The best way to introduce the topic, I think, is to discuss what happened here on the House floor not too long ago, when, on June 24, 2003, I offered an amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill--an amendment that would have prohibited any appropriated funds from going to any city that has an official policy of prohibiting its po- lice officers from cooperating with U.S. immigration law enforcement. Such local policies are in clear violation of existing U.S. federal law, yet the proposed amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill was defeated .

It was really one of the most bizarre episodes with which I have been involved since be- fore I became a member of the Congress. The measure proposes simply said that the states and cities in this country should actually abide by the law, and, that if they do not, there will be some penalty attached to the violation of that law. That is really all it said. And yet the amendment failed.

Now, let me back up and explain a little more about this whole thing and how it occurred, because it tells us something about where we are, I think, as a nation, certainly where we are as a Congress, in our attempts to try and bring some sanity to the issue of immigra- tion and immigration reform. We are a long way from that desired goal.

Let us start with this. The U.S. federal law being violated by cities is section 642(a) of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. A law with long title, it says the following: "Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State or local law, a Federal, State or local government entity or official may not prohibit or in any way re- strict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual."

Now, that is a lot of words. That is the legalese way of saying the following: Look, the U.S. federal government operates immigration policy for our land.

That is our unique constitutional role--the unique role of the federal government. The state and local governments do not have any responsibility for and have no authority to get involved with immigration policy.

You can certainly argue, as I do, that the federal government has been AWOL, if you will, on enforcing its own laws, and that is undeniably true. But that does not really give, in any way, shape or form, leave to cities and states across the nation to develop their own immigration policies, which is exactly what has been happening.

So this federal law that was put in place in 1996 says: you know what, states,andcities, you cannot do that. You cannot establish your own immigration policy.

Now, the amendment that I offered that evening of June 24 was an amendment to the appropriations bill for Homeland Security. It was an amendment that simply applied if a state is, in fact, violating the 1996 immigration law. Again, I have to go back and say this law is on the books today. I did not create it. I was not even here in the Congress when it was passed. But it is on the books.

There is one tiny problem with this law, and that is that there is no enforcement mechan- ism. So, it says you should not do this, but, of course, there is nothing bad that will hap- pen to you, state, city or other locality, if you violate the law.

So, I was going to take the opportunity during the passage of the Homeland Security ap- propriations bill to say that we are going to put some teeth into this law, and that, if, in fact, a state or local government violates the law, that entity should pay some penalty; that we, as the Congress, should say to the American nation that the laws of the nation should be upheld and obeyed. That was it, pure and simple.

Now, I knew at the time that the amendment would probably not pass, and I was not surprised by its defeat. But it is important for the House of Representatives--and the Congress--to understand what is at stake when we talk about these socalled sanctuary policies--these local sanctuary policies--and the impact of such policies on public safety in the U.S.A..

Now, let me explain what local sanctuary policies and sanctuary cities are. Cities across the land, because of local political pressure, because of a variety of reasons, have passed ordinances, legal provisions, that restrict their own employees, specifically and often the police departments, from sharing information with the Immigration and Natu- ralization Service (INS). Those local laws say, if you stop or arrest someone and deter- mine that that person is here illegally, you cannot tell the INS about that. You cannot aid the Immigration and Naturalization Service in upholding the law and enforcing the law. Such local laws tell actual police departments that they are not to aid in the enforcement of American national law. Though bizarre and incredible, it is happening. And the cities that do this call themselves "sanctuary cities."

Some of these cities, by the way, actually allow people to vote, even if they are not citi- zens of the United States, even if they are here in the country illegally. All they require is that you show some proof of residency in that city. That is all. Bring your utility bill and you can vote. There are places in Maryland, there are places up and down the East Coast, where this happens. Again, it pretty bizarre stuff, but absolutely true.

Now, this House and this Congress must act to bring these cities and other jurisdictions into compliance with the law. That is why I will continue to offer this amendment on other legislation. A recent Zagby poll revealed that over 70 percent of Americans wanted our immigration laws enforced. I assure you that the same Americans want criminal aliens off the streets and out of our country.

