This is an article I wrote some time back, and it has appeared on many websites which are concerned about illegal immigration and/or Social Security.

I feel it contains VERY important information of which many Americans have no idea. Therefore, I have decided to once again re-publish it here. As yet, President Bush has not signed a Totalization Agreement with Mexico. However, it could happen at any time.

I urge all who read this to print out the "post cards" that I received and put in the article. I request that you act on them as soon as possible, because, as I said, this could happen at any time.

Thanks for your time--here is the article:

Recently, I received a letter from Edward I. Nelson, the Chairman of United States Border Control, regarding a proposed ?Totalization Treaty/Agreement? with Mexico. This is not a subject with which I am unfamiliar, as I wrote an article about it while I was a reporter for Talon News/GOPUSA.com, viewable here. (I have to refer you to this website, as the archives at Talon News are no longer available since the ?Gannon-gate? ordeal.)

Totalization agreements were begun to help employees sent abroad to still have enough credits to draw Social Security benefits with the contributions paid in total in the countries in which the employee worked. Most such agreements -- the United States has 20 -- are with European countries.

In his letter, Mr. Nelson explains that past Totalization Agreements have had little impact on U.S. taxpayers because they involved only a few thousand workers who were sent abroad by their employers, and that the reciprocating countries also sent a reasonably equal number of workers to work, and pay taxes, in the United States.

However, with the State Department and the Social Security Administration having now signed onto the idea of Totalization with Mexico, it has become an issue that could devastate the American Social Security system, and therefore, an issue which needs to be brought to the attention of EVERY AMERICAN! As I view it, this literally has the potential to bankrupt our retirement system.

Should the President sign this treaty, it would instantly make millions of Mexicans, both legal AND ILLEGAL, eligible for S.S. benefits. Naturally, this comes at a time when the President (of whom, in most matters, I am a strong supporter) is going around the country trying to convince Americans that the Social Security system is in crisis?and with that, I agree!

The Social Security Administration would have us believe that illegal workers would not qualify under a Totalization Agreement with Mexico. However, according to azcentral.com, an Inspector General's report says that the SSA "doesn't consider the work-authorization status of the individual when they earned the wages. It only considers whether the individual can prove he or she paid Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) taxes as part of this work." And, even IF the claim that Illegal workers were not eligible were true, the writing on the wall is that a general amnesty is on the horizon, which would immediately make ALL illegals (and their dependants) eligible

Further complicating this issue is the fact that once a beneficiary of this Treaty returns to Mexico, his/her spouse and dependants also become eligible for U.S. Social Security benefits. Can you imagine the cost to the S.S. system? According to the Center for Immigration Studies, (http://www.cis.org), in 2000, there were an estimated 9,177,000 Mexicans in the United States (4,808,000 are here illegally), compared to a TOTAL of 3,831,000 foreigners from ALL other countries with whom the United States has Totalization agreements; nearly 2.5 times as many!

Add to all this mess what many see as an all-but-certain push for a blanket amnesty for all illegals, and the impact on the S.S. system will be disastrous should a Totalization agreement with Mexico be authorized. There would be so little reciprocation from the Mexican side of such an agreement that it may as well not even exist. The reason I say this is that, according to the CIS website, the SSA estimates that there are only ?3,000 current American workers and their employers (that) would benefit from a Totalization program.?

A program such as this will only further encourage illegal immigration to the United States. You see, it takes 40 YEARS to qualify for Mexico?s retirement system - and even then you are only entitled to receive back the amount that you have paid into the system. Kind of makes America sound like the promised land, doesn?t it?

And, since it would relieve the Mexican government from having to use its resources take care of its own citizens, the Mexican government would inevitably even further encourage its citizens to illegally migrate to the U.S. That is a no-brainer. I mean, as it is, they already publish manuals advising their citizens how to safely break into the U.S. without detection.

