freed slaves is now used to erode the precious rights of their descendants, indeed of all American citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment is being used to displace American citizens from jobs, schools, communities and country. Endnotes 1) In past essays on immigration I have been critical of selective and shallow coverage by the mainstream media. I should have mentioned a rare exception: Lou Dobbs Tonight . Here is a Transcript of Dobbs' Nov. 4, 2005 broadcast, which includes the segment on anchor babies. The Christian Science Monitor also stands out for its coverage/analysis of illegal immigration. 2) That “automatic birthright citizenship” is an incentive for illegal immigration is suggested by differing fertility rates of Mexican women in Mexico (2.4 births per woman) versus Mexican-born women in the United States (3.5 births per woman). U. S. born-children reduce the odds of deportation and Mexican immigrants — more than most — are at risk, as 80-85 percent of Mexican immigration to the United States since 1980 has been illegal according to the Pew Hispanic Center. 3) The Irish vote eliminating “automatic birthright citizenship” is an indication of popular sentiment against the policy. But the change is not as substantive as it might first appear. Ireland did not abolish birthright citizenship, only automatic birthright citizenship. A child born in Ireland to a foreigner must, at a certain age, opt for Irish citizenship or forever lose that opportunity. Until reaching that age, the child is not an Irish citizen, but would have the potential to become one. While the new Irish policy is better than the U. S. policy of automatic birthright citizenship, it is still an inducement to illegal immigration. Tom Shuford tomshuford@aol.com is a retired teacher living in Lenoir, North Carolina.
31 Jul 2006 by Editor

NC sells duplicate licenses over the internet here:

NC sells duplicate licenses over the internet here:

https://edmv.dot.state.nc.us/DuplicateDriverLicense/Home

They mail the license within 10 days…….

Letter to Editor--Never Printed!

Subject: Letter to Editor--Never Printed! From: "David LaBonte"

My wife, Rosemary, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I decided to "print" it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined. Dave LaBonte (signed)

Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange County Register:

Dear Editor: So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statute of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times.

They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home. They had waved good bye to their birth place to give their children a new life and did everything in their power to help their children assimilate into one culture. Nothing was handed to them. No free lunches, no welfare, no labor laws to protect them. All they had were the skills and craftsmanship they had brought with them to trade for a future of prosperity.

Most of their children came of age when World War II broke out. My father fought along side men whose parents had come straight over from Germany, Italy, France and Japan. None of these 1st generation Americans ever gave any thought about what country their parents had come from. They were Americans fighting Hitler, Mussolini and the Emperor of Japan. They were defending the United States of America as one people. When we liberated France, no one in those villages were looking for the French-American or the German American or the Irish American The people of France saw only Americans. And we carried one flag that represented one country.

Not one of those immigrant sons would have thought about picking up another country's flag and waving it to represent who they were. It would have been a disgrace to their parents who had sacrificed so much to be here. These immigrants truly knew what it meant to be an American. They stirred the melting pot into one red, white and blue bowl.

And here we are in 2006 with a new kind of immigrant who wants the same rights and privileges. Only they want to achieve it by playing with a different set of rules, one that includes the entitlement card and a guarantee of being faithful to their mother country. I'm sorry, that's not what being an American is all about. I believe that the immigrants who landed on Ellis Island in the early 1900's deserve better than that for all the toil, hard work and sacrifice in raising future generations to create a land that has become a beacon for those legally searching for a better life. I think they would be appalled that they are being used as an example by those waving foreign country flags.

And for that suggestion about taking down the Statute of Liberty, it happens to mean a lot to the citizens who are voting on the immigration bill. I wouldn't start talking about dismantling the United States just yet.

(signed)
Rosemary LaBonte


Mike Harrison
http://www.electmikeharrison.com/

A Latin conservative tidal wave is not coming.

July 24, 2006, 6:10 a.m.

Myth Debunked

A Latin conservative tidal wave is not coming.

By Heather Mac Donald

The myth of the redemptive Hispanic is finally cracking. For years,conservative open-borders advocates have touted Hispanic ?family values? asa prime reason to increase immigration. Hispanic immigrants, theseconservatives say, will save America from itself. At a time when Anglo andblack families are disintegrating, when society is becoming increasinglyatomized and alienated, Hispanics will bring the traditional values thatthe country so desperately needs. In a classic iteration of the theme,Larry Kudlow wrote on NRO last May that Hispanic immigrants would ?become amuch-needed churchgoing blue-collar middle class . . . that is crucial to ahealthy America.?

The truth is now supplanting the fiction. Last Friday, the New York Timesran an editorial, Young Latinas and a Cry for Help,? that laid out thereal state of the Hispanic family. A quarter of all Latinas are mothers bythe age of 20, few of them married, reported the Times. This out-of-wedlockteen-birth rate is three times that of white teens, and significantly morethan that of blacks as well. The Hispanic dropout rate is also the highestin the country ? the Manhattan Institute?s Jay Greene puts it at 47 percent.

There is simply no way to square the facts about Hispanic family breakdownwith the myth of the redemptive Hispanic. Talk to any social worker and shewill tell you that illegitimacy has become completely normalized among herHispanic clients. And the usual explanation for this epidemic ofillegitimacy ? an unresolved culture clash between young people and theirtraditional parents ? is equally bogus. The mothers of teen mothers arethemselves completely on board with single parenting, say the socialworkers, having often been single parents themselves. And they have noqualms about hooking their daughter and grandchildren into thepublic-benefits apparatus: ?It?s now culturally OK for that population tobe served by the welfare system,? says a case manager in a Santa Ana,Calif., home for teen mothers.

Far from exercising a brake on the erosion of traditional values, asconservative immigration advocates claim, the growing Hispanic populationwill provide the impetus for more government alternatives to personalresponsibility. Advocates for young unwed mommies in the South Bronx areagitating for more day-care centers in high schools to accommodate thestudents? children, reports El Diario/LA PRENSA. Demand for the 18 day-careslots at Bronx Regional High School, for example, far outstrips the supply,an 18-year-old Hispanic mother who attends the school told the paper. Abill has been introduced in Congress, the Latina Adolescent SuicidePrevention Act, to channel $10 million in federal funds to ?culturallycompetent? social agencies to improve the self-esteem of Latina girls andto provide ?support services? to their families and friends if theycontemplate suicide.

For the New York Times, of course, the inevitable expansion of the welfarestate is the glowing silver lining to this cultural catastrophe. With theusual melodrama that accompanies the pitch for more government services,the Times designates young Latinas as ?endangered? in the same breath thatit discloses that they are one of the fastest-growing segments of thepopulation. ?The time to help is now, says the Times ? by which it meansratcheting up the taxpayer-subsidized social-work industry.

