the new american, merger in the making

8/14/2019 The New American, Merger In The Making

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-new-american-merger-in-the-making 1/48

• UnderstandingAmerica TodayCAN WE RESTORE FREEDOM &PROSPERITY FOR TOMORROW?

page 4• Merging the USA with

Mexico and CanadaHOW THE NORTH AMERICAN UNIONAFFECTS YOU

page 9• Illegal Immigration

Comes to Your CommunityWHY OUR NATION’S BORDERS

ARE OPEN page 19• NAFTA Superhighway

IMPORTING CHEAP, UNSAFE, FOREIGNGOODS; EXPORTING GOOD JOBS

page 31

NORTHAMERICANUNIONEDITION



Vol. 23, No. 21 October 15, 2007

COVERDesign by Tom Preimesberg and Cathy Spoehr

4

15

9

WHAT’S WRONG4 Understanding America Today

by John F. McManus— Why the American dream is endangered.

NORTH AMERICAN UNION

9 Continental Mergerby William F. Jasper — A hard look at the merger-in-the-making.

RULE OF LAW

15 Running Roughshod Over U.S. Lawsby William F. Jasper — Our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights arebeing eroded.

IMMIGRATION

19 The North American Union Invasionby Sam Antonio— What’s behind the border insecurity.

DEBUNKING MYTHS

22 Myth vs. Factby Larry Greenley— Is a merger of nations really taking place?

NAFTA

25 It’s Not Just About Trade!by Gary Benoit — NAFTA is the foundational framework for a future North American Union.

FREE TRADE

29 Is It “Free Trade” or Something Else?by John F. McManus— “Free trade” agreements, a means to an end.

NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY

31 Express Route to Povertyby Kelly Taylor — Trade corridors under creation.

USA v. NAU

35 Global Risks, National Solutionsby Dennis Behreandt — Global risks are best managed by

independent nations.AMERO

39 An Amero for Your Thoughtsby Brian Farmer — If America adopted a North Americancurrency, we would no longer control our own monetary policy.

WHO BENEFITS?

40 It’s Good at the Topby Charles Scaliger — In all three NAFTA countries, most are hurt while the rich get richer.

ON THE FRONT LINES

43 Signs of Hopeby Larry Greenley— Signs that the planned merger can be stopped.

19 35

40 43

N e w s c o m

A P I m a g e s

A P I m a g e s

N e w s c o m

A P I m a g e s

A P I m a g e s

D e s

i g n

b y

T o m

P r e

i m e s

b e r g a n

d C a

t h y

S p o e

h r



THE NEW AMERICAN • OCTOBER 15, 2007 4

by John F. McManus

America has long been known asa land of opportunity — not justfor a powerful few but for all citi-

zens. Here in America, an impoverishedindividual willing to work hard could pur-sue what became known as the Americandream. And that dream, enjoyed by a largeand growing middle class, included homeownership and a standard of living enjoyedonly by a privileged few in other countries.It also included upward mobility, with eachnew generation enjoying a higher standardof living than their parents.

But in America today, that dream isbeing eroded. For the first time in ournation’s history, many young Americansrealize that they will not be able to matchor exceed the economic levels achievedby their parents. According to a report re-leased by the Pew Charitable Trust, “Menin their 30s today earn less than men intheir fathers’ generation, and family in-come growth has slowed.”

Weighing in on this same development,CNN anchor Lou Dobbs lamented: “Forthe first time in our history, Americansaren’t dreaming of a better life for theirchildren; they are desperately hoping

that their children won’t be forced into alower standard of living and a lower qual-ity of life.”

Serious problems can be seen in sever-al areas: jobs are disappearing; the valueof money is shrinking; families needtwo incomes just to keep pace; govern-ment power continues to grow; and thenation’s praiseworthy cultural base hasbeen eroded. There is a need for Ameri-cans to reverse the course our nation ison. Can it be done? Yes. But only afterrecognizing what made the Americandream possible and taking corrective ac-tion to reclaim it.

Immigrants have long come to America to live “theAmerican dream.” Now, that dream is becoming moredifficult to attain. To reinvigorate America, we mustunderstand the problem.

UnderstandingAmerica Today

WHAT’S WRONGSPECIALREPORT



7

from the Far East fills our stores. The autoindustry is reeling as some of its plantshave closed and others, where certain jobsalways could be found, have been trans-ferred to Mexico and elsewhere. A Utahsteel mill that formerly employed 8,000workers closed its doors because of foreigncompetition. Companies that regularly pro-duced the tools and hardware for Ameri-ca’s builders have likewise been forcedout of business as Asian imports seizetheir markets. National appliance compa-nies in Illinois, Michigan, and elsewherehave closed plants and transferred produc-

tion to Mexico. Most of the popular LeviStrauss jeans are now being made outsidethe United States.

Some displaced work-ers find jobs in the ser-vice industry where theytry to eke out a less-pros-perous living as retailclerks or hotel employ-ees. But those jobs payless than manufacturing

jobs.When a single manu-

facturing job evaporates,the effect is felt by manyothers. Consider whathappens to a restaurantowner in a communitywhere the main employ-er closes its doors. Thesame drop in businesswill be felt at the localautomobile dealership,insurance agency, drycleaning establishment,or any one of the manyretail outlets built toserve the manufacturingpublic. Each of these isa service provider andis dependent on thosewhose labor producesthe goods. If the nearbyfactory that generateswealth ceases to operateand the jobs it supplieddisappear, many othersare also victimized.

Suicidal PoliciesThe situation we have described is notgetting better; it grows worse each year.Former Federal Reserve board mem-ber Alan Blinder recently predicted thepotential loss of as many as 40 millionAmerican jobs to outsourcing “withina decade or two.” By “outsourcing,” hemeans jobs being transferred to anothercountry. How can this be? What is caus-ing such a dramatic trend? One need look no further than government action, espe-cially the enormous drag of taxation andregulation that isn’t borne by America’s

foreign competitors.In 2006, the National Association of

Manufacturers (NAM) issued a study en-titled The Escalating Cost Crisis . Plac-ing the regulatory burden facing domesticmanufacturers at $162 billion per year, itsauthors noted that this cost to U.S. pro-ducers had risen 10 percent since 2000.About taxation alone, the report notedthat “the corporate tax burden” was re-sponsible in large measure for the “de-terioration” in U.S. manufacturing. TheNAM study concluded that while Amer-ica’s tax rates remained high, “severalother trading partners continued to lowertheir rates.”