My amendment did not require any city to do anything other than obey existing federal law. More than a dozen major cities and the State of Oregon are now acting in open vio- lation and defiance of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Control Act. These cities are Los Angeles; San Francisco; San Jose; San Diego; Seattle; Houston; Durango, Colorado; Chicago; Portland, Maine; and Portland, Oregon. These cities and the State of Oregon have adopted official policies ordering their law enforcement offi- cials not to obey the law, not to obey federal law.

Can you believe that? Let me repeat it. The leaders in these cities take an oath of office just like every nember of the Congress, a solemn oath to support and defend the Consti- tution of the United States and to uphold the laws of the land. Yet these same local offi- cials are directing their law enforcement officers to ignore the federal law and to not co- operate or communicate with U.S. immigration authorities.

Now, I can understand the argument that is heard from some local officials and indeed from some law enforcement leaders. They say a city does not want to have its police officers using all their time to assist U.S. immigration officers in locating and arresting every single illegal alien residing in their locality. In many cities, the local police would have no time left for routine law enforcement or apprehending thieves, murderers, or rapists. I can understand that concern, and I can understand them blaming the federal government for allowing so many illegal immigrants to enter this country.

But all the amendment I introduced said was that cities could not prohibit its law en- forcement officers from contacting and cooperating with immigration authorities. The amendment does not require every local police officer to call the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement for every arrest or traffic stop. In fact, my amendment does not require anyone to do anything. It merely says cities cannot prohibit their law en- forcement officers from communicating with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement when they see a valid law enforcement reason for doing so.

Local law enforcement officers need to have that freedom to access and use immigration data in the performance of their routine duties. We are not suggesting that local police departments become mere adjuncts of the U.S. immigration service. We are, however, suggesting that law enforcement agencies do have an obligation under existing federal law to identify criminal aliens and turn them over to the immigration authorities for de- portation.

Why is this so important? It is important because there are over 80,000 criminal aliens loose on the streets; and these sanctuary laws, as they are called by their proponents, prevent local police from apprehending these criminals until after they have committed another crime.

I am not talking now about all of the 9 to 13 million illegal aliens in the country. I am only talking about the illegal aliens who are already on the ICE list. ICE is the acronym for Bureau of Immigration and Custom Enforcement. They are on the ICE list for deporta- tion.

I am only talking about the approximately 375,000 absconders, aliens who are here ille- gally, who have been issued a final order for removal, that is, deportation, by a Federal judge. Those names are now on the ICE immigration violators file, and that information is now available to law enforcement officers through the NCIC database--the database of the National Criminal Information Center, the database which is used by all law enforce- ment agencies.

I am most concerned about the 80,000 illegal aliens on this list of absconders who have been ordered deported because they have already committed crimes against our citizens. Why should local law enforcement officers be told by politicians to not identify these people when they come across them in the course of their routine duties? Why should local law enforcement officers not arrest and detain these criminals before they can com- mit another crime?

I think law enforcement does want to see these people to gotten off the streets. It is the politicians who are putting handcuffs on the law enforcement officers and agencies, and it is up to us to remove those handcuffs.

Cities that have these policies are showing contempt, not only for federal immigration law, but also for all Americans. The sanctuary cities are showing contempt for the rights of their own citizens and for the citizens of neighboring towns and villages. They are saying, in effect, we care more about the rights of criminal aliens than the rights of our own citizens.

Let me tell you how this practice works. When a police officer, sheriff's deputy, or state highway patrolman makes a traffic stop or otherwise has cause to question an individual whom he suspects of committing a crime, the officer routinely runs the individual's name through his on-board computer.

Now, through this computer, he has an instant access to the National Criminal Justice Database, the database of the NCIC which I mentioned before. If there is a criminal war- rant outstanding for this person's arrest from any agency elsewhere, whether federal, state or local, the person is normally arrested and booked.

With regard to identifying criminal aliens subject to deportation, a law enforcement officer, until recently, would have to place a telephone call to the INS data center--the INS law enforcement support center--and the center would tell the officer if the individ- ual's name was on the INS list for detainer. A detainer is an official request from one law enforcement agency to another that the person be held in custody. In a sanctuary city, the police would not be allowed to make that call to the center, and the criminal alien would go free.