It strains credulity to think that conservatives will fend off this push tomeet social dysfunction with bigger government. Since the open-bordersadvocates have yet to acknowledge the facts of Hispanic family breakdown,there is no way of knowing what their solution to it is. One in four womenin the U.S. will be Hispanic by the middle of the century, reports theTimes ? in states like California, they will be the majority. UnlessHispanic illegitimacy is stemmed, it is hard to see how the American familywill be in a stronger state in future decades than it is today. Conservatives, including open-borders conservatives, market themselves asthe party of realism and common sense. A recent manifesto for immigrationamnesty and liberalized entry rules in the Wall Street Journal bragged:

Conservatives have always prided themselves on acknowledging, in the wordsof John Adams, that ?Facts are stubborn things.?? More stubborn still,however, is the unwillingness of open borders proponents to acknowledgesocial facts that undercut their cause. ?

Heather Mac Donald is a contributing editor to City Journal, where hermost recent article makes the conservative case for immigrationenforcement. National Review Online -

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzkxMDk1MTQ3Yzg2MzdjZDA0NmFkODhiOWI1NjhjNjE

Mike Harrison
www.electmikeharrison.com

SMALL TOWNS IMPLYMENTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM

www.smalltowndefenders.com

SMALL TOWN DEFENDERS

Welcome

I’m Lou Barletta, the proud Mayor of the City of Hazleton, Pennsylvania.

Recently, our City has greatly suffered from a series of serious crimes and economic hardship including the murder of a city resident, the discharge of firearms at a local playground, high profile drug busts, and severe strains on our classrooms and health care system. All of these pre-mentioned crimes involved illegal aliens and their large migration to our City have resulted in educational and economic strains that threaten our quality of life.

I could not sit back any longer and allow this to happen, I needed to act! That’s why I drafted the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, a measure that is designed to send a message. My message: To the residents of Hazleton, I say thank you for your support. To our recently arrived legal immigrants, I say welcome to our City. I wish you all the best and hope the United States and Hazleton can be a place where your dreams come true, just as my great grandfather’s did when he legally immigrated here. I am proud to represent you as your Mayor.

There are thousands of small towns and cities across America like Hazleton, Pennsylvania. I hope the steps we’re taking in Hazleton to defend ourselves will inspire others to become small town defenders.
========================================

Below reply Email from Mayor Barletta sent to well wisher for illegal immigration reform.

Dear Friend,

This is Mayor Lou Barletta from Hazleton, Pennsylvania.

I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your support regarding the Illegal Immigration Relief Ordinance, which City Council passed on July 13.

As you can imagine, my office has been inundated by thousands of e-mails, letters, and phone calls of support - from coast to coast and border to border.

I am grateful for every sign of support. You have my personal thanks because we have accomplished this together.

Soon, Hazleton will implement the ordinance, which intends to make my city one of the toughest places in the country for illegal aliens by fining landlords who rent to illegal aliens and companies who knowingly hire them.

After suffering through several high-profile crimes involving illegal aliens, we've sent a clear message that we've had enough. Hazleton is working to take back our streets, our neighborhood, and our community.

Many people have asked for copies of the Illegal Immigration Relief Ordinance to present to their own elected officials.

Others have asked to be updated on our progress here in Hazleton.
I have created www.smalltowndefenders.com, a website that will be updated as events happen to keep you informed of our progress.

On www.smalltowndefenders.com, you will be able to find copies of the Illegal Immigration Relief Ordinance, as well as postings from me regarding the implementation of it and our responses to any legal challenges.

I invite you to take a moment to log on to www.smalltowndefenders.com. I encourage you to bookmark the page and visit it often.
Together, we can make a difference in America.

Thank you for your continued support.

Sincerely,

Louis J. Barletta
Mayor, City of Hazleton, Pennsylvania

HOW TO KEEP THE COURTS IN CHECK

"[How] to check these unconstitutional invasions of... rights by the Federal judiciary? Not by impeachment in the first instance, but by a strong protestation of both houses of Congress that such and such doctrines advanced by the Supreme Court are contrary to the Constitution; and if afterwards they relapse into the same heresies, impeach and set the whole adrift. For what was the government divided into three branches, but that each should watch over the others and oppose their usurpations?" --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821.

Mike Harrison
www.electmikeharrison.com

Compromise reached on eye-exam policy

Compromise reached on eye-exam policy

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Friday, July 21, 2006
RALEIGH

The General Assembly agreed yesterday to modify instead of eliminate a program that requires incoming kindergarten students to receive an eye exam to enter school.
With an 88-15 vote by the House, the legislators decided that only children who failed an initial vision review would be urged to get a comprehensive eye exam by an optometrist or ophthalmologist.

The more-thorough exams wouldn't be mandatory, although parents would be alerted that money may be available to help pay for one. The state budget set aside $500,000 for the exams.

The Senate twice passed bills this session that would have eliminated the requirement, which was inserted successfully into last year's budget bill by House Speaker Jim Black. Senators reversed their stance Wednesday and agreed to the compromise.
The original program would have barred any child who didn't get a comprehensive examination from a North Carolina optometrist or ophthalmologist from attending kindergarten.
School districts sued over the requirement, saying that the costly exams would prevent many of the 130,000 children entering kindergarten annually from attending school.

A judge in March agreed to stop the requirement from taking effect until the 2007-08 school year. Should Gov. Mike Easley allow the measure to become law, the lawsuit would appear to be moot.

The State Board of Elections has investigated donations that Black, a Charlotte-area optometrist, got from his fellow eye doctors. Black said that the contributions didn't influence his support of the exams.

This story can be found at: http://www.journalnow.com

Bill would create water fundState must disclose dangers to wells

The News and Observer

http://www.newsobserver.com/1170/story/462777.html

Bill would create water fundState must disclose dangers to wells

Pat Stith, Staff Writer

If the state has reason to think your well water may be polluted, it's going to have to tell you.
Legislation passed Thursday would create an Emergency Drinking Water Fund to pay for the notification of people whose wells, either at home or work, are within 1,500 feet of known groundwater contamination.

Money from the fund also would be used to test wells and buy water for people who are financially unable to do that for themselves.

The legislation was sponsored by Rep. Pricey Harrison, a freshman Democrat from Greensboro. It now goes to Gov. Mike Easley to be signed into law.
"I know there have been communities that have been devastated by contaminated groundwater, and this is a step toward getting them some relief," Harrison said Thursday.
"She's our hero, there's no question about it," Hope Taylor-Guevara, executive director of the environmental group Clean Water for North Carolina, said of Harrison.

Harrison originally asked for almost $1 million. The legislature approved $300,000, which Taylor-Guevara said is not nearly enough. She said it would take several million dollars, over a period of years, to notify people living near known sources of pollution and to pay for tests or for bottled water.

Jerry Price and his wife, Mary, of Wake County, were the genesis of the Emergency Drinking Water Fund.

The Prices and their neighbors, who live off Poole Road near the Neuse River, drank from polluted wells without knowing it.

When the Prices discovered that the state and county governments had known of nearby groundwater contamination but hadn't told them, they resolved to do something.
They helped secure a new source of water for their neighborhood and improvements in the Wake County well-inspection program. They also spoke for the legislation last year.
Mary Price was delighted Thursday when she was told of Harrison's success. "Oh, that is great," she said. "That's a start."