The taxation figures reported by theNAM were then dwarfed by a paral-lel report issued by theCompetitive EnterpriseInstitute. Its 2006 studyentitled Ten Thousand Commandments claimedthat the total tax and reg-ulatory burden facing theAmerican economy hadreached $1.16 trillion an-nually. According to theCEI, when income and

corporate taxes are addedto the regulatory costs,“the federal government’sshare of the economy isnow 29 percent.” Noneof this enormous govern-ment presence producesany goods. All of it in-hibits the productivity of the American worker andproducer.

Many foreign pro-ducers don’t face suchtaxation and regulatoryburdens. In addition, thewage scales they providetheir workers, especiallyin China, amount to afraction of the wagescales paid in America.U.S. laws against dealingwith firms and countriesemploying slave labor,China for instance, areregularly winked at.

OCTOBER 15, 2007

Former Federal Reserve board member Alan Blinder recently predicted the potential loss of as man40 million American jobs to outsourcing. How can this be? One need look no further than governmaction, especially the drag of taxation and regulation that is not borne by America’s foreign compet

A P I m a g e s

Building boom: China has been exporting so much in the way of finishedproducts and importing so much in raw material that its shipyards buildenough ships to make it the world’s third-largest shipbuilder.

WHAT’S WRONG

SPECIALREPORT




Subsidizing Our CompetitorsAnd then there are the U.S.handouts. Early in 2000, Rep-resentative Ron Paul (R-Texas)delivered a speech to Congressin which he pointed out that sup-plying aid to other nations wasdestructive to American produc-tivity. He stated:

If our American companies

and our American workershave to compete, the last thingthey should ever be requiredto do is pay some of their taxmoney to send subsidies totheir competitors, and thatis what is happening. Theyare forced to subsidize theircompetitors with foreign aid.They support their competi-tors overseas via the WorldBank. They subsidize theircompetitors via the Export/Import

Bank and the Overseas Private In-vestment Corporation. We literallyencourage the exportation of jobs byproviding overseas protection in in-surance that cannot be bought in theprivate sector.

The Texas congressman pointed out thatChina “has now received $13 billion fromthe World Bank,” a United Nations cre-ation. A sizable portion of World Bank funds comes from U.S. taxpayers. Ad-ditional huge grants have been made toChina by the UN’s International MonetaryFund and our own nation’s Export-ImportBank. And the congressman focused justi-fiable wrath on rulings from the UN-relat-ed World Trade Organization that not onlynegatively impact American producers but

even chop away at our nation’s hard-won

independence.

Government Fosters America’s IllsAs the cost of energy skyrockets, Amer-ica’s productive arm takes another hit.Yet, if the government would get out of the way and allow willing producers toproduce, our nation would be dependenton no one else for energy. AmericanChemistry Council President Jack Gerardinsists that the “natural gas crisis is self-in-flicted, caused by 25-year-old policies thatdrive up demand while restricting accessto American energy supplies.” A reportfrom the Consumer Alliance for EnergySecurity points to the Outer ContinentalShelf surrounding our nation where thereis “enough natural gas to heat 100 millionhomes for 60 years, and enough oil to drive

85 million cars for 35 years.”That estimate does not includeAlaska’s vast energy resourcesthat lie untapped because of government interference. Nordoes it include the tremendousenergy boost our country couldreceive by expanding our use of nuclear power.

No survey of our nation’sgovernment-caused ills can ig-nore inflation. Persistent federaldeficit spending covered by thegovernment/Federal Reservecombination that creates hugeadditional quantities of moneyand credit has watered downthe value of everyone’s hold-ings (cash, retirement funds,

insurance policies, etc.). TheAmerican dollar, once the mostrespected currency on Earth, hasseen its value shrink by approxi-mately 90 percent over the past50 years.

Now, instead of undoing thedamaging policies, elitists ingovernment and business are at-tempting to expand upon them,using the North American FreeTrade Agreement to merge the

countries of North America.

The problems plaguing America are notinsurmountable. In fact, there is realistichope that America’s retreat from greatnesscan be reversed and that we can restoreand retain freedom and prosperity fortomorrow.

That hope is based on the fact thatthere is still plenty right with America:our priceless Constitution still stands; thevast majority of our fellow citizens remainGod-fearing and patriotic; and the familyis still overwhelmingly recognized as thebedrock of a healthy society.

But these problems will not be solvedby wishful thinking. America must nowbe rebuilt by the kind of people who don’ttake freedom and prosperity for granted.We hope you will want to join the growingnumber of rebuilders. ■

A P I m a g e s

There is hope that America’s retreat from greatness can be reversed. It is based on the fact that ourpriceless Constitution still stands, most of our fellow citizens remain God-fearing and patriotic, andfamily is still overwhelmingly recognized as the bedrock of a healthy society.

Falling dollar: The euro soared tonew highs against the U.S. dollarin 2007, largely as a result of U.S.policies that encourage printingcurrency to pay debts — whichcauses inflationary effectsincluding weakening the dollar.

WHAT’S WRONG

SPECIALREPORT




by William F. Jasper

T he U.S. media paid scant atten-tion this past August when Presi-dent George W. Bush headed for

a meeting of the Security and ProsperityPartnership of North America (more com-monly referred to as the SPP) in Canada.The two-day summit (August 20-21) withMexico’s President Felipe Calderon andCanada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper,as well as top government ministers andbusiness leaders, was conducted behind acordon of security and secrecy at a luxuryresort in Montebello, Quebec, down theOttawa River from the Canadian capital.

At the summit’s concluding press con-ference on August 21, the three heads of state were confronted with charges leveledby critics of the SPP’s goals and process.A Fox News reporter asked the trio: “Can

you say today that this is not a preludeto a North American Union, similar to aEuropean Union? Are there plans to buildsome kind of superhighway connecting allthree countries? And do you believe all of these theories about a possible erosion of national identity stem from a lack of trans-parency from this partnership?”