Now, here is the kicker. Even I was surprised to learn that all that needs to happen for a Totalization Agreement to pass is that the President sign it - that?s it. It DOES NOT need to be passed in Congress. However, there is hope! If, within 60 days of the president?s signature, Congress repeals the treaty, it is then nullified. This is where you, the American public, DESPARATELY need to get involved.

As Mr. Nelson?s letter points out, on Jan. 4 of this year, Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), ?introduced H. Res. 20, a bill to disapprove the Totalization Treaty between the U.S. and Mexico.?

Included in the letter I got from the US Border Control were three post cards. The first of these was to President Bush. It reads as follows:

?Dear President Bush,

I am shocked and quite disturbed that you are allowing the Totalization Treaty between the United States and Mexico to go forward even as you warn the nation that our Social Security Trust Fund is in financial trouble.

Your strong support for AgJobs, Guest Workers and all the other thinly disguised amnesty programs for millions of illegal aliens, along with your support for Totalization, make it appear that you are more concerned about the health and welfare of Mexicans than the American people.

Please prove me wrong by expressing your opposition to the Totalization Treaty and to all forms of amnesty for illegal aliens. Thank you.

Sincerely,
(Your name here)?

A similar letter, from you, may be mailed to:

President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20500

The second postcard is to Rep. J.D. Hayworth, and it reads as follows:

?Dear Rep. Hayworth,

Please accept my thanks for introducing H. Res. 20, the resolution of disapproval of the Totalization Treaty between the U.S. and Mexico. It is outrageous that this Administration would attempt to advance such a treaty at a time when our Social Security system is already in financial trouble.

Please know that there are millions of Americans who are on your side and counting on you to do everything in your power to move this bill through Congress. I have already written to my own Representative and to the President, expressing my outrage over this latest act of pandering to Mexico and to the millions of Mexicans here illegally.

Sincerely,
(Your name here)?

A similar letter from you may be mailed to:

The Honorable J.D. Hayworth
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515-1101

The third postcard I received was one for my personal member of the House of Representatives. You can find the name and address of yours (if you don?t already know it) at: http://www.house.gov/writerep/

The card reads as follows:

?Dear Representative xxxxxxxxx:

As one of your constituents, I urge you to vote for H. Res. 20, the resolution of disapproval of the Social Security Treaty (Totalization) between the United States and Mexico.

To allow such a treaty to go forward, knowing it will bleed billions of dollars from our Trust Fund and put millions of Americans at risk, is criminal.

It is time for Congressmen to get off the fence. You either represent your American citizen constituents or you intend to sell them out as you pander after illegal alien votes. Your actions today will show the voters in your District where you stand - for Americans or for illegal aliens.

Sincerely,
(Your Name Here)?

PLEASE feel free to cut and paste these letters and then mail them to the appropriate people. The Gunner would consider it a personal favor, as I am concerned that the S.S. trust fund be there for my kids (and yours!).

Again, you can find YOUR Representative?s contact info at the following URL:

http://www.house.gov/writerep/

I cannot stress strongly enough the importance of not allowing this Totalization Agreement to be passed. Totalization is EXACTLY the right word in this situation!

To read Edward I. Nelson, chairman of United States Border Control?s testimony before the United States House of Representatives Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims Committee on the Judiciary, go to the following URL:

http://www.usbc.org/info/USBC_Testimony_Totalization.pdf

I felt so bad after the mistake I made in my first edition of this article that I felt I needed to make it up to Rep. Floyd. So, here is the corrected article in its entirety. Again, my sincerest apologies to Rep. Floyd.

As battles over eminent domain (or what some politicians have shortened to ED) rage on across the country, I have made it a bit of a crusade to see what Kentucky's own lawmakers are doing to try to prevent cases like we have seen in Connecticut, Florida, New York--the list goes on.

I previously wrote an article regarding my communications with State Sen. Gary Tapp's office. While his office has been very nice in providing the bills that have been proposed to the KY General Assembly regarding eminent domain, as I mentioned in the article, some of the wording in the bill leaves several terms open to interpretation. I eagerly await his office's explanation. As it becomes available, I will post it here for all interested.