Burr denies interest in leadership position

Winston-Salem Journal

Burr denies interest in leadership position

Paper says he, Thune are top candidates

By Mary M. Shaffrey

JOURNAL WASHINGTON BUREAU
Friday, July 21, 2006
WASHINGTON

Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., is still a freshman senator, but some would like to see him join the party leadership.

According to a daily political newspaper on Capitol Hill, he is one of only two senators being mentioned as a possible successor to Sen. Elizabeth Dole, R-N.C., in the leadership role on the committee responsible for electing more Republicans to the Senate.
But Burr said he is not interested. "I think even if I did want it - and I don't - I think it would be a mistake for the conference to have someone from the same state" as the previous chairman, he said.

But yesterday, The Hill newspaper reported that Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., was considered the front-runner and Burr was the only other candidate mentioned as a possible successor to Dole by Republican senators interviewed for the story.

Dole has served as chairwoman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, or NRSC, since 2005. She is barred by party rules from running for a second term.
Brian Nick, Dole's spokesman at the NRSC, declined to make her available for an interview, saying that it would be irresponsible for her to comment on the race.

Burr and Thune were both elected in 2004. Thune is considered a darling of Republican grass-roots voters because of his defeat of Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., then the minority leader. Like Burr, he previously served in the House of Representatives.
Thune has not announced whether he is running for the position. The Hill said that he would make a decision sometime in the coming weeks.

Burr said he thinks that Thune is the ideal candidate.
"If you look in the dictionary under NRSC chairman, its got John Thune's picture on it. He's perfect for it,"he said.

Burr said that if Thune decides not to run, he would still not be a candidate.
In addition to his concern about being from the same state as Dole, he wants more time with his family, as he had told reporters before his name was reported as a contender to replace her.
The chairman's position on the committee requires considerable travel to recruit candidates and raise money.

For example, according to Federal Election Commission reports, Dole and the NRSC have raised $57.8 million during the 2006 election cycle.

For her own Leadership Circle PAC, Dole has raised $798,000 and donated $96,000 to other political campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks the role of money in politics.

According to the center, Thune has raised significantly more for his political-action committee than Burr has for his.

As of filings released on Wednesday, Thune had raised more than $1.3 million for his Heartland Values political-action committee, and donated $114,000 to other political campaigns.
Burr, on the other hand, has raised $295,000 for his Next Century Fund political-action committee, of which he has donated $31,000 to other political campaigns.
Burr was a deputy whip, which is a leadership role, while he served in the House. Since coming to the Senate, he has taken a low profile on political activities, rarely appearing at partisan press conferences. Instead, he has focused most of his attention on such policy issues as bioterrorism, energy and veterans affairs.

If he replaced Dole, it would be his first political leadership position in the Senate.
Sen. Mel Martinez, R-Fla., also elected in 2004, said he thought that both men would do a good job, but he hoped that Burr would consider running.

"Sen. Burr has been a good leader," Martinez said. "He is the senior member of our freshman group, and he has been the one who brings us together from time to time.
"I think he is a natural leader.... I hope he'll do it."
Mary M. Shaffrey can be reached in Washington at 202-662-7672 or at .

This story can be found at: http://www.journalnow.com

Optimism remains on reaching schools deal

Optimism remains on reaching schools deal

Optimism remains on reaching schools dealOfficials say it's possible but unlikely they would ask voters for funds

CARRIE LEVINE, ANN DOSS HELMS PETER SMOLOWITZ
Staff Writers

Mecklenburg County commissioners continued high-stakes negotiations over school construction money Thursday, and board members said they must approve money this year.
A majority of commissioners and school board members said they won't rule out asking voters for the money on the November ballot as a last resort but sounded optimistic about a possible compromise that wouldn't require voter approval.
"
I think it's hard to tell which direction is out, but there is a way out," said Jennifer Roberts, a Democrat.

The school construction saga has gripped the county since voters rejected a $427 million school construction plan last November. That prompted months of official soul-searching, and the county and school boards appointed a 35-member committee to find a solution.
But on Tuesday, the county board rejected the committee's stopgap proposal to borrow $172 million, along with a Republican alternative. Since then, amid accusations of election-year politics, leaders have struggled to broker a truce.

Republican Dan Bishop said he has been speaking to Democrats. "It's in everybody's interests to take a deep breath and work towards a compromise," Bishop said, suggesting a bond referendum "ratchets up the risk enormously."

But all declined to give details, saying there was much to work out. Commissioners said they have received dozens of e-mails from constituents, most urging them to strike a deal.
One resident, Brandon Gurley, said he hopes commissioners find a solution to "a major problem." Other e-mails were short and sweet: "Quit %$#@! around and build some schools!"

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/living/education/15087949.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

General Assembly Passed Legislation 7-20-06

Thursday at the General Assembly
By The Associated Press
July 20, 2006 7:42 pm

Another week

The General Assembly will stay in session for at least another week as legislative leaders try to settle differences over ethics and lobbying bills, among others. At least 10 pieces of legislation were sent to conference committees this week. Legislators decided to extend the session instead of working late nights this weekend to finish its work and rush through important bills. The Senate plans to meet Friday, then return home until the committees reach compromises on competing House and Senate bills. The House declined to hold a Friday session but intends to return on Monday night for a regular floor session. Both chambers worked on an accelerated schedule this week, passing several outstanding bills considered critical for the completion of this year's two-year session. They also began considering traditional end-of-year bills to make technical corrections to laws, name board and commission members and decide what issues legislators can study formally before next year.

Eye exams

The General Assembly agreed to modify instead of eliminate a program that requires incoming kindergarten students to receive an eye exam to enter school. With Senate approval Wednesday and an 88-15 vote by the House on Thursday, the lawmakers decided that only children who failed an initial vision review would be urged to get a comprehensive eye exam by an optometrist or ophthalmologist. The more thorough exams wouldn't be mandatory, although parents would be alerted that money may be available to help pay for one. The state budget set aside $500,000 for the exams. The Senate twice passed bills this session that would have eliminated the requirement, which was inserted into last year's budget bill by House Speaker Jim Black. Senators reversed their stand Wednesday and agreed to the compromise bill. The original program would have barred any child who didn't receive a comprehensive examination from a North Carolina optometrist or ophthalmologist from attending kindergarten. School districts have sued over the requirement, saying the costly exams would prevent many of the 130,000 children entering kindergarten annually from attending school. A judge in March agreed to stop the requirement from taking effect until the 2007-08 school year. A spokeswoman for Gov. Mike Easley says he will carefully review the bill before deciding to sign it into law.

Eminent domain

North Carolina government agencies would not be able to condemn private properties solely for the sake of economic developments under a measure that both General Assembly chambers approved unanimously. "With that bill, our property rights will be well protected," said Rep. Bruce Goforth, D-Buncombe, who sponsored the proposal. "It's extremely important to retain people's property rights." Some Senate Republicans criticized majority Democrats for a legislative maneuver that blocked any consideration of additional amendments to the bill. Sen. Neal Hunt and other Republicans wanted to change the bill into a constitutional amendment, giving even greater protection to land owners. "A judge can still overrule the law and allow property to be taken for public purpose," said Hunt, R-Wake. "That's a scary thing."