President Bush evaded the questions andpunched at straw men of his own making.“You know, there are some who would liketo frighten our fellow citizens into believ-ing that relations between us are harmfulfor our respective peoples,” he said. “I justbelieve they’re wrong. I believe it’s in ourinterest to trade; I believe it’s in our interestto dialogue.” None of the summit critics, of course, had even remotely implied that theUnited States cease relations, trade, or dia-logue with Canada and Mexico; those arelegitimate, constitutionally permitted activ-

ities that our government and our peoplescarry on (and have engaged in since ournation’s founding) not only with our next-door neighbors to the north and south, butwith virtually every country on Earth.

“I’m amused by some of the specula-tion, some of the old — you can call thempolitical scare tactics,” President Bushcontinued. “If you’ve been in politics as

long as I have, you get used to that kind of technique where you lay out a conspiracyand then force people to try to prove itdoesn’t exist.”

Prime Minister Harper also chose to re-spond with ridicule, joking that opponentsof the SPP process were getting all workedup over something that was no more seri-ous than candy regulations. “Is the sover-eignty of Canada going to fall apart if westandardize the jellybeans?... I don’t think so,” Mr. Harper chortled.

Opponents of the SPP, however, areworked up about far more than trade, dia-logue, and jellybeans. As Bush, Harper,Calderon, and their aides met away frompublic scrutiny, leaders representing a co-alition of more than 50 conservative orga-nizations in the United States and Canadaheld a press conference at the OttawaMarriott to deliver very serious warningsabout the developing “partnership,” whichthey claim is an unconstitutional schemefor economic and political merger of thethree countries.

Canadian riot police provide a securitycordon around the secretive North

American summit at Montebello,Quebec, August 20-21, 2007. N e w s c o m

ContinentalMergerA coalition of groups warns that President Bush’s Securityand Prosperity Partnership will lead to a merger of theUnited States, Mexico, and Canada, but Bush claims thatthe pact is not threatening. Who is being truthful?

NORTH AMERICAN UNIONSPECIALREPORT




“Our message,” said Howard Phillips,chairman of the Coalition to Block theNorth American Union, “is ‘PresidentBush, President Calderon, Prime MinisterHarper, tear down the wall of silence andlet the people see what you are scheming todo.’” Mr. Phillips, who is also founder andchairman of the Conservative Caucus, stat-ed at the coalition’s Ottawa news confer-ence: “Behind closed doors, step by step,the leaders of Mexico, Canada, and theUnited States are setting the stage for, first,a North American Community and, ulti-mately, a North American Union (NAU), in

which new transnational bodies would gainauthority over our economy, our judiciary,and our lawmaking institutions.”

John F. McManus, president of the JohnBirch Society and a founding member of the Coalition to Block the North Ameri-can Union, charged that the political elitesare planning a duplicate of the EuropeanUnion for our own hemisphere.

Who’s Telling the Truth?So, is the SPP a harmless (oreven beneficial) trilateral ef-

fort aimed at improving re-lations, trade, and dialoguewith Canada and Mexico,which has been wildly mis-represented by “conspiracynuts,” as President Bushclaims? Or is the SPP actual-ly a scheme to create an EU-style North American Unionthat will gradually submergeU.S. sovereignty into re-gional institutions, erase ourborders, and terminate ourconstitutional republic, as itscritics claim?

The Security and Pros-perity Partnership for NorthAmerica was formallylaunched in Waco, Texas, onMarch 23, 2005 by PresidentBush, along with Mexico’sthen-President Vicente Foxand Canada’s then-PrimeMinister Paul Martin. Thethree leaders let it be known

that their new SPP initiative was an effortto build upon and expand NAFTA, the1993 North American Free Trade Agree-ment. Their expressed goal for the SPPwas the creation of “a safer, more pros-perous North America.”

Conceived completely as an executive-branch initiative, without any participationor authorization from Congress, the SPPestablished 20 trilateral “working groups”composed of current and former govern-ment officials, academics, and corporateleaders. The groups are directed to bringabout continental “integration” on a wide

range of political, economic, and socialissues, such as manufacturing, transporta-tion, energy, environment, e-commerce, fi-nancial services, food and agriculture, lawenforcement, immigration, infrastructure,and health.

Who are the members of these workinggroups? Where and when are they meet-ing? What policies, programs, projects,and proposals are they hatching? How willthese things affect our lives?

The Bush administration has resistedproviding answers to these questions — toCongress, the media, or the American pub-lic. Much of what has come to light thus farabout the SPP working groups has been asthe result of U.S. government documentspried loose through Freedom Of Informa-tion Act (FOIA) filings by Judicial Watch,a Washington, D.C.-based public-interestorganization.

Leading SPP advocates publicly denythat their integration plans will bring abouta centralized EU-style government that willoverride national, state, and local gover-

nance. Privately , however, in their speech-es and writings, they acknowledge thatthis is precisely what they are construct-ing. Former U.S. Ambassador to CanadaPaul Cellucci, for instance, in an October30, 2006 address to the Canadian Defenseand Foreign Affairs Institute, said:

Now, I don’t believe that we will everhave a, in name anyways, a commonunion like the Europeans have … but I

Leading SPP advocates publicly deny that their integration plans will bring about a centralized EU-government that will override national, state, and local governance.Privately , however, in their speechesand writings, they acknowledge that this is precisely what they are constructing.

A P I m a g e s

President Bush at the Montebello summit with MexicanPresident Calderon (left) and Canadian Prime Minister Harper(opposite page).





believe that, incremental-ly, we will continue to in-tegrate our economies....I think … 10 years fromnow, or maybe 15 yearsfrom now we’re gonnalook back and we’regonna have a union ineverything but name .[Emphasis added.]

Critics, of course, are notquibbling over what the SPParchitects might eventuallyname their creation; they areconcerned with the creationitself and what it actuallywill do — and is alreadydoing . For instance, one of

the major objectives of theSPP’s chief architect Rob-ert Pastor is the transfer of $100-$200 billion from theUnited States to Mexico for infrastructure,education, and economic development. Hehas been proposing this in speeches andessays for the Council on Foreign Rela-tions, the Trilateral Commission, and SPPgatherings. Documents obtained throughFOIA show that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), theDepartment of Transportation, and other

federal agencies are already funding, orare planning to fund, these objectives.