In the interim, I have also been in contact with State Rep. David Floyd of Bardstown, who has been more than forthcoming in his responses--for which Mr. Right Opinion has the utmost respect. Forthrightness in a politician, now who can resist respecting that???

He has advised me that he is familiar with both the House and Senate versions of the bills to which I alluded in my previous article. He also agreed that the wording of those bills leaves a loophole for those who would wish to circumvent the true meaning of the bill's intention, and use Kentucky's would-be- newly-defined eminent domain laws just as they are being abused in Riviera Beach, FL.

Rep. Floyd has assured me that he is currently penning a bill that would close any loopholes to the Kentucky Eminent Domain issue. I look forward to receiving a copy of that, and reporting it to you first--right here at Mr. Right Opinion's portal to information (a bit dramatic, I know).

Rep. Floyd emailed me a story about a fictitious family which could potentially lose their home due to a vaguely worded eminent domain law. Truly a tragic scenario which, unfortunately, is being played out in real-life far too often.

Hopefully Rep. Floyd will not mind me disclosing at least part of his email, as I feel it truly shows his position on this vital issue. He states, "The right to own and protect property is basic to freedom and the rule of law. Kentucky's Bill of Rights tells us that acquiring and protecting property is our 'inherent and inalienable' right. Governments (city, county, state) cannot do anything that would violate this right."

He continues, "But consider that we also grant to governments the power to condemn your home and take it away from you. This is the power of 'Eminent Domain' to take private property for public use, while providing just compensation for the taking.

"Roads and schools are generally accepted 'public use' projects. As a people we haven't seriously objected to the government's use of Eminent Domain for such undertakings. However, this summer the U.S. Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote in its Kelo v. New London decision, affirmed that the city of New London, CT could use the takings clause to condemn private homes. But this was not for roads or schools. This taking was for private 'economic development.' New London actually delegated its eminent domain authority to a private businessman, who would build hotels, condos, and office buildings in place of the private homes that he took away.

So we see that governments are using their power to strip private property rights from citizens, claiming that it's for our own good: more development equals more tax revenue equals more government to do good things for you. Those who exercise this authority are sincere in their efforts. But as C.S. Lewis said, 'Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.'"

Now, this is not a campaign stump for Rep. Floyd. However, it does give us a feel for the kind of politicians which we want making decisions for our state. Politicians who will uphold the Constitution and do what is right for "We The People."

I certainly hope that our state legislators will become of the same mindset as this Congressman. As I said, I look forward to seeing the legislation which he will propose to protect Kentucky's citizens from the abuse of the unconstitutional, liberal interpretation of eminent domain as recently handed down in a divided (5-4) U.S. Supreme Court decision.

More to come...

FINALLY--a judge who doesn't legislate from the bench. We actually have a judge on the bench who merely upholds the law and doesn't try to re-write it in the courtroom! This is certainly a rare occurrence in this day and age.

I am sure that Howard Dean, John Kerry, Al Franken, and other far-left-wingers are crying in their organic coffee this morning, as Newsmax.com is reporting a win for the good guys.

In a bitter blow to the witch hunters who have been hounding famed conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh over allegations of "doctor shopping," Florida Judge David F. Crow ruled that prosecutors could not ask Mr. Limbaugh's physicians about his medical treatment, as that would be a breach of doctor-patient confidentiality rules.

Roy Black, Limbaugh's attorney, said the following about the judge's ruling, "Judge Crow's ruling upholds our argument that the State cannot breach doctor-patient confidentiality just because it has obtained some medical records, and thus the state cannot ask the doctors its questions posed to the court during the hearing.

"Judge Crow's decision prohibits the State from questioning Mr. Limbaugh's physicians about 'the medical condition of the patient and any information disclosed to the healthcare practitioner by the patient in the course of the care and treatment of the patient.'

"We are pleased with the court's ruling upholding the patient's statutory right of doctor-patient confidentiality. We've said from the start that there was no doctor shopping but Mr. Limbaugh should not have to give up his right to doctor-patient confidentiality to prove his innocence.