Sex offenders

North Carolina senators increased penalties for sex offenders in a bill that they passed unanimously after renaming it for Jessica Lunsford, the 9-year-old Florida girl who was kidnapped and buried alive. Among the changes, law enforcement will fit some of the state's worst sex predators with GPS tracking devices in an effort to prevent repeat offenses. All registered offenders would be prohibited from working or volunteering in a position where they would supervise or interact with minors. Lawmakers also increased sex offender registration requirements, seeking to keep updated photos and addresses for public access. The bill now returned to the House.

Campaign advertising

The state Senate continued its efforts to strengthen ethics laws, approving a bill that expands the number of big-spending campaign advertisers who must report their expenditures. The measure, passed 38-8, would not restrict campaign advertisements, but it would require advertisers who spend more than $10,000 in a statewide election year to identify the people who contributed over $1,000 to help pay for the ads. The ads would have to identify a candidate. The bill seeks to add more requirements upon independent expenditure groups, usually so-called "527" groups, that have spent more money on recent elections in North Carolina. "The sole aspect of this is for disclosure," said Senate Majority Leader Tony Rand, D-Cumberland. The General Assembly approved legislation just last week that would require more information about donors and expenditures by 527s that produce campaign materials within a set period before the primary and general elections. The bill now goes to the House for consideration.

Bill Lee Act

The Senate has agreed to narrow the state's primary economic incentives program by eliminating some unused tax credits and focusing others on poorer counties. The William S. Lee Act has been in place for 10 years and provided tens of million of dollars in tax credits annually for businesses that create jobs, install machinery, train workers and perform research. The credits have given way to cash grants in recent years as a way to attract new companies to North Carolina. Others have complained the Lee Act hasn't helped enough to improve the economy in low-income areas. Companies that agree to build in 40 counties considered the most economically distressed would be eligible for the highest per-job credit of $12,500. The 20 most economically vibrant counties, largely in the urban Piedmont, would continue receiving $750 per job. Job creation in the 40 counties in the middle would be eligible for $5,000 per job. The measure also would reduce the types of credits to job creation and investments in business property and land. It would still apply to only certain industries such as air cargo carriers, manufacturers and data processors. The Senate gave its final approval 41-5 and it now returns to the House, which must either accept the Senate changes or sent the bill to a conference committee.

Small parties

State senators gave a small concession to North Carolina's small parties by allowing parties that receive 2 percent of the total vote in a gubernatorial or presidential race to stay on the ballot for the next election cycle. The existing threshold is 10 percent, making North Carolina one of the most restrictive ballot-access states in the nation. Only one third party candidate in contemporary North Carolina history has ever met the 2 percent standard. Scott McLaughlin, a Libertarian candidate for governor, drew 4 percent of the vote in 1992. Senators declined to change North Carolina's signature requirement for small parties to get on the ballot. The state demands about 69,000 signatures from new parties to get on the ballot, a standard that ranks among the most difficult in the nation, according to the N.C. Open Elections Coalition. Senate Minority Leader Phil Berger offered a floor amendment that would have lowered the signature standard to about 17,000. Berger's motion failed by four votes.
END

URL for this article: http://www.heraldsun.com/state/6-753474.html

Dragging Their Feet On Ethics And Lobbying Reform

OPINION

The Fayetteville Observer

http://www.fayettevillenc.com/article?id=237977

Our View: Voters watch as legislators drag their feet on ethics and lobbying reform.

There is dim hope for some improvement in the state?s lobbying and government-ethics laws this year. But it is tempered by the suspicion that it?s more for show during an election year than a sincere attempt at reform.

Two months ago, the House passed and sent to the Senate its much-ballyhooed ethics-reform legislation. The House bills put some new controls on lobbyists and campaign-finance contributions, although they left significant loopholes. The Senate sent the bills to committee, where they were extensively modified and combined into a single bill. It didn?t emerge from committee until this week, shortly before the legislative short session appeared likely to adjourn.

The Senate bill is significantly different from the House?s legislation. It includes a much stronger, centralized State Ethics Commission empowered to investigate conflicts and wrongdoing in all three branches of government. While that?s a good thing, the Senate then elected to let the commission do its work in closed session, hardly a move for open government.
While the legislation would ban donations from lobbyists to political candidates or campaigns, that's a symbolic gesture, because lobbyists themselves aren't major donors. It would allow lobbyists to continue to solicit donations on behalf of candidates, however, a much bigger source of campaign cash for lawmakers. Even the N.C. Professional Lobbyists Association supported that ban. But it is, after all, an election year and our legislators appear more worried about collecting cash than limiting its sources. So they will leave the door wide open to influence-peddlers.

In the end, they may leave all the doors wide open. Lawmakers are eager to adjourn. Lobbying and ethics reform are the last major items on the agenda. A conference committee was appointed to somehow mesh the House and Senate's disparate bills. But nobodys making optimistic noises.

The issues just too big to make a mad dash for a deadline, said House Speaker Jim Black, whose campaign finances and dealings with lobbyists are the primary inspiration for the slew of reform measures. Black said he hopes for an agreement by early next week.

We hope that happens. If our legislators adjourn this session without enacting significant reform measures, they will all return home under a cloud dark with the suspicion that all of this was about appearances, not substance. They won't do much better if they pass a weakened compromise bill. And the voters are watching.

OPINION

The Fayetteville Observer

http://www.fayettevillenc.com/article?id=237977

Our View: Voters watch as legislators drag their feet on ethics and lobbying reform.
There is dim hope for some improvement in the state?s lobbying and government-ethics laws this year. But it is tempered by the suspicion that it?s more for show during an election year than a sincere attempt at reform.

Two months ago, the House passed and sent to the Senate its much-ballyhooed ethics-reform legislation. The House bills put some new controls on lobbyists and campaign-finance contributions, although they left significant loopholes. The Senate sent the bills to committee, where they were extensively modified and combined into a single bill. It didn?t emerge from committee until this week, shortly before the legislative short session appeared likely to adjourn.

The Senate bill is significantly different from the House?s legislation. It includes a much stronger, centralized State Ethics Commission empowered to investigate conflicts and wrongdoing in all three branches of government. While that?s a good thing, the Senate then elected to let the commission do its work in closed session, hardly a move for open government.
While the legislation would ban donations from lobbyists to political candidates or campaigns, that's a symbolic gesture, because lobbyists themselves aren't major donors. It would allow lobbyists to continue to solicit donations on behalf of candidates, however, a much bigger source of campaign cash for lawmakers. Even the N.C. Professional Lobbyists Association supported that ban. But it is, after all, an election year and our legislators appear more worried about collecting cash than limiting its sources. So they will leave the door wide open to influence-peddlers.