HHS documents show that this de-partment, under the auspices of the SPP,intends to enhance “Mexico’s competi-tive position through the establishmentof a grant fund for … development of infrastructure in Mexico.” Aside fromthe important fact that the U.S. Constitu-tion provides no authority for the federalgovernment to tax Americans to build“infrastructure in Mexico” (or any othercountry), there is the additional grim factthat one government study after anotherhas warned that our own infrastructure— especially roads, highways, bridges,and levies — is crumbling and in need of hundreds of billions of dollars for repairand construction. Sending badly neededinfrastructure funds to Mexico will furtherhasten our own infrastructure decline andaccelerate the flight of American compa-nies and jobs to Mexico.

Sometimes the SPP programs aresmuggled into actual legislation, as in the

case of the “comprehensive immigrationreform bill” (S. 1639) promoted by Presi-dent Bush, Senator Edward Kennedy, anda bipartisan cast. That bill, which was de-feated, would have authorized funds for“the development of economic opportuni-ties” and “job training for citizens and na-tionals” in Mexico. Most of the SPP agen-da, however, has been proceeding without

congressional scrutiny or consent, quietlybeing implemented by the massive bureau-cracy of the federal executive branch. Theadministration and its defenders claim thatthe SPP agenda falls within the authorityalready provided by NAFTA, which Con-gress approved.

This threadbare defense is wearing verythin. Even SPP advocates are admitting toa “democracy deficit” and a “transparen-cy deficit” in the secret SPP process. At apro-SPP seminar sponsored by the HudsonInstitute on August 13, 2007 — just priorto the Montebello SPP summit — Hudsonsenior fellow Chris Sands acknowledged:“Congress was shut out from the verybeginning of this [SPP] process. In thelast couple of years, we’ve seen increas-ing concern on Capitol Hill about what’sgoing on in these negotiations, requests forinformation, discussion of having hear-ings, bringing people forward just to knowmore about what’s going on.”

Mr. Sands is coauthor with ProfessorGreg Anderson of a pro-SPP report by

the Hudson Institute, entitled Negotiating North America: The Security and Prosper-ity Partnership . This report makes sometelling admissions, such as: “The SPPwas designed to function within existingadministrative authority of the executivebranch.” This is a “very technocratic pro-cess,” they say, that is best carried out by“technocrats.”

But the technocrats have some veryradical objectives, such as creating a“continental perimeter” around our threecountries to replace our current nationalborders; creating a “North Americanpassport”; merging our immigration, cus-toms, and law enforcement; facilitating afree-flow migration of people among thethree nations; “harmonizing” our tax andregulatory policies; and initiating educa-tion policies that foster a “North Americanidentity” rather than national identities.Then there are policies aimed at “incomegap” equalization, which of course will beachieved by a continuous downward trendfor U.S. citizens, as Mexican incomesrise. This is what former Federal ReserveChairman Alan Greenspan was advocatingin his controversial March 2007 remarksin which he called for opening the “win-dow” for skilled workers to enter the Unit-ed States in order to “suppress the skilled-wage level and end the concentration of income.” As these policies come into theopen, the SPP advocates know there will

A P I m a g e s

Canadian Prime MinisterStephen Harper (right) says theMontebello summit was onlyabout “harmonizing jellybeans,”while President Bush says critics

are using “scare tactics.”



12

be a public backlash that willbe felt in Congress.

According to the HudsonInstitute authors, “As criti-cism of the lack of transpar-ency and public accountabil-ity of the SPP negotiationshas grown, congressionalinterest and concern aboutthe SPP has also grown.”Hence, say Sands and An-derson, “Congressional hos-tility represents the biggestthreat to the continuation of the SPP after Montebello,and after the end of the Bushadministration.”

Many patriots certainlyintend to increase congres-

sional hostility into a genuinethreat to the continuation of the SPP. “We have no choice,”says the John Birch Society’spresident, John F. McManus,“but to fight and defeat theSPP, and repeal NAFTA, thefoundation upon which theSPP is being built.”

By both word and deed,the SPP architects have re-vealed their plans to copy the EU model of rule by technocrats and executive decrees.

Mexican President Vicente Fox openlystated, prior to the launch of the SPP, thatthe “long-range objective is to establish anensemble of connections and institutionssimilar to those created by the EuropeanUnion.”

In their 2003 book The Great Deception ,British authors Christopher Booker andRichard North describe the decades-longprocess of creating the European Union as“a slow-motion coup d’etat , the most spec-tacular coup d’etat in history.” Booker andNorth show that the EU has become thegreatest concentration of political powerin the history of mankind. That is preciselywhat the EU’s architects intended it to be-come; but they didn’t tell that to the peopleof Europe when they first began promotingwhat they called “the project” after World

War II. It was launched as the EuropeanCoal and Steel Community, and soon after

expanded into the European EconomicCommunity (EEC), better known as theCommon Market, to promote trade andease of travel. Gradually, as more politicalintegration took place, the EEC becamethe European Community, or EC. Finally,it changed names once again, from EC toEU. The NAFTA/SPP architects are copy-ing the EU slow-motion coup d’etat blue-print — but on an accelerated schedule.

Congress has the constitutional author-ity — and duty — to stop this usurpationof power and this planned transformationof the United States. And the defeat lastsummer of the dangerous immigration-amnesty legislation showed that Congresscan be prodded to act. It further acted in asurprise vote last summer to cut off federaltransportation funds to the SPP working

groups. That historic vote came on July 24on an amendment offered by Rep. Dun-

can Hunter (R-Calif.) to an appropriationsbill prohibiting the use of funds by SPPworking groups. The Hunter amendmentpassed the House with a landslide 362-to-63 vote.