Now, the good news is that very soon the police officer or deputy will not have to make that separate call. Information will be in the computer via the NCIC. Moreover, local jurisdictions can get partial reimbursement for the cost of holding the illegal alien in a jail through a federal program, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP).

The sanctuary city phenomenon presents an amazing paradox. Under our legal system, under the rule of recall that is the bedrock principle of our nation, any person of any rank or any amount of wealth can be arrested, if he has a warrant outstanding. A Congress- man? Yes. A nationally renowned sports hero? Yes. A veteran who holds the Medal of Honor? Yes.

If there is a warrant outstanding, each of these citizens is subject to arrest by the lowest ranking police officer in any jurisdiction of this nation. But, in any city that has a socalled sanctuary policy, if you are an illegal alien with a felony record and a deportation order signed by a judge, you will not be questioned about your immigration status and you will not be arrested.

This is incredible. It is just absolutely unbelievable. But it is the state of affairs in this country.

If you are an ordinary, tax-paying citizen of Portland, Oregon, or Chicago, or Houston, and you fail to make a court appearance, you will have an FTA on your record, and you will be arrested for failure to appear. But, if you are an illegal alien who has committed two felonies and are under a detainer from Immigration and Customs because of your criminal activity, you will not be arrested. If you are stopped and questioned in these cities, the police officer is not allowed to communicate with ICE to find the information or use that information.

Why is this so important? It is important because there are over 80,000 criminal aliens loose on our streets, and these local sanctuary laws prevent local police from apprehend- ing these criminals until after they have committed another crime.

As I have already said, I am not talking now about all of the 9 million to 13 million aliens in the country illegally; I am only talking about the illegal aliens who are already on the ICE list for deportation. I am tonight talking only about the approximately 375,000 ab- sconder aliens who are here illegally and who have been issued a final order for removal; that is, deportation by a federal judge. Those names are on the ICE immigration viola- tors file, and that information is now available to law enforcement through the NCIC. I am most concerned with the 80,000 illegal aliens on the list of absconders who have been ordered deported because they have already committed crimes against our citizens.

Now, the shocking truth is that there are tens of thousands of criminal felons serving jail or prison time in these sanctuary cities who will not be turned over to ICE because the political leaders of those cities have a policy that law enforcement cannot cooperate with the INS and cannot share information with immigration authorities. Criminals will be re- leased, instead of being picked up by ICE and deported. This will happen not because ICE does not have the resources to detain them; that happens too often in too many places, but that is another issue. It will happen because the politicians in those cities have determined that this is a politically correct thing to do.

Now, I am coming to a very important point about the numbers. There are two different numbers we need to understand when talking about illegal aliens who are criminals and subject to deportation. Again, the number 80,000 that I and most lawmakers have been using for the past year is not a true number of illegal aliens who are dangerous criminals. The 80,000 number is the number of felons among the approximately 375,000 individuals on the INS absconders list. But, tens of thousands of illegal aliens with felony convictions are released from state and local correctional facilities every year and never get on the absconder list. They are theoretically placed on a detainer list, but these people are not always picked up after they are released from jail. This happens because there is a tragic lack of coordination between correctional authorities and ICE. This is a gap in our criminal justice system, and it must be fixed as quickly as possible.

To paint the picture in the cleanest possible terms, I have collected the following data from several state penal systems. Here are the estimated numbers of illegal aliens in some of the state correctional facilities of a few states with these sanctuary cities. Cali- fornia prison population, 160,000; estimated illegal aliens: 18,697. Colorado, illegal ali- ens out of a population of 18,000 in prison: 748. It goes on like that. The percentage of prisoners who are illegal aliens with detainers in 6 states ranges from 4 percent in the State of Washington to 11.6 percent in State of California. The weighted average is about 9 percent. If the percentage is adjusted for the documented INS undercount of deportable aliens, the percentage is 50 percent higher. Thus, the average percentage of illegal aliens in our state prison population in these states is about 14.5 percent. That means that, for the country as a whole, it is safe to say that at least 10 percent of the nation's state prison population consists of deportable criminal aliens.