In the end, they may leave all the doors wide open. Lawmakers are eager to adjourn. Lobbying and ethics reform are the last major items on the agenda. A conference committee was appointed to somehow mesh the House and Senate's disparate bills. But nobodys making optimistic noises.

The issues just too big to make a mad dash for a deadline, said House Speaker Jim Black, whose campaign finances and dealings with lobbyists are the primary inspiration for the slew of reform measures. Black said he hopes for an agreement by early next week.

We hope that happens. If our legislators adjourn this session without enacting significant reform measures, they will all return home under a cloud dark with the suspicion that all of this was about appearances, not substance. They won't do much better if they pass a weakened compromise bill. And the voters are watching.

Cruise's candid camera

The News and Observer

http://www.newsobserver.com/579/story/462231.html

Cruise's candid camera

Well, it just keeps getting better, if you're a bemused observer of Ferry-in-the-water-gate. But if you were one of the officials on the now-infamous Ship of Pols -- the ferry ride that escorted local and state government bigwigs 'round the tall ships near Beaufort on July 1 -- it keeps getting worse. Now there are pictures.

The state Department of Transportation, where officials made the trip possible with the loan of a state ferry, has released more than 300 photographs showing various guests having a big time.

There was Secretary of State Elaine Marshall and her husband posing happily on the boat, Board of Transportation Chairman Doug Galyon bellying up to the food bar. Why the photos? According to an internal e-mail message sent by state Ports Authority spokeswoman Karen Fox, sponsors of the cruise (which included the authority) wanted photos to "give to our legislative and other VIP guests as a souvenir of their once-in-a-lifetime experience."

There's one thing you can bet on. It will indeed be once in lifetime. When Governor Easley read the first articles by The News & Observer's J. Andrew Curliss, he ordered reports on the cruise, which cost a total of $31,143 and was hosted by the Ports Authority. The governor was not pleased with the expenditure of public funds and was equally unhappy with the fact that a state ferry was diverted for five days, counting preparation time.

Billed by some officials as a way to "honor" legislators, only a handful of lawmakers attended. The other guests were locals, a couple of the governor's Cabinet secretaries, and other bigwigs and relatives.

We are getting close to the punishment phase of this little adventure, and Easley shouldn't spare the rod -- at the top. If lower-level officials take the fall, that would be wrong. And let's have everybody on the cruise repay the cost of his or her attendance and those of guests. Finally, Easley just needs to declare that nothing like this should ever happen again, and that any official who tries to make it happen will walk the plank.

Who Will Defend the Ferryboat Cruise?

The Pilot

http://www.thepilot.com/stories/20060718/edit/opinion/071906Martin.html

D.G. MARTIN: Who Will Defend the Ferryboat Cruise?Is anyone going to say something in defense of giving elected officials the kind of special treatment some of them got at the Tall Ships event off the coast near Beaufort earlier this month?

It is much safer to jump on the bandwagon and attack every occasion public officials enjoy hospitality at the expense of taxpayers or somebody who wants something from the taxpayers.

The Raleigh News & Observer of Raleigh reported on its front pages that a state-owned ferryboat had been taken off its regular route and used to host a group of government VIPs and their guests at the Tall Ships event at a cost to the state of thousands of dollars.

So far, nobody has jumped up to defend the folks who made these arrangements. Nobody in the government chain of command has come forward to explain what was going on or to defend their Tall Ships promotion and entertainment program.

Well, if nobody else is going to step up to the plate, maybe I ought to give it a try.

Here is what I would say:

When there is an opportunity to create or enhance an event that could bring favorable attention to North Carolina, state government should provide encouragement. When appropriate, it should try to give reasonable support to events like the Tall Ships visit.

One reasonable way to support a gathering of ships would be for the state to send one of its own big ships to make an appearance. Since the state does not have a navy, sending one of the largest ferryboats was a good way to boost the event and show state support.

In addition, participating in the Tall Ships event gave an opportunity to showcase and advertise the state's ferry service.

Arguably, the cost-effectiveness of participation in the Tall Ships was greater than the ferry service's normal paid advertising program.

Even if you agree with me so far, I bet you want to ask me how I would explain spending so much money to entertain the elected officials and their guests. Here goes:

Having the state's elected officials at an event like the Tall Ships is an important way to show support and to demonstrate to the event's sponsors that the event is important to the state and its government.

Getting legislators to give up their weekends at home in order to show up at important events far from their homes is a challenge. If you want important people to attend, you have to make it something special. Once the ferryboat was going to be there, it made good sense to use it to persuade a good number of elected officials to attend.

It does not make sense to criticize the elected officials who showed up. And it is not fair to them. If anything negative is said, it ought to be directed at those important officials who did not support the Tall Ships event by their attendance.

When the state helped host the 100th anniversary of the Wright Brothers flight a few years ago, nobody criticized President Bush for the free ticket and the special attention he got when he attended. Nor was there any criticism for the VIP treatment given elected officials and other people whose attendance was important as a part of the event's success.

Maybe the Tall Ships event is not in the same league as the Wright Brothers anniversary celebration. But the success of each of them was good for North Carolina.

And the next time a community has a similar opportunity to organize an activity that could attract positive national or worldwide attention, I hope the recent experience at Tall Ships will not keep the state from supporting it. And if attendance by elected officials is important to the event's success, I hope that somebody will give them VIP treatment.

Maybe you do not agree with me about this. But you see that there is a case that could have been made, don't you?

So why didn't somebody in state government give it a try? I wish somebody had tried. A debate, rather than a simple default, would have been useful.
D.G. Martin is the host of UNC-TV's "North Carolina Bookwatch," which airs Fridays at 9:30 p.m. and Sundays at 5 p.m. This week's (July 21 and 23) guest is Sarah Dessen, author of "Just Listen."

Black should get behind moratorium on proposed landfills

The Charlotte Observer

http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/15088085.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

time-out on dumps
Black should get behind moratorium on proposed landfills

If four landfills proposed in eastern North Carolina were ordinary dumps, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Nor would the state House be debating a moratorium on landfill permits.
But these four projects -- one each in Columbus, Camden, Brunswick and Hyde counties -- are mega-landfills that would make North Carolina the landfill center of the East Coast. Before they get the go-ahead, the state needs a time-out to make sure its regulations are adequate to protect public health and the environment.

The state Senate has agreed to that. Now the call rests in the hands of the state House and its speaker, Rep. Jim Black. This is a no-brainer: He ought to quickly get behind a bill that halts all permits -- including these four proposed mega-landfills -- for 18 months.

At stake are clean water, air and soil. The four proposed mega-landfills will handle different kinds of refuse. But each of them raises unsettling questions about pollution.

In coastal Camden and Columbus counties, for example, thousands of tons of out-of-state municipal garbage might pile in every day. The Camden landfill would cover 500 acres, towering as high as 25 stories, and potentially degrade the water supply for parts of the Tidewater region. The Columbus County landfill, 170 acres and 350-feet high, would be built in wetlands drained by paper companies just enough to grow pine trees. That's nuts.