How do we account for such stunningbipartisan opposition to something assupposedly inconsequential as harmoniz-ing jellybean labels? The answer is that arapidly growing grass-roots movement of American citizens is becoming aware of the SPP threat, and they are making theirvoices heard in Washington, D.C. But, asthese recent battles have shown, membersof Congress are not likely to take appropri-ate action on these urgent matters until asignificant number of determined constitu-ents become active and light fires under-neath them. ■

THE NEW AMERICAN • OCTOBER 15, 2007

The technocrats have some very radical objectives, such as creating a “continental perimeter” arounour three countries to replace our current national borders; merging our immigration, customs, and enforcement; and facilitating free-flow migration among the three nations.

community ( k e myoo —

n e te —

) n. “A group of people residing in thesame locality and under the same government.” ( Webster’s II, New College Dictionary , Houghton Mifflin Co., 1995)

Two of the most important bookspublished by advocates of the NAU




THE NEW AMERICAN • OCTOBER 15, 2007

“The Security and Prosperity Partnership is setting the stage for uniting the three nations of North Amer-ica into a North American Union that will parallel for the West what the EU has done to Europe.”

John Birch Society president John F. McManus , a founding member of the Coalition to Block the North American Union, issued this warning at the coalition’s August 20, 2007 news conference in Ottawa, Can-ada, not far from where President Bush and his counterparts from Mexico and Canada were meeting.

“The NAC [a new ‘North American Commission’] should develop an integrated continental plan fortransportation and infrastructure that includes new North American highways and high-speed railcorridors.”

American University Professor Robert Pastor , a key architect of what critics have dubbed the “North American Union,” included this recommendation in his January/Feb-ruary 2004 Foreign Affairs article entitled, “North America’s Second

Decade,” a reference to the second decade after NAFTA.

“The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated NorthAmerican Union — complete with a currency, a cross-national bureau-cracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union.... It sounds like arecipe for transnational socialism and the further destruction of the U.S.economy. Terrorists surely dream of a borderless North America, where

they can move freely from country to country unmolested.... We mustdemand that American sovereignty be protected.”Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) offered this assessment of the planned

NAFTA trade corridors via video to the Coalition to Block the North Amer-ican Union’s August 20, 2007 news conference in Ottawa, Canada.

“I think the Bush administration has a master plan to erase all bordersand to have a super-government in North America. There’s talk aboutmega-ports down in Mexico and superhighway toll roads built with for-eign money right into the heart of America.... I am convinced that theplan to create a North American Union is what is going on.... I believethe Mexican truck demonstration is part of it.”Teamsters president James P. Hoffa told WorldNetDaily that the push to

give Mexican trucks access to our highways is part of a larger plan.

“NAFTA has been a success.”President George W. Bush made this claim at the March 2005 Waco, Texas, summit meeting where heand his counterparts from Mexico and Canada launched the Security and Prosperity Partnership, as

part of the step-by-step process for political and economic merger begun by NAFTA.

“For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the po-litical spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as myencounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinateinfluence they claim we wield over American political and economicinstitutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal workingagainst the best interests of the United States, characterizing my familyand me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around theworld to build a more integrated global political and economic structure

— one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I amproud of it.”This incredible admission against self-interest was made by DavidRockefeller in his own book, Memoirs (2002).

If you believe the United States is the most unique nation on Earth with a government designed to protectyour natural liberties, an economic system unlike any other, and a judicial system unknown to any othernation, then a North American Union is a threat to all you hold dear.”

American Policy Center president Tom DeWeese , a founding member of the Coalition to Block the North American Union, stated this in his April 2007 DeWeese Report . ■

13

A P I m a g e s

A P I m a g e s

DavidRockefeller

RonPaul

Q UICK Q UOTES

A P I m a g e s

JamesHoffa



ProfessionalEngineeringAnd ConsultingAt Its Best

Ronald A. BrittonP.E., DABFE, President

Rohill Operating Company3100 North A. StreetSuite E-200 Rohill BuildingMidland, TexasUSA 79705-5367432-686-0022

“ONE MAN WITHCOURAGE MAKESA MAJORITY”





I TEM : “NAFTA court is law of the 3lands.” So proclaimed the headline in theSacramento Bee on April 18, 2004. Thearticle, taken from the New York Times,reports on a NAFTA tribunal overridingthe Massachusetts Supreme Court and theU.S. Supreme Court.I TEM : “State Laws Take Back Seat toTrade.” That was the headline of a Los An-geles Times story for December 5, 2004

on how rulings by courts created underNAFTA and the World Trade Organizationare striking down state laws.I TEM : “Mexican Trucks Begin Deliver-ies Beyond U.S. Border.” The September9, 2007 Bloomberg.com story reportedon the controversial move by the Bushadministration to advance NAFTA ob-

jectives by opening the United States tolong-haul Mexican trucking companies,in violation of state safety, labor, and en-vironmental laws.

T he rule of law, thegreat principle un-derlying our consti-

tutional system of govern-ment, is under attack as neverbefore. Two of the prominentthreats to the rule of law inAmerica are the 1993 NorthAmerican Free Trade Agree-ment (NAFTA) and the 2005Security and ProsperityPartnership (SPP). PresidentBush is an ardent championof the former and a coauthorof the latter.

Nevertheless, the presidentregularly invokes the “ruleof law” in his speeches andpress conferences. As he did,

for instance, at the January2004 Summit of the Ameri-cas in Monterrey, Mexico.Standing next to his host,Mexico’s then-President Vi-cente Fox, Mr. Bush said of the illegal- immigration con-troversy: “We are a countryof law. Rule of law is impor-tant in America.”

This is perversely ironic,in that NAFTA and the SPPare daggers aimed at the

very heart of the rule of law.However, before examiningthese threats, it might serveto examine briefly just whatthat three-word phrase, “ruleof law,” so reverenced inAmerican heritage, actuallymeans.

Our Founding Fathersbelieved that the primaryfunction of government is toprotect the inalienable, God-given rights of the individual.

Thus they devised a constitutional republicin which the powers of the national gov-ernment were “few and defined,” as well asclearly separated into the three spheres of operation (legislative, executive, and judi-cial) and loaded with checks and balancesto guard against arbitrariness, encroach-ment, and usurpation. Thomas Jeffersonwarned his fellow citizens to keep tyrannyin check by binding government officialsdown “by the chains of the Constitution.”John Adams, in drafting the Constitution

Under NAFTA and the SPP, the rule of law —including our U.S.Constitution and Bill of Rights —is being replaced with arbitraryrule by unaccountable elitists.