When these criminals are released from incarceration, they are subject to deportation, and when identified by the INS, their names are placed on the detainer list. The problem is that this does not always happen, as I say, and, in fact, it happens less than 50 percent of the time. Thus, the alarming reality is that, at the present time, thousands of these criminal aliens are released back into our society and will not be deported until they com- mit another crime, if even then. There is no effective system in place to take them into custody, as they finish their prison terms, and deport them. In other words, the abscond- er list neither contains the thousands of additional criminal aliens who have detainers, but have not yet had a hearing and received a final order to qualify them for the ab- sconder list, nor the additional thousands of criminal aliens who have never made it onto the detainer list in the first place.

Fortunately, there is some good news. The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforce- ment is now implementing a new database management system that will close the gap between the NCIC database for criminals and the immigration database for illegal aliens who have been ordered deported. The NCIC system used by local law enforcement will now include the names of criminal aliens from the immigration violators file and the Bu- reau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. If the name of the individual is in the immigration violators file, it will also be in the NCIC. The officer can then arrest and de- tain the illegal alien as a criminal whom a judge has ordered deported. The police officer will not need to place a separate telephone call to the U.S. immigration system and waste precious minutes or hours waiting for a reply. Information will be right there at his finger- tips through the NCIC.

As I explained, there is a huge gap in the system for identifying criminal aliens and get- ting them listed into the NCIC database. Whether those gaps are policy issues, they need to be fixed, but at least there is now a way for local law enforcement to readily ac- cess immigration violators file.

Today, the critical policy issue we in Congress must settle is should the local police of- ficer have that information. Should the local police officers be able to arrest and detain criminal aliens who have committed crimes in this country and are on the list for depor- tation, or should cities be allowed to say, no, we do not want our officers to have that information; we want those criminal aliens to go free.

What are the consequences of allowing cities to be so politically correct that they can thumb their nose at U.S. immigration law enforcement? The consequences are that we will have a growing list of victims of criminal aliens--criminal aliens who should have been removed from our streets before the crime was ever committed.

Whose side shall we choose to take in this matter? Shall we take the side of the crimi- nals who, by law, are subject to deportation, allowing them the right to be free to roam our streets? Or shall we take the side of our law-abiding citizens, defending their right to be free from criminal attack? It is really purely that simple.

In the 19th century, the idea that a state or locality has the authority and right to inter- pose itself between its citizens and the federal government was known as the "nullifica- tion," or "interposition," doctrine. It died in 1865, with the close of the Civil War. But the doctrine has been reborn, not to protect the rights of slaveowners, but to protect the privileges of criminal aliens. The last time I looked, immigration policy was the prov- ince of the federal government, not the city of Los Angeles or the city of Chicago or the city of Portland, Maine, and it is the responsibility of the House of Representatives and the Congress to remind those cities of this fact. But if these cities want to have their own immigration policy and provide sanctuary for criminal aliens, then they should not look to the American taxpayer to subsidize their efforts.

There is good reason to take a special look at Los Angeles as a socalled sanctuary city, because it is the largest city in the largest state of the mation. A few years ago, the INS found that 40 percent of illegal immigrants go to California, and other cities have shown that a third of their illegal aliens go to Los Angeles. Thus, what happens in Los Angeles directly affects the rest of this country.

It happens that, in 2000, the County of Los Angeles did a thorough study of the impact of criminal aliens on the Los Angeles County jail system. They recently shared a copy of this report with me. Among other things, they found that, first, during the decade of 1990 to 2000, the number of illegal aliens in the county jail system doubled from 11 to 23 per- cent. The cost impact on the county jail system also doubled from 75 million to 150 mil- lion. This is only the cost of jail administration and does not include the cost of routine police patrols and investigative activities.

The federal SCAP program--the State Criminal Assistance Program that reimburses local jails for the cost of detention of criminal aliens being held for deportation--does not adequately cover all on the costs. The recidivism rate among criminal aliens deported is 40 percent. That means 40 percent of them return and commit more crime. There are a significant number of federal prosecutions by the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles against recidivist criminal aliens. Only 350 such cases were prosecuted in 1998 compared to 2,400 in San Diego and 3,000 in Phoenix, which is a much smaller city.

A General Accounting Office (GAO) study in 1997 concluded that the INS process for identifying and processing criminal aliens in jail and subject to deportation was so flawed and underfunded that more than half of the criminals who should be deported are not, and they are released back into society. The percentage of jail inmates in Los Angeles who are deportable aliens rose from 11 percent to 17 percent in June 1995 and 23 per- cent in January of 2000.