Yet it's exactly why the moratorium bill passed by the state Senate is so necessary. It would suspend new landfill permits until 2008. That would let North Carolina study whether its coastal region is suitable for mega-dumps, and, if so, what kinds of rules and precautions ought to be required of the companies who operate them.

That's critical. The state's current regulations and its process for permitting landfills were not designed with huge dumps like these in mind. They ought to be.

Rep. Black and his peers in the House should not be fooled by the fact local governments in the rural counties where the mega-landfills have been proposed are supporting them. When you're hungry for jobs and tax revenue, as many of these places are, the prospect of a new industry of any kind looks pretty appealing.

Yet there's adamant opposition from residents in each of these counties. Their concerns are on point: Dumps come with clear risk to public health and the environment -- and with the potential to snuff any future prosperity.

This is a critical juncture for a challenged region of North Carolina, one that's blessed with beautiful and valuable natural resources. We need a time-out on landfills.

Democrat Three-hour cruise, meet $31K cruise

Asheville Citizen Times

http://www.citizen-times.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/200607210015/OPINION01/60720043&template=printart

Three-hour cruise, meet $31K cruise

There are tales of the ocean that make you smell the salt water on the breeze, tales that bring to mind the eternal tale of man and sea, tales that bring to mind sea shanties of old.
This is not one of those tales. This tale is more like salt water in the eyes, and is related to no sea shanty. So we made one up.
Here?s the story: A July 1 party cruise for 200 people, including the North Carolina Secretary of State and elected officials, witnessed the annual Tall Ships Festival down on the coast.
The cruise used a ferry normally used to haul vehicles, which caused a bit of a jam up in traffic across the Neuse River. That?s bad enough, but the cruise also cost around $31,000, and most of that cost was taken care of with tax dollars. The well-connected were treated to the Tall Ship spectacle while being entertained by a steel drum band and seafood buffet while normal folk were straining to get a good view, unless they missed any chance to look at all because of the ferry switch. (A smaller ferry was used in place of the party ferry). The DOT sent a report to Gov. Mike Easley saying it ?realizes that it should have had more appropriate protocols and requirements for use of its vessel at the Tall Ships event.??
Now, the more we thought about this, the more it struck us that hey, there?s a pretty fair sea song in here.
All the elements ? the struggle against powerful forces, tall ships ? um, seafood ? were in there for a classic song of the sea. So here we go, mateys, with apologies to authors of the folks who wrote the theme song to Gilligan?s Island ? probably the last people on the planet we thought we?d be apologizing to when we got into journalism.
Strike up fife and hear the tale of the great Cruise of ?06:
Just sit right back and you?ll hear a tale, a tale of a wasteful trip,
Using a state-owned ferry boat, to watch the famed tall ships.
The food was some mighty pricey stuff, so was the steel drum band
No other reason why we?re out
Thirty-one grand
Thirty-0ne grand.
When word got out, it got quite rough, some faces were real red,
The chant went up, taxpayers said,
Again, we?ve been bled
Again, we?ve been bled
The trip?s a-ground, cruise patrons sore, the press downright hos-tile
But then again,
It would be worse
If we were really vile ...
This song woulda been
Achy Break-y Heart
Instead of Gilligan?s Isle?
---

Senate immigration bill 'far worse' than in '86

The latest immigration bill approved by the Senate is "far, far worse" than the 1986 immigration bill that granted amnesty to 2.7 million illegal aliens and created the magnet for the millions more who have come here since, a House panel was told at a hearing yesterday.

In addition to providing legalization to about four times as many illegal aliens as did the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), witnesses said, the current bill also repeats mistakes made 20 years ago that will render the border-enforcement provisions and employer sanctions meaningless.

"The Senate amnesty would condemn the United States to the same harmful consequences that IRCA caused," James R. Edwards Jr. of the Hudson Institute told the House Judiciary's subcommittee that handles immigration. "Only now, its effects would be far, far worse."

Rep. John Hostettler, the Indiana Republican who is chairman of the subcommittee on immigration, border security and claims, said the problem with the 1986 legislation was that it allowed legalization before measures were put in place to enforce immigration restrictions and punish those who violated immigration laws.

Time showed us that IRCA has utterly and completely failed," he said. "Illegal immigration has not been controlled, but has increased significantly in the past two decades."

Democrats on the panel, for the most part, criticized Republicans for holding what they called a "mock hearing" and accused them of trying to score political points off the explosive issue just months before the next election.

Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee of Texas, ranking Democrat on the subcommittee, said the reason the 1986 bill did not work is that it was not "comprehensive" enough, a criticism she also leveled at the enforcement-only bill approved by the House last year.

"Although IRCA had legalization programs and new enforcement measures, it did not address all of the essential issues," she said. "For instance, it failed to provide enough legal visas to meet future immigration needs."

Mrs. Jackson-Lee also castigated Republicans for smearing the Senate bill with the term "amnesty" because it will grant citizenship rights to some 10 million illegal aliens already here. "It was derived from the Latin word 'amnesti,' which means amnesia," she said after giving the definition. "S.2611 does not have any provisions that would forget or overlook immigration law violations." Replied Rep. Steve King, Iowa Republican: "I don't care what we call it. It's a bad bill, and America knows it's a bad bill."

Though Republicans repeatedly referred to the bill as "Reid-Kennedy" for Sens. Harry Reid and Edward M. Kennedy, Democrats noted that the legislation has broad support among Senate Republicans including Majority Leader Bill Frist. President Bush also has been highly supportive of the bill.

Michael Jackson, deputy secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, said Mr. Bush is committed to a "three-pronged approach" to immigration reform. He wants to strengthen the border, enhance interior enforcement of immigration laws and create a temporary-worker program.

Asked whether this election year is causing problems for the White House in making their case, Mr. Jackson replied, "There is a lot of focus on gaining control of the border this year and we welcome that."

Rep. Silvestre Reyes, a Texas Democrat who served 26 years in the Border Patrol, was among those who testified yesterday. He accused Mr. Bush and Republicans in Congress of wasting time with the hearings. "Talk is cheap," he said. "What border residents want and what Americans want when it comes to border security and immigration reform is action."

But Mr. Hostettler warned that action without consideration for the mistakes of 1986 will only create a bigger problem in the decades to come. "Congress and the administration have no credibility with the American people," he said."Why should Americans have any reason to believe that the supposed enhanced enforcement provisions in Reid-Kennedy will be effectively enforced by the administration any more than successive administrations have enforced IRCA?" Mr. Hostettler asked. "The administration will probably implement amnesty for millions of illegal aliens quite quickly. Enforcement will likely lag behind if it occurs at all. We will find ourselves in exactly the same place we found ourselves 20 years ago."

http://insider.washingtontimes.com/articles/normal.php?StoryID=20060719-122124-9029r

Senate denies funds for new border fence

Senate denies funds for new border fence

Less than two months after voting overwhelmingly to build 370 miles of new fencing along the border with Mexico, the Senate yesterday voted against providing funds to build it. "We do a lot of talking. We do a lot of legislating," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican whose amendment to fund the fence was killed on a 71-29 vote. "The things we do often sound very good, but we never quite get there."