Rule of law? President Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox at 2004 Summit of the Americas meeting inMonterrey, Mexico. Bush declares his devotion to “the rule of law.”

A P I m a g e s

Running Roughshod

Over U.S. Laws

RULE OF LAWSPECIALREPORT



Oral Chelation Formula“ORA-PLUS”

Oral Chelation Formula“ORA-PLUS”

INGREDIENTS AMOUNT %RDAMagnesium (Oxide) 400 mg 100Iron (Fumerate) 10 mg 55.56Iodine (Potassium Iodine) 125 mcg 83.33Copper (Gluconate) 250 mcg 12.5Zinc (Gluconate) 30 mg 200Chromium 200 mcg *Selenium 250 mcg *Potassium (Chloride & Citrate) 400 mg *Manganese (Gluconate) 5 mg *Adrenal 50 mg *Thymus 50 mg *L-Cysteine HCl 750 mg *di-Methionine 175 mg *Spleen 50 mg *Marine Lipids 50 mg *Hawthorn Berry 25 mg *

* RDA has not been established

INGREDIENTS AMOUNT %RDAVitamin A (Beta Carotene) 25,000 I.U. 500Vitamin D (Fish Liver Oil) 650 I.U. 162Vitamin E (d Alpha Tocopherol) 650 I.U. 2,166Vitamin C (asc. Acid & Ca. Ascorbate) 4,000 mg 6,667Vitamin B-1 (Thiamine HCl) 200 mg 13,333Vitamin B-2 ( Riboflavin) 50 mg 2,941Vitamin B-6 (Pyridoxine HCl) 150 mg 7,500Niacin 50 mg 250Niacinamide 50mg 250Pantothenic Acid (d-Calcium Pantothenate) 500 mg 5,000Vitamin B-12 (Cobalamin) 250 mcg 4,166Folic Acid 400 mcg 100Biotin 100mcg 33Choline (Bitartrate) 725 mg *Inositol 40 mg *PABA (Para Amino Benzoic Acid) 250 mg *Calcium (Carbonate) 400 mg 40

cwasem @wasems.com800 6th St. • Clarkston, WA 99403 • 1-800-548-2804

A Unique Formulation of Vitamins, Minerals, Amino Acids,Anti-Oxidants, Herbs, and Glandulars that could help: Improve Circulation, Reduce Arterial Plaque, Lower Cholesterol,

Maintain Fat Metabolism, Neutralize Free Radical Cells whichCause Aging, and Strengthen the Immune System.

Help Clear Out Those Arteries! Take 10 Tablets Daily(5 with Breakfast and 5 with Supper)

One Package of 300 Tablets (60 packets of 5)30 day supply $37.9590 day supply $109.00180 day supply $210.001 Year supply $386.00(Prices include Shipping & Handling)**In the lower 48 states

Talk to Cliff Wasem about the importance of beingan active member of The John Birch Society!For additional nutritional items and forphotographic equipment, visit our website at:http: //www.wasems.com




by Sam Antonio

C NN’s Lou Dobbs touched a nervewith the American public when hedeclared, “The Bush administra-

tion’s open-borders policy and its decisionto ignore the enforcement of this country’simmigration laws is part of a broaderagenda. President Bush signed a formal

agreement that will end the United Statesas we know it, and he took the step withoutapproval from either the U.S. Congress orthe people of the United States.”

The agreement to which Mr. Dobbs re-ferred, the Security and Prosperity Partner-ship (SPP), was launched in 2005 by Presi-dent Bush, then-Mexican President VicenteFox, and then-Canadian Prime MinisterPaul Martin. But what is this “broaderagenda” to which Lou Dobbs refers?

In short, the SPP agenda would mergethe three countries inside a common “se-curity perimeter,” essentially erasing ourcurrent national borders. The SPP’s de-signers commend the European Union’sopen migration policy and advise that welikewise merge our customs, immigration,and border enforcement agencies withthose of Canada and Mexico to facilitatethe flow of peoples and goods. They alsopropose a North American passport. These

and other measures aimed at continuingpolitical and economic integration of ourthree countries, they say, will enhance oursecurity and prosperity.

The godfather of the SPP, ProfessorRobert Pastor, gave testimony before theSenate Foreign Relations Committee in2005 in which he asserted, “The best wayto secure the United States is not at ourborders with Mexico and Canada but atthe borders of North America as a whole.”This goal, he said, “we hope to accomplishby 2010.”

Lou Dobbs expressed the shock of manywhen he said, “But this is — I mean, thisis beyond belief!” And, he said, he hopesthe American people have “the stomachto stand up and stop this nonsense, this di-rection from a group of elites, an absolutecontravention of our law, of our Constitu-

tion, every national value.”These global elitists are trying to bring

about a major shift, to convince us to beginconsidering ourselves not as Americansbut as North Americans. To this end, theyhave backed and promoted the Bush-Ken-nedy-McCain efforts to grant amnesty tomillions of illegal aliens already here, and to open the borders even wider to millionsmore “guest workers.” At the same time,they have supported President Bush’sthwarting of congressional mandates tobuild a border fence and dramatically in-crease Border Patrol manpower.

The Bush administration’s reaction toMexican President Felipe Calderon’s Sep-tember 2, 2007 State of the Union addressis very telling. In his speech, PresidentCalderon railed against recent U.S. depor-tations of illegal aliens, denouncing these

Sam Antonio is the John Birch Society’s nationalspokesman on immigration.

Despite the great harmthat Americans face fromrampant illegal immigration—crime, terrorism,economic devastation —ourpolitical and business elitists

push for more amnesties.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon, inhis 2007 State of the Union address,denounces U.S. border security anddeclares, “Mexico does not end at theborder,... wherever there is a Mexican,Mexico is there.”

A

The North American Union

Invasion

IMMIGRATIONSPECIALREPORT



actions as “persecution” of “undocu-mented Mexican workers.” Calderonalso declared: “Mexico does not endat the border, … wherever there is aMexican, Mexico is there.”

