logical lines, which would yield five flaming liberals and threernmoderate conservatives. The commission’s present catalog ofrnpublications currently offers the public over 200 reports andrnpublications. An objective review of the report synopsis, suchrnas “Nativism Rekindled; A Report on the Effort to Make EnglishrnColorado’s Official Language” or “Who Is Guarding thernGuardians? A Report on Police Practices” or “The Administrationrnof Justice for Homosexual Persons in New Orleans,” revealsrnthe liberal bias of the commission’s majority.rnAn ongoing national project of this commission is a study onrn”Racial and Ethnic Tensions in American Communities—rnPovertv, Inequality, and Discrimination,” and as part of thisrnstudy the commission held two days of hearings in Miami onrnSeptember 14-15. The press release read, “The Miami heanngrnis the sixth in the Commission’s Racial and Ethnic Tensionsrnhearing series. The Commission’s investigation into the resurgencernof racial and ethnic tensions has resulted in hearings inrnWashington, D.C. (1991/1992), Chicago (1992), Los Angelesrn(1993), and New York (1994/1995)…. The last hearing in thernseries is planned in the Mississippi Delta region.” The first fivernhearings were esoteric and occurred without mishap. But thernMiami hearings exploded into a national controversy.rnIn January 1995, a handful of concerned Florida residents—rnfaced with the realization that neither the Clinton administrationrnnor the 103rd Congress had made any effort to securernAmerica’s borders, or to alleviate the social, economic, andrncriminal problems that illegal aliens have wrought on the SunshinernState—decided to take action. They incorporated thernFLA-187 Committee and registered with the state of Floridarnas a political action committee.rnLed by attorney Rob Ross, the group drafted four carefullyrnworded state constitutional amendments, which they hoped tornput on the ballot in the 1996 general election. The proposedrnamendments were concise, detailed, and designed to improvernupon the initial California effort. The first would deprive illegalrnaliens of public benefits and social services. The secondrnwould exclude illegals from public schools. The third would requirernstate and local governmental agencies to cooperate withrnimmigration authorities. And the fourth decrees that Englishrnbe implemented and utilized as Florida’s official language.rnFlorida places heavy demands on ballot initiatives. Thernproposition must undergo Supreme Court review for a singlernissue test, requires 400,000 bona fide signatures of registeredrnvoters, and then must win voter approval on election day. Undauntedrnby the challenge, the volunteers began to organizernstatewide. They had faith in the democratic process and believedrnthat if the citizens objectively examined both sides ofrnthe issues, the signatures and necessary funds for success wouldrnfollov’. Familiar with the California experience, and workingrnclosely with the Prop. 187 initiators in the Golden State, theyrnwere prepared for political opposition from the “open borders”rncabal, the radical left, and those with vested financial interestsrnin unrestrained illegal immigration.rnAlmost immediately, a Florida contingent of the Committeernfor Dignity and Justice for Immigrants arose. This committee’srnlist of “endorsers” reads like a who’s who of the radicalrnleft (National Lawyers Guild, Socialist Workers Party, InternationalrnSocialist Organization, United Farm Workers Union,rnILGWU, etc.), interspersed with a few communist fronts forrngood measure, and the Diocese of Miami Catholic Services forrncredibility. Their “mission statement” is a manifesto at oddsrnwith the traditional American concepts of sovereignty and nationhood.rnCitizen-taxpayers should note they recognize norndifference between the “documented and undocumented”rn(a/k/a illegals). Though the left has dedicated all its resourcesrnto defeat the Florida proposals, and even after months of organizedrnpropaganda with full support from the media and withrnvirtually no support of the proposals from elected officials,rnrecent polls still indicate 65 percent voter approval of thernproposed amendments, including 58 percent support in thernHispanic community.rnThis summer, while winning the public debate in the bodyrnpolitic, the FLA-187 Committee was blindsided by an unprecedentedrnattack from an unlikely source, an agency of thernexecutive branch of the federal government—the UnitedrnStates Civil Rights Commission. Washington sources reportrnthat on August I, President Clinton met in the White Housernwith the Hispanic Caucus. The caucus presented a list of demandsrnin return for its support in the ’96 campaign. CandidaternClinton agreed to support full funding of bilingual educationrnprograms and also agreed to oppose English as the officialrnnational language. In addition, the caucus demanded that thernadministration oppose any congressional measures for immigrationrnreform. Clinton’s response to this demand is unknown.rnEither by coincidence or design, on or about August 2, thernCivil Rights Commission decided to expand its Miami hearingsrnto include the activities of the FLA-187 Committee, withrnthe preconceived notion that the petition drive was causingrnracial and ethnic tensions, though opinion polls suggested otherwise.rnThe operative word in the petitions is: illegal. Therncommittee targeted lawbreakers who illegally enter our country,rnnot racial or ethnic groups.rnOn August 4, three immigration reform activists in thernDade County area, JoAnn Peart (Chairman of Floridians forrnImmigration Reform), Enos Schera (Chairman, Citizens ofrnDade United), and Rob Ross, began receiving phone calls fromrncommission staffers requesting their “cooperation” in the hearings.rnPeart told commission staffer Sicilia Chinn that she didrnnot want to testify and had no firsthand knowledge of the illegalrnimmigration problem. Her only information is what is alreadyrnavailable to the public in newspapers or government reports.rnAfter numerous calls and interviews, Chinn asked forrnPeart’s address so she could subpoena her. When Peart refusedrnto volunteer the information, Chinn replied that theyrnhad the resources to have a private detective locate her homernand to dispatch a federal marshal with the subpoena.rnOn August 25, Congressman Foley wrote to MaryrnMatthews, Commission Staff Director, expressing Peart’s concernsrnthat she was being harassed and intimidated. He said, “Irnam concerned about the agency’s policy in accosting potentialrnwitnesses.” That day. Peart called me to recount her ordeal ofrnthe previous three weeks. At one point, sobbing, she said thatrnthe staffer had referred to her as a “nationalist.” She wasn’trnsure what it meant. I assured her that contrary to commissionrnbeliefs, she was in good company with George Washington andrnthe Founding Fathers.rnOn the same day, Chairman Berry signed subpoenas demandingrnthe appearance of the three activists at the Miamirnhearings, which were delivered a few days later at their homesrnby federal marshals. Accompanying these was an outrageousrnsubpoena duces tecum, demanding seven kinds of documents.rnEach category began with the words, “Any document, includingrnbut not limited to . . . “—^basically, every scrap of paper.rnDECEMBER 1995/25rnrnrn