Mr. Sessions offered his amendment to authorize $1.8 billion to pay for the fencing that the Senate voted 83-16 to build along high-traffic areas of the border with Mexico. In the same vote on May 17, the Senate also directed 500 miles of vehicle barriers to be built along the border.

But the May vote simply authorized the fencing and vehicle barriers, which on Capitol Hill is a different matter from approving the federal expenditures needed to build it.

"If we never appropriate the money needed to construct these miles of fencing and vehicle barriers, those miles of fencing and vehicle barriers will never actually be constructed," Mr. Sessions told his colleagues yesterday before the vote.

Virtually all Democrats were joined by the chamber's lone independent and 28 Republicans in opposing Mr. Session's amendment to the Homeland Security Appropriations Act. Only two Democrats -- Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Thomas R. Carper of Delaware -- supported funding the fence.

All told, 34 senators -- including most of the Republican leadership -- voted in May to build the fence but yesterday opposed funding it. (MORE)

(LINK)...
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060714-120633-1188r.htm

SUE MYRICK'S ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION ACTION PLAN

**URGENT ACTION ITEM**

Click Here And Sign Rep. Myrick's Petition To Get NC An Immigration Court


Dear Activist,

Thank you for your concern regarding illegal immigration issues. Below is my Illegal Immigration Action Plan. Each point has an action item that will let you know what you can do to help our cause. It is time the silent majority stands up and makes our voice heard.

I want to also ask you to sign up for my special immigration newsletter. Everyone who signs up will get updates on important immigration news, events, and additional action items. To sign up, simply email Myrick.Immigrationnewsletter@mail.house.gov and request to be added to my immigration newsletter.

Thank you for being a concerned citizen, and thanks for your HELP!

Sincerely,
Sue Myrick
Member of Congress (NC-9)


http://www.myrick.house.gov/actionplan.shtml

Action Plan Items


Tell The Department Of Justice To Place An Immigration Court In North Carolina

It is essential that the Executive Office for Immigration Review (the branch of Department of Justice who oversees and runs immigration courts) establish a court in NC. The establishment of an immigration court located in North Carolina will address both the needs of the growing legal immigrant populations, and the litany of problems the state is experiencing with illegal aliens.

Currently, North Carolina is under the jurisdiction of the immigration court in Atlanta, Georgia. This means that North Carolina doesn’t have the full tools and resources to deport illegal aliens in an expedited manner.

Many times after an illegal alien commits a crime, he or she is given a notice to appear in court in Atlanta. Obviously many of these individuals never show up and are allowed to remain in our country illegally. (MORE)....

http://www.myrick.house.gov/actionplan.shtml

Stop Licensing Illegals in NC

July 17, 2006


RALEIGH — North Carolina should stop making it easy for illegal immigrants to get state driver’s licenses, a new Spotlight report from the John Locke Foundation recommends.“

The legislature has made North Carolina a haven for illegal immigrants seeking licenses,” said Daren Bakst, JLF legal and regulatory policy analyst. “The license is the key that unlocks many of the benefits of American life, and without the key, there might be less incentive to be here illegally.”

North Carolina makes it easy for illegal immigrants to get licenses because it accepts an identification number that’s used almost exclusively by illegals, Bakst said. “This policy is especially problematic since there is no requirement that individuals prove lawful status in the country.”

Bakst examined 2001 state legislation that allowed people to use the federal Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) to secure a driver’s license. The federal government developed the ITIN for people who cannot get a Social Security Number. The ITIN is designed solely for tax purposes.

North Carolina accepts 75,000 to 100,000 ITINs each year, according to estimates from the N.C. Division of Motor Vehicles. “North Carolina is one of only nine states that accept the ITIN in lieu of the Social Security Number,” Bakst said.

The state auditor and the Internal Revenue Service have cautioned against using the ITIN for driver’s license purposes, Bakst said. “The auditor’s office has warned that most states have found that the ITIN card is easy to reproduce illegally.”

North Carolina’s lax driver’s license requirements make the state a “magnet” for illegal immigrants, Bakst said. “Individuals should not be rewarded for being in the country illegally, nor should they — for the most part — receive all the benefits of being an American.”

The terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, prompted governments across the nation to step up security requirements linked to driver’s licenses and other government documents. North Carolina legislators moved in the opposite direction, Bakst said.“

Before 9/11, North Carolina did not accept ITINs,” he said. “Ten days later, on September 21, 2001, the legislature ratified an appropriations bill that deleted a rule requiring a Social Security Number for all driver’s license applicants.”

In place of the Social Security Number, lawmakers allowed applicants to provide an ITIN. “In all fairness, the language was part of a much larger appropriations bill, and some legislators may not have known it existed,” Bakst said. “But since that time, nothing has been done to repeal the acceptance of ITINs or require proof of legal status.”

Easy access to North Carolina driver’s licenses leads to “clear national security risks,” Bakst said. “Driving is freedom of movement,” he said. “In the context of terrorism, freedom and ease of movement are critical. There is no government monitoring of one’s movement. An illegal immigrant with nefarious objectives can freely move across the entire country under the radar screen.”

The driver’s license can also help illegal immigrants board airplanes, set up checking accounts, cash checks, transfer money, and enter government buildings.

The issue might be moot in two years, Bakst said. A federal law called the REAL ID Act will require states to strengthen driver’s license requirements by May 2008. The federal government will not recognize licenses from non-complying states.“

We should not necessarily assume North Carolina will comply, but the cost seems too great to ignore — even for supporters of licenses for illegal immigrants,” Bakst said. “North Carolina clearly is issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. The state needs to take action now to stop this embarrassing practice.”

TIME ACT - ETHICS REFORM - WHAT A JOKE!

Time to act

Former top leaders of both political parties have sent lawmakers the clear message: It is time for lobbying and ethics reform

Former governors Jim Hunt and Jim Holshouser, former state House Speaker Dan Blue, former U.S. Rep. Bill Cobey and other leaders have raised the flag of lobbying and ethics reform and told legislators it's time to salute. They've sent legislators a letter advocating new rules on lobbying and ethics, and they're right. Governor Easley also supports laws that would dampen the influence of special interest groups and their representatives on Jones Street.

As this legislative session draws to a close, many lobbying reforms have been proposed, but it's clear that enthusiasm for them is weak, and cynical observers of democracy, North Carolina-style, have even speculated that lawmakers will leave town having done little or nothing, with promises to get back to it.

Unacceptable. Over the years, the legislature has seen a boom in lobbyists, and what's developed has been a sort of political co-dependency. Legislators find lobbyists to be willing campaign contributors and effective fund-raisers, which has only ramped up the spending in legislative elections and the costs of campaigning.

Lobbyists, for their part, have continued to kick in campaign money and provide trips and gifts and the like not because they find a particular member of the General Assembly to be charming company, but because they think it will help when the time comes to advance, or kill, a bill in which their clients are interested.

This is, to use the psychology vernacular, an unhealthy relationship.