The Bush administration simply ig-nored Calderon’s blatant attack on ournational sovereignty. Why? The SPPenvisions a borderless North Americawhere there will be no such thing asillegal immigration, but, rather, freemigration . President Bush and topmembers of his administration haveadopted the SPP’s language and nowfrequently interchange the term “mi-gration” with “immigration.”

This helps explain the shocking factthat six years after the 9/11 attacks,the Bush administration still has not

secured our borders, despite the obvi-ous fact that our open borders leave usvulnerable to future terror attacks.


On October 19, 2006, Border Patrol

agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Com-pean were sentenced to prison terms

of 11 years and 12 years, respectively. Theiralleged crime? They wounded a Mexican drugsmuggler who was fleeing back into Mexicofollowing a hot pursuit and a scuffle withagent Compean. According to the agents, thesmuggler, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, turned andpointed at them as though intending to shoot.The agents were not aware that any of theirshots had struck Aldrete-Davila, as he made itback across the border and was picked up byhis drug-cartel associates, apparently unhurt.

That might have been the last of the episode — except thatthe Mexican government learned of the shooting and demandedthat the U.S. government punish agents Ramos and Compeanfor doing their jobs. That was not shocking, in light of Mexico’sincreasingly bellicose interference in our border and immigrationpolicies. What was shocking was the incredible lengths to whichthe U.S. government went to accommodate Mexico’s outrageousdemands. U.S. prosecutors gave the drug smuggler full immunityand made him their star witness, even though he subsequentlywas apprehended in another drug-smuggling operation whileenjoying immunity from prosecution. The prosecutors withheldthat and other important information from jurors and the defense

team, while conducting an ongoing defamationcampaign against the agents, lying to Congress,and stonewalling congressional requests for infor-

mation about the troubling case.The same U.S. prosecutors engaged in similar

misconduct when they prosecuted Texas Sheriff’sDeputy Gilmer Hernandez for wounding an illegalalien in an incident in which a smuggler was try-ing to run him down with a vehicle. Documents re-leased earlier this year show that the United Statesinitiated the prosecution of Hernandez at the behestof Mexico. “Mexico wants to intimidate our lawenforcement into leaving our border unprotected,and we now have confirmation of it in writing,”said Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas), noting it is“outrageous … that our government is prosecut-

ing U.S. law enforcement officials at the request of the Mexi-can government.” He says there is reason to believe the Mexicangovernment also prompted the Ramos-Compean prosecution, butthe Bush administration refuses to release requested documents.T.J. Bonner, national president of the Border Patrol agents’ union,said the case shows that “the administration is trying to intimidatefront-line agents from doing their job … with trumped-up criminalcharges.” (See: http://www.thenewamerican.com/node/1664)

Tragically, the case has had a chilling effect on our BorderPatrol agents, and it is one more indication that the administrationis just giving lip service to securing our borders while pursuingan open-borders policy. ■


Demoralizing the Border Patrol

C o u r t e s y o

f E l P a s o

T i m e s

IMMIGRATIONSPECIALREPORT

Ignacio Ramosand wife, Monica

T o t a l I m m i g r a t i o n P e r D e c a

d e ( m i l l i o n s ) 16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

1 9 3 1

- ’ 4 0

1 9 4 1

- ’ 5 0

1 9 5 1

- ’ 6 0

1 9 6 1

- ’ 7 0

1 9 7 1

- ’ 8 0

1 9 8 1

- ’ 9 0

1 9 9 1

- ’ 0 0

2 0 0 1

- ’ 1 0

L e g a

l I m m

i g r a n

t s

I l l e g a

l I m m

i g r a n

t s

S o u r c e :

P e w

H i s p a n

i c C e n

t e r ,

2 0 0 5



Allstate Plumbing Inc.

T H E H ON E S T

C O M P A N Y PRESTIGEPROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.

Serving Tucson Since 1979

S INGLE F AMILY H OME

SpecialistsHouses • Townhomes

Free Rental AnalysisProperty Inspections Every 90 Days!

www.prestigepropertymgmt.com

3205 E. Grant RoadTucson, AZ 85716-2809

Tel: (520) 881-0930Fax: (520) 881-7702

P ERSONAL A TTENTION AND

P ROFESSIONAL S ERVICE — A LWAYS

An October 2006 report of theHouse Committee on HomelandSecurity’s Subcommittee on In-vestigations noted that in 2005the Border Patrol apprehended1.2 million illegal aliens at-tempting to enter the UnitedStates. Even more alarming, however,is that the report, entitled A Line in theSand: Confronting the Threat at theSouthwest Border , noted the number ap-prehended was but a fraction of the esti-mated 4 to 10 million illegal aliens whotried to enter the United States. In otherwords, far more illegal aliens successful-ly entered than were caught. The reportalso states: “Members of Hezbollah havealready entered the United States acrossthe Southwest border.” This includes “the

brother of the Hezbollah chief of militaryoperations in southern Lebanon.” Dothese shocking figures and statementsindicate that the Bush administration isfighting a genuine War on Terror? Obvi-ously not.

The price Americans are now paying forthe Bush administration’s open- borders

policy is steep. For instance, in fiscal year2006, the Border Patrol deported 88,970illegal aliens with criminal records. Ac-cording to the U.S. Border Patrol, someof the major crimes that showed up onthe records of previously deported, illegalaliens apprehended from Oct. 1, 2006,to Aug. 31, 2007 include: Kidnapping,127; Homicide, 286; Sexual assault, 430;Robbery, 789; Assault, 5,078; Dangerousdrugs, 10,843.

The economic costs are also mind-

numbing. According to studies by Harvardeconomics professor George Borjas, thebase cost of illegal aliens to the nation’seconomy is around $70 billion annually, inaddition to the more than $133 billion in

job-loss costs to American workers. Evenmore stunning is the 2007 study written byDr. Robert Rector of the Heritage Founda-

tion, who calculates that the potential pricetag to taxpayers for amnesty for the mil-lions of illegal aliens now here could top$2.5 trillion!