One INS study cited by the Los Angeles County report showed that INS identified only 65 percent of the inmates who were, in fact, subject to deportation orders and thus placed on a detainer list. That means that all of the numbers of inmates on the whole list need to be adjusted upward by one half to get to the true number of aliens in the penal system who are subject to deportation.

It is fair to extrapolate that, out of the approximately 145,000 prisoners released each year by the Los Angeles County jail system, about 35,000 are deportable aliens. And if INS deports less than half of those, that means that, from Los Angeles alone, over 18,000 criminal aliens are released into society, instead of being deported. Over the past decade, that is 180,000 criminals released and not deported.

It is fair to speculate that, for the nation as a whole, this number is over 500,000 over the past decade, a half million criminal aliens who should have been deported but, instead, were released into society to commit more crimes.

I want to make one further point. It is not just the citizens of Los Angeles or Chicago or Houston that have their rights in jeopardy by these socalled sanctuary policies. The rights of citizens throughout the entire country are placed in jeopardy,

You might say, well, the citizens of Chicago make the choice to place their rights at seri- ous risk of violation, if they let their city officials make and carry out a local sanctuary policy. Let the citizens of Chicago live with the consequences.

However, we Americans have an open and mobile society. If a criminal is stopped and questioned and released in Chicago because his immigration status was not checked, tomorrow that criminal alien may be in Cincinnati or Nashville or St. Louis. Next month, he may be in Tulsa or Topeka or Springfield. I believe, and think the people of the United States of America believe, that the political leaders of Chicago and Los Angeles and Houston do not have the right to make that decision for them, to turn criminals loose on the City of Topeka or the City of Tulsa.

Now, I want to show my colleagues some recent examples of the failures of immigration law enforcement. These are victims of criminal aliens--criminal aliens who should have been deported but were not or who were deported and came back into the U.S.A. through our porous borders.

What I have done sofar tonight is provide an awful lot of statistics and I know that is pretty boring. So, what I would like to do here is put a human face on these statistics.

We have talked about the fact that we have people in the United States being victimized by criminal aliens here and that it does not happen just once or twice. These are not iso- lated incidents, not just aberrations. There are literally hundreds of thousands of people in this country who have been victimized by illegal aliens. They were victims really of our porous borders. They are victims of the policy we run in this country that allows people to come into the country at their will.

Let us look at Tanee Natividad, 16-year-old Phoenix high school student murdered by Max LaMadrid, who escaped across the border into neighboring Mexico. A Phoenix television station tracked him down without difficulty. They found him enjoying a drink in a bar, unconcerned about Mexican law enforcement. Like most victims of illegal aliens, young Tanee was an American citizen of Mexican decent. The television news reporter who located the murderer in Mexico found over 100 similar cases of violent criminals from the Phoenix area alone who have fled into Mexico.

Why do they go into Mexico? Because Mexico will not extradite to the United States. They say they will not send someone back here to face the death penalty. Now they say they will not send anyone back here to face life in prison. They call it cruel and unusual punishment. Let me tell you, when 20 years in a Mexican prison is compared to life in prison in the United States, anybody would take the life term in an American prison. It is ridiculous to believe that the country of Mexico cares so much about the rights of these criminals. The Mexican government and Mexican politicians are really doing it as a way to get at the United States. They are still negotiating the issue of amnesty for illegals, and here they want to use this as a negotiating ploy. So they refuse to send back crimi- nals who fled to Mexico, who see Mexico as a haven, who are able to escape our laws and thumb their noses at our law enforcement people and at the relatives of the victims they leave behind.

David March, a Los Angeles County Sheriff's Deputy who was killed in 2002 after pull- ing over a car on a routine traffic stop in the suburban Los Angeles community of Irwin- dale. The driver was a dangerous Mexican drug dealer, Armando Garcia, who had been deported twice and had a long history of violent crimes, including two attempted murders. After two deportations, Garcia came back across our porous borders again, this time killing a law enforcement officer. He shot March once in the stomach as he walked up to the car. Then Garcia got out of the car and shot him twice in the head.