Between them, the House and Senate have some good ideas. Proposals are on the table to curb gifts to legislators (they ought to be banned outright), to ban campaign contributions from lobbyists in cash or in-kind giving, to set up an independent ethics commission with teeth. (The commission should have authority to investigate and act on complaints against lawmakers, and not have to leave that ultimately to legislative self-policing.)

And yes, it's time to have an option for public financing of campaigns in this state. In addition, what ought to happen is that there should be a ban on lobbyists raising campaign money, period -- something lawmakers are reluctant to do.

Reluctance -- there's the rub. Even though House Speaker Jim Black figures in high-profile investigations regarding passage of the state lottery and some issues related to campaign financing -- factors that have cast an unflattering spotlight on the lobbyist-legislator network -- some lawmakers just can't bear the thought of losing those lobbyist-paid golf outings or the goodies that are in their view the perks of power, perks to which too many think they are entitled.

As the former governors and other officials, along with Easley, say, it's time to do something to curb special-interest influence through the money chase.

If lawmakers fail to act, or come up with reform in name only that leaves loopholes through which they can continue to shake down lobbyists for money or gifts, they will have seriously harmed their personal credibility and that of the institutions of which they should be proud to be a part. And when the foot-draggers seek their next terms, their constituents should go to the polls and withdraw that privilege.

General Assembly passes property protection proposal - NOT!!

General Assembly passes property protection proposal

RALEIGH, N.C. — North Carolina government agencies would not be able to condemn private properties solely for the sake of economic developments under a measure that both General Assembly chambers approved unanimously Thursday.

"With that bill, our property rights will be well protected," said Rep. Bruce Goforth, D-Buncombe, who sponsored the proposal. "It's extremely important to retain people's property rights."

Some Senate Republicans criticized majority Democrats for a legislative maneuver that blocked any consideration of additional amendments to the bill. Sen. Neal Hunt and other Republicans wanted to change the bill into a constitutional amendment, giving even greater protection to land owners.

"A judge can still overrule the law and allow property to be taken for public purpose," said Hunt, R-Wake. "That's a scary thing."

Goforth, who originally co-sponsored a constitutional amendment for eminent domain, said that it really wasn't necessary.

The latest proposal now goes to Gov. Mike Easley.

A number of state governments have strengthened their eminent domain laws after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled last year that government could take land for economic development, noting that economic development was in the public's interest. The court ruled that a

Connecticut town could seize 15 waterfront households as the site for office buildings, a marina and a Pfizer research center.

"That case opened a can of worms that everyone was concerned about," Goforth said. "But we should be OK now."

While a few states have passed laws similar to the one considered Thursday, Michigan is the only one to change its Constitution.

http://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/content/gen/ap/NC_XGR_Eminent_Domain.html

Illegal Immigration Bills Being Left to Die In Committee

The leadership in the NC legislature tha Rep. Justice is referring to, is "DEMOCRAT' House Speaker Jim Black & 'DEMOCRAT' Senate Pro Tem. Marc Basnight

Original Message -----
From: Vivian Sherrell (Rep. Justice)
To: undisclosed-recipients:
Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 9:28 AM
Subject: Immigration


Many Bills to do with illegal immigrants have been introduced in the North Carolina General Assembly, but our leadership has not allowed them to be heard.

These Bills listed below show that a great number of your legislators are willing to stand up for America, but if the Bills are never heard on the Floor, we never have an opportunity to vote for them.

Immigration Bills:

House Bills

HB 1018 - Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act
HB 1362 - Enforce Immigration Laws
HB 1451- Reform Drivers License Issuance Criteria
HB 1480 - Modify Requirements for School Admission
HB 1942 - Verify Public Employee Legal Status/Funds
HB 2654 - Enforce Immigration Laws
HR 2692 - Support Federal Immigration Legislation
HJR 2808 - Detention of Undocumented Aliens
HB 2809 - Security and Immigration Compliance

Senate Bills

SB 419 - Increased Security For Drivers Licenses
SB 934 - Notary Public Act.-AB SB 976
SB 976 - Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act
SB 1223 - Security and Immigration Compliance
SB 1550 - Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act
SB 1446 - Increased Security for Drivers License
SB 1608 - No In-State Tuition If Unlawfully in US
SB 1627 - Security and Immigration Compliance
SB 1735 - NCCU Immigration Law Clinic
SJR 1977 - Notification to be Sent to INS
SB 1979 - Notification to Be Sent to INS

Rep. Carolyn Justice

Ethics Reforms, Weak knees

Weak knees

Serious ethics and lobbying reform are in peril, as lawmakers on Jones Street seem reluctant to take medicine they need

EditorialThe News & Observer7/16/06

There are more brickbats than bouquets for North Carolina's General Assembly members when it comes to their weak-kneed attitude toward ethics and lobbying reform. Yes, a tiny amount of time remains for real reform to happen, but don't bet the farm on it. In fact, don't even bet pocket change on it.

Oh, bows will be taken for some reform measures, such as the prohibition on legislators being able to use campaign funds for personal expenses. That should have been enacted years ago, because it's preposterous on its face that someone who solicited money for a campaign should then be able to turn around and buy a car with the leftovers. So sure, it's good that such a lackadaisical policy has been changed. It is not, however, a world-beater of a reform.

How about the reforms suggested by state Ethics Board Chairman Robert Farmer, a former judge and legislator? Farmer wanted an independent board to review ethics complaints against lawmakers. But legislators have opted instead to police themselves, at least so far. Uh, huh. Don't you know that will be a tough review. And Farmer also wanted a ban on lobbyists raising campaign money, a policy in effect in several other states. But that wouldn't fly on Jones Street -- constitutional concerns, you know.

The N.C. Coalition for Lobbying Reform had a good list of goals, from the independent ethics board to a ban on contributions from lobbyists to a ban on special provisions (money slipped into the budget without debate) to other procedural measures to keep government open. But chances are that more of those goals will be missed than reached, House Speaker Jim Black in effect brought this fuss about. He figures in investigations involving passage of the state lottery, his campaign fund-raising and the activities of his former political director, Meredith Norris. Black made a great show of endorsing reforms, and indeed the House has done some good work. There are any number of legislators who understand what's at stake and want to do the right thing.

But a lot of proposals are just lying around, with the Senate having become a bottleneck. Citizens couldn't be blamed if they thought at this point that all the chest-pounding about the need for ethics reform was mostly for show.

Legislators should not leave town without doing what Farmer wants done, and without acting to curb the influence of special-interest groups and the ridiculous goodies that lobbyists provide. In short, they must act to lessen the justifiable public impression that lawmakers listen first, last and always to big money ahead of the public interest. If they don't -- well, they ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Failure to enact strong ethics policies and lobbying reform (though we're really talking about reforming legislators' penchant for holding their hands out to lobbyists) will represent confirmation that the ladies and gentlemen of the General Assembly think of themselves as a ruling class, entitled to all they can get. And that, without question, will undermine all of what they do and the credibility of the institutions of which they are part.

Click here for the article...