"The medical records that the State has seized and reviewed now for nearly six months show that Mr. Limbaugh received legitimate medical treatment for legitimate medical reasons. Mr. Limbaugh has not been charged with a crime and he should not be charged."

I personally am so sick and tired of the politically motivated, Salem, Mass. style hunt of Mr. Limbaugh that I could scream. Rush has been a major target of liberals for a long time, and once they smell blood, they are relentless in their pursuit. Hopefully, this issue will be put to rest once and for all, and we can move on to the next attack--and believe you me, they are already hatching plans for it!!

However, this attempt to breach the doctor-patient confidentiality laws brings to mind a question: Where was the all-powerful, never wrong ACLU during this OBVIOUS attempt by prosecutors to deny Mr. Limbaugh HIS civil rights? Again, they are showing their true colors.

This is another example of the true agenda of the ACLU. I mean, we have illegal aliens who come across our southern border and are detained by private citizens until the Border Patrol (of whom I am a great admirer) arrives, and the ACLU argues that these criminals' civil rights have been violated--and they have only been on U.S. soil for a matter of MINUTES!!! Hey, Nadine Strossen, (ACLU president), how about protecting the civil rights of American citizens??

Here is the mission statement taken from the national ACLU?s website: "The ACLU is our nation's guardian of liberty. We work daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Our job is to conserve America's original civic values: the Constitution and the Bill of Rights." What a load!!!

It should read, "The ACLU is our nation's guardian of LIBERALS. We LIE daily in courts, legislatures and communities to preserve the individual rights and liberties WHICH WE BELIEVE SHOULD BE GUARANTEED to every SOCIALIST in this country by the Constitution, WHICH WE HAVE RE-WRITTEN, and the laws of the United States AS WE BELIEVE THEY SHOULD BE. Our job is to conserve STALIN'S ORIGINAL VALUES: OUR VERSION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF NO RIGHTS FOR ANYONE WHO THINKS THE WAY WE DO!" That's more like the reality of the ACLU.

As always, I encourage my readers to visit http://stoptheaclu.com. Give it a good reading, and then help us out. I say "us" because I am the State coordinator for the organization in Kentucky. Also, for my Kentucky readers, please consider being a County Coordinator-I need all the help I can get. Of course, wherever you are from, our group needs help all over the country to fight the evils of the ACLU.

Anyway, my heart is filled with gratitude, and a bit of faith in our judiciary has been restored with Judge David F. Crow's decision to follow the rule of law in Mr. Limbaugh's case. God Bless America!!!!!!

By DEXTER FILKINS-NY Times
Published: December 14, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq , Dec. 13 - Less than two days before nationwide elections, the Iraqi border police seized a tanker on Tuesday that had just crossed from Iran filled with thousands of forged ballots, an official at the Interior Ministry said.

The tanker was seized in the evening by agents with the American-trained border protection force at the Iraqi town of Badra, after crossing at Munthirya on the Iraqi border, the official said. According to the Iraqi official, the border police found several thousand partly completed ballots inside.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said the Iranian truck driver told the police under interrogation that at least three other trucks filled with ballots had crossed from Iran at different spots along the border.

The official, who did not attend the interrogation, said he did not know where the driver was headed, or what he intended to do with the ballots.

The seizure of the truck comes at a delicate time in Iran's relations with both Iraq and the United States. The American government has said Iranian agents are deeply involved in trying to influence events in Iraq, by funneling money to Shiite political parties and by arming and training many of the illegal militias that are bedeviling the country.

Agents of the Iranian government are believed to be supporting the two main Shiite political parties here - the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq and the Dawa Party -with money and other assistance. Both parties support a strong role for Islam in the Iraqi state; however, compared with the Iranian government itself, which is a strict theocracy, the Iraqi version is relatively moderate.

In recent months, American officials in Baghdad and Washington, along with their British counterparts, have contended that sophisticated bombs have been smuggled across the border from Iran, and that some of them have been used against American and British soldiers. The bombs are thought to be far more sophisticated than most of the powerful but rather rudimentary ones used to attack American tanks and convoys here.