Armando Garcia should have never been in the country. Remember, he had already been deported twice. Guess where he is? He is back in Mexico. All 50 state attorneys general have written to U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell demanding that this country negotiate a new extradition treaty with Mexico to allow criminals like Garcia to stand trial in the United States for their acts. So far, their pleas have gone unheeded.

These are real people. They were victims of illegal immigrants in this country. They leave behind families who are mourning to this day. I met with Mrs. March last month. I saw the tears in her eyes. I stood at a memorial, a wall that was built on this curb in Ir- windale, California, in an industrial section of town. Probably 99 percent of people that go by do not really see it. It is relatively small, but Mrs. March sees it when she goes by to put a new flower on the grave and to kneel down beside that grave and to say a prayer for her husband, and to ask for some justice because she knows her husband's killer is living in Mexico. They know where he is. The Mexican authorities know where he is.

These are the real faces. These are not statistics.

Sister Helen Chaska, murdered in the Summer of 2002 by being strangled with her rosa- ry beads. She was also raped, as was another nun who accompanied her on her walk. She was in Klamath Falls, Oregon, doing missionary work. Her accused murderer is Maxi- miliano Esparza. Esparza had been convicted in 1988 of robbery and kidnapping in Los Angeles, served 3 years of a 6-year term and was paroled in 1992. By law, this man should have been deported after serving time for a violent felony. But the INS allowed him to remain in our country. The INS has a responsibility for Sister Helen Chaska's death.

If there were a way to bring a suit or some criminal action against the INS, I wish that the survivors, that the friends and relatives of Sister Helen Chaska, could do it.

I am telling you right now that I believe our government has the blood of the victims of criminal aliens on its hands. The blood of these victims is on the hands of the U.S. gov- ernment because of its policy of allowing illegal aliens to enter this country over and over and over again without fear of being arrested, without fear of being returned to their own country, and especially without fear of being stopped as they try to get back into the United States.

Jennette Tamayo, a 9-year-old San Jose, California, resident who was kidnapped from her home, on June 6, 2003, at 4 o'clock in the afternoon. A surveillance video helped identify the kidnapper's car, and the abductor was apprehended a few days later after young Tamayo walked into a Palo Alto video store and asked for help. The accused kid- napper has used aliases, among them Enrique Alvarez, and had been identified as an illegal alien.

These are just four that I bring to the attention of the House tonight. There are thou- sands. In fact, there are hundreds of thousands, hundreds of thousands of victims of our open borders policy. These are just four, and night after night, when I have the ability to address the House, I am going to bring more of these stories. I am going to introduce these faces to more of my colleagues and to those people who may be watching C-SPAN tonight.

These stories about the victims of criminal aliens do not support the picture of illegal immigration portrayed by most of the media--the view that illegal immigration is nothing more than just hardworking families coming here looking for a good life, the same thing that all of our grandparents, great grandparents, or great great grandparents came here for.

That is one picture of illegal immigration, and certainly a vast majority of people who are coming do, in fact, fit that profile, but it is only one picture of illegal immigration.

Here is another picture--one that is not shown to the general public, one that no one wants you to know about. They want to keep the criminal aliens isolated, separated, so that people think this is only an aberration, only happening here or there. They want you to think the situation is it not too bad and, though it was an illegal alien that perpetrated the crime, all is well. So, don't worry. After all, it's politically incorrect to make a fuss over this. Be a good little Liberal, stay calm, and keep your mouth shut!

Beyond the fact that an unfortunate situation occurred and the crime was committed by an illegal alien, you must not make any generalizations. You cannot rationally or fairly think about or focus upon immigration policy just because people were killed by illegal immigrants in this country, illegal aliens who had been deported more than once for com- mitting other crimes in this country. And then you have cities in this country passing laws telling their police officers, telling their law enforcement personnel, that they must not enforce the law.

Thomas G. Tancredo is a Republican member of the U.S. House of Representatives, representing the Sixth Congressional District of Colorado. Congressman Tancredo presented the foregoing statement as a speech from the House floor on July 9, 2003.

This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics, civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.

POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS

POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE

Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.

Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs, International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests, Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy

INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

---

THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA

An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis

Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor

Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic, Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues

Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity