By Mary Ann Collins
Sun Aug 12, 2007 20:21

By Mary Ann Collins
August 9, 2007


Bureaucrats in the State Department are in the processing of giving eight Alaskan islands to Russia. This includes hundreds of thousands of square miles of sea beds that are rich in oil, gas, minerals, and fisheries, worth billions of dollars. In addition, because of their location, these islands are of strategic military importance.1

Since when do bureaucrats have the power to give away American territory, especially when it compromises our national security? We aren't talking about the President, and Congress, with advice from the military. We are talking about State Department bureaucrats.

These negotiations have been kept secret from the American public. Congress has been bypassed. The will of the people has been ignored.

An organization called State Department Watch has tried to make people aware of it. However, the Attorney General of Alaska issued a "Cease and Desist" Order that prohibits them from telling people about it.2

So whatever happened to the Constitutional guarantee of free speech?

This is precisely the kind of situation where free speech is most needed. A bunch of bureaucrats are giving part of America to Russia, along with much needed oil reserves. And they are gagging concerned citizens who want the American public to know what is going on.

The Alaska legislature asked the Governor and Attorney General of Alaska to fight the giveaway. The vote was nearly unanimous in both houses of the State Legislature. However, the Governor and Attorney General refused to do anything about it.3 Is this America?


In 2001, the Institute for International Economics published Robert A. Pastor's book "Toward a North American Community: Lessons from the Old World for the New." Taking the European Union as a model, it discusses ways of creating a union between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Some people refer to this as being a North American Union, similar to the European Union. Basically, this means giving up America's national sovereignty.

The starting point is the NAFTA trade agreement. It is notable that the starting point of the European Union was also a trade agreement.

In 1957, six countries signed the Treaty of Rome, to pool their steel and coal resources. That began a series of events that resulted in today's European Union. In May 2007, the European Union celebrated its 50th anniversary. First it was called the European Economic Community.

Then it was called the European Community. Now it is called the European Union. Such things are accomplished one stage at a time.4

By pages 114-115 of the book, Pastor's vision of economic integration has expanded. It develops to the point that he discusses the possibility of developing a common currency, the "Amero" (similar to the Euro of the European Union).

Chapter 7 is titled, "Is a North American Community Feasible? Can Sovereignty Be Transcended?" Please stop for a moment and look at those words slowly and carefully.

Pastor is talking about whether or not it is feasible to develop a "community" that takes priority over our national sovereignty. He takes it for granted that it would be good to do this. His only question is whether or not it is feasible, at this time, to make it work in practical terms.

On pages 152-154, Pastor discusses "alternative approaches to sovereignty." He talks about the possibility of developing a "political entity that could transcend traditional conceptions of sovereignty."

To "transcend" national sovereignty means to abolish it, for all practical purposes. You might retain some of the trappings and some of the vocabulary, but in essence, there would be no more real national sovereignty.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) strongly approves of Pastor's approach. The CFR was founded in 1921 in order to build a "network of globalist support groups."5 (Globalism is an approach to politics that sees individual countries as being "states" in a global government. One approach would be to have something comparable to the United Nations govern the world. Another approach would be to have every nation become part of something comparable to the European Union.)

The CFR is highly influential because its membership includes high- ranking politicians. Among them are Senators and Congressmen, some of whom are running for President in 2008. In addition, there are high- ranking politicians who have connections with the CFR (and are thereby influenced by it), even though they are not members of it.

In 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations (along with its Canadian and Mexican counterparts) produced a Task Force Report which was published as a book with the title "Building a North American Community." The Task Force has three "co-chairs" (one from each country) and three "vice chairs" (one from each country). Robert A. Pastor is the American Vice Chair of the Task Force. (You can get the book at Just search for the title.)

According to the Foreword, the CFR Task Force offers detailed proposals that are based on the "Texas summit of March 2005." This was a meeting that President Bush held at his ranch with President Vicente Fox of Mexico and Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada. After that meeting, the three heads of state issued a press release announcing that they had made an agreement to form the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).

The Foreword also says that the "central recommendation" of the report is the establishment of a "North American economic and security community" by the year 2010. The boundaries of this community would "be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter." In other words, going from Mexico to Canada via the United States would be similar to going from Virginia to Maryland, via Washington D.C. The identity would be trinational, rather than national. We would lose our national sovereignty.

On page 8, the report recommends the establishment of "a common security perimeter by 2010." This would effectively remove any security perimeters between the three countries. So our security would be at the mercy of Mexico and Canada. This would not be good, because a lot of terrorists are already getting into America across the Mexican border. (See Congressman Tom Tancredo's book "In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security.")

On page 10, the report recommends that by the year 2010, the groundwork should be laid for enabling a "freer flow of people within North America" (i.e., from Mexico to Canada). On page 25, it recommends "open skies and open roads." Judging by its failure to secure the Mexican border, the Bush administration appears to agree with these recommendations.

Phylis Schlafly's article "Pursuing the ‘North American' Agenda" gives a good overview of the situation.6 The Eagle Forum has a web page with links to numerous articles on the subject.7

We can expect the recommendations of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) to be taken seriously, because many of the Democrats and Republicans who are running for President in 2008 are either members of the Council on Foreign Relations, or else have ties with it. In addition, others are globalists, and the CFR is a globalist organization. (The following information comes from the "US Presidential Candidate Fact Sheet" of Hope for the World, Summer, 2007. The research was done by Gary Kah and Carl Teichrib.)

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES -- Joe Biden is President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. Hillary Clinton was a guest speaker at the CFR. In addition, her husband founded the Clinton Global Initiative. Both Clintons are strongly globalist. Christopher Dodd is a member of the CFR. John Edwards is a member of the CFR. Al Gore has been a speaker at the CFR and appears to be generally supportive of the organization. There is no definitive CFR membership information, but many secondary sources present him as being a member. Mike Gravel doesn't appear to be a CFR member, but he is strongly globalist.

Dennis Kucinich is not a member of the CFR, but he is strongly globalist. Barack Obama's wife Michelle is the director of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. (This is the Chicago branch of the CFR, but under a different name.) Barack Obama has spoken at the CFR in Washington, DC and at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Bill Richardson is a member of the CFR.

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES -- Sam Brownback doesn't have any connections with the CFR. Neither does Jim Gilmore. Newt Gingrich is a member of the CFR. He is also a 33rd degree Mason. Rudi Giuliani has given presentations to the CFR. The law firm that he works with (Bracewell & Giuliani) is directly involved with the NAFTA superhighway program.

Mike Huckabee doesn't have any substantial connections with the CFR or other globalist organizations. Duncan Hunter has consistently voted against globalist free trade programs. John McCain is a member of the CFR. Ron Paul is the founder of the Liberty Committee. He has consistently opposed globalism. Mitt Romney isn't connected with the CFR. Tom Tancredo isn't connected with the CFR. He has taken a strong stand on securing our borders. Fred Thompson is a member of the CFR. According to the US Presidential Candidate Fact Sheet, he may not be as conservative as he appears. Tommy Thompson isn't connected with the CFR.


Main Page - Friday, 08/17/07

Message Board by American Patriot Friends Network [APFN]


messageboard.gif (4314 bytes)