At a news conference on Tuesday, hours before the ballot seizure, the American ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, spoke of what he said were overt Iranian attempts to influence events in Iraq.

"Iraq is in a particularly difficult neighborhood," he said. "There are predatory states, the hegemonic states, with aspirations of regional hegemony in the area, such as Iran. There are states that fear success of democracy here - that it might be infectious and spread."

"We do not want Iran to interfere in Iraqi internal affairs," Ambassador Khalilzad said. "We do not want weapons to come across from Iran into Iraq, or training of Iraqis to take place."

Mr. Khalilzad has been authorized to speak with the Iranians on the subject of Iraq, but said Tuesday that he had not yet done so.

Northwest of Baghdad, four American soldiers were killed when their patrol struck a mine, the American military command said, offering no further details.

In a message posted on the Internet, the Islamic Army of Iraq, an insurgent group, claimed to have attacked an American convoy and killed a number of soldiers near Abu Ghraib, west of Baghdad. It was unclear whether the posting was referring to the same attack.

The same group posted another Internet message calling on resistance fighters to refrain from attacking polling stations on election day, to "save the people's blood." The group urged Iraqis to continue killing American soldiers.

"This does not mean that we approve of what is called the political operation," the statement said, referring to the election.

Both Islamic Army postings were translated by SITE, a Washington organization that tracks Islamic militant groups.

Despite the disavowal of violence on Election Day, the prospect of electing their own representatives to the Parliament appears to have driven a wedge into the Sunni-backed insurgency. While the Islamic Army called for a cessation of attacks on polling centers, an Internet message posted this week by five militant groups, including Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia, denounced the elections as a "crusaders' project," but, perhaps significantly, did not threaten to disrupt them.

At the same time, insurgents in Ramadi, a Sunni city west of Baghdad, have distributed fliers threatening residents with death if they go to the polls. Similar menacing messages have been posted on walls in towns in western Anbar Province.

To protect against insurgent attacks, some 225,000 Iraqi police and soldiers have begun taking up positions around the country, about 90,000 more than during the January election. The Iraqi forces are being backed up by more than 150,000 American troops.

Other security measures began going into effect around the country on Tuesday, including an extended curfew, a prohibition against carrying weapons and a ban on almost all driving.

In other violence, a Sunni Arab parliamentary candidate, Mizhar al-Dulaimi, was killed in Ramadi by gunmen on his way to visit relatives, officials said, and a friend accompanying him was wounded. Jihadist groups have threatened to kill Iraqis who take part in the political process, either as candidates, poll workers or voters.

Mr. Dulaimi was a businessman known for his strong support for the Iraqi resistance to the American occupation, and he participated last month in an Iraqi political reconciliation conference in Cairo. In a recent television interview, he accused Shiites of trying to arrest him on the basis of what he considered a fabricated security case.

So far, the election campaign has been a turbulent endeavor in Iraq. In the past two weeks alone, 11 people associated with a political coalition that includes Ayad Allawi, a former prime minister, have been killed, including one of its leading candidates in southern Iraq. Last Tuesday, gunmen stormed five northern offices belonging to the Kurdistan Islamic Union, killing two party members and wounding 10.

It is often hard to distinguish political killings from the terrorism that has become a part of daily life here, but in both cases, the parties have accused rivals of carrying out the attacks.

Khalid al-Khassan contributed reporting from Baghdad for this article, and Kirk Semple from Ramadi.

I was mistaken, as my credentials are not posted in my first blog post here. So, here is a list of groups I have either written for or in whose media I have been published, in no particular order:

CivilHomelandDefense.us, fixmyhealthcare.com, freeKentucky.com, Free Republic, GOPUSA.com, Hawaii Reporter, Jefferson Review, Lincoln Heritage Institute, Men's News Daily, RightNation.us., Talon News and VDARE.com.

God Bless,
Mike Minton