Powerfully placed internationalists arepushing to erase our borders and open themigration floodgates so they may achievetheir dream of a North American Union.For the business elitists it means moreprosperity through a continuous cheaplabor pool, while for government officialsit means more security to expand their

power over their respective citizens.But if there is to be any security orprosperity for the American middle class,then many more good Americans must getactive, in partnership with their family,friends, and neighbors, to stem the tide of illegal immigration and block the creationof the North American Union. ■

F a s t S e r v i c e:

U su a l l y W i t h i n

60 M i nu t e s! Firm Quotes Gladl y Gi ven Right O ver T he P hone

No Gimmicks No Hidden Charges

FAMILY OWNED — FREE ESTIMATES

• Water Heaters• Faucets• Toilets• Garbage Disposals

• Re-pipes• Gas Lines• Replace Water Lines

• Kitchen Sink Drains• Laundry Drains• Tub/Shower Drains• Main Sewer Drains

• Sink Drains• Roof Vents• Roof Drains

Serving the greater San Francisco Bay Area since 1993.

Call Today! (800) 280-6594

Fully InsuredLicense # 694771

PLUMBING REPAIRS SEWER & DRAIN CLEANING

Internationalists are pushing to open the migration floodgates so thatthey may achieve their dream of a North American Union. For thebusinesselitists, it means more prosperity through cheap labor, whilefor government officials it means more security to expand their power.



July 18, 1993: HenryKissinger stresses NAFTA’simportance as a frameworkfor future internationalrestructuring. “[The pro-

posed NAFTA agreement is]the architecture of a new in-ternational system.” (HenryKissinger, former Secretaryof State, “With NAFTA, U.S.

Finally Creates a New World Order,” Los Angeles Times ,July 18, 1993)

December 8, 1993: President Clinton signs intolaw NAFTA, which creates a framework for furthertrilateral cooperation. One of the objectives of NAFTA isto “establish a framework for further trilateral, regionaland multilateral cooperation to expand and enhance thebenefits of this Agreement.” (NAFTA, 1993, Article 102,http://www.nafta-sec-alena.org)

October 15, 2004: RichardN. Haass, president of the Coun-cil on Foreign Relations (CFR),launches a task force to study theextent of North American inte-gration after 10 years of NAFTA. “The Council has launched an in-dependent task force on the future of North America toexamine regional integration since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement ten years ago.” (CFR News Release, October 15, 2004, http://www.cfr.org/publication/7454/)

March 14, 2005: The Council on Foreign Rela-tions’ Independent Task Force on the Future of NorthAmerica proposes the creation of a North Americancommunity to enhance security and prosperity for allNorth Americans. “When the leaders of Canada, Mexi-co, and the United States meet in Texas on March 23, theywill be representing countries whose futures are shared asnever before.... The ever-deepening integration of North

America promises enormous benefits for its citizens....We propose the creation by 2010 of a community to en-

hance security, prosperity, and opportunity for all North Americans.... The boundaries of the community would bedefined by a common external tariff and an outer security

perimeter. Within this area, the movement of people and products would be legal, orderly, and safe.” (Creating a North American Community , CFR Task Force Report,March 14, 2005, http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/ attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_eng.pdf)

by Larry Greenley

M YTH : The North American Union is a delusion perpetrated onthe American public by cranks and crackpots.

F ACT : The phrase North American Union (NAU) is commonlyused to refer to the very real process of merging the United Stateswith Mexico and Canada. This process began when the NorthAmerican Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was approved byCongress in 1993. Next, the launch of the Security and Prosper-

ity Partnership of North America (SPP) on March 23, 2005, ata summit meeting between President Bush and his counterpartsfrom Canada and Mexico, greatly accelerated this process.

A key to understanding the North American Union process isrecognizing that the government leaders and nongovernmentalorganization members who are building the NAU routinely mini-mize the significance of what they are doing. They draw your at-tention to snapshots of what they’ve accomplished so far in orderto distract you from the real goals and the plans that reveal theoverall process they are pursuing. Decide for yourself.. .


Myth vs. Fact

A P I m a g e s

A

A P I m a g e s

DEBUNKING MYTHSSPECIALREPORT



March 23, 2005: The SPP will build upon theNAFTA framework. “The SPP builds upon, but is separate

from, our long-standing trade and economic relationships,and it energizes other aspects of our cooperative relations,such as the protection of our environment, our food supply,and our public health.” (“Fact Sheet: Security and ProsperityPartnership of North America,” March 23, 2005, http://www.spp.gov, an official SPP website maintained by the U.S.Department of Commerce)

March 23, 2005: U.S. President George W. Bush,Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian PrimeMinister Paul Martin launch the Security and Prosper-ity Partnership of North America (SPP). “We, the elected leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, gather in Texas to announce the establishment of the Security and

Prosperity Partnership of North America.... It will help con-solidate our action into a North American framework toconfront security and economic challenges.” (Joint State-ment by President Bush, President Fox, and Prime MinisterMartin, March 23, 2005, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news

/ releases/2005/03/20050323-2.html)

March 28, 2005: Rafael Fernandez de Castroand Rossana Fuentes Berain, editors of the CFR’s

Foreign Affairs en Español , urge the SPP to worktoward a “true North American Union.” “[The Secu-rity and Prosperity Partnership of North America should be] working toward an eventual goal of a true North

American union.” (“Hands Across North America,” New York Times , March 28, 2005, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/opinion/28fuentes.html)

May 17, 2005: The Council on Foreign Rela-tions’ Independent Task Force on North America pro-poses that the SPPestablish by 2010

a North Ameri-can economic andsecurity commu-nity and lay thegroundwork fora virtual open-borders policythroughout NorthAmerica. “TheTask Force offers adetailed and ambi-tious set of propos-als that build on the recommendations adopted by the

three governments at the Texas summit of March 2005.The Task Force’s central recommendation is establish-ment by 2010 of a North American economic and secu-rity community, the boundaries of which would be de-

fined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter.... WHAT WE SHOULD DO BY 2010. Lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America. The three governments should commit them-selves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminish-ing the need for the current intensity of the governments’

physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and tradewithin North America.” ( Building a North AmericanCommunity, CFR Task Force Report, May 17, 2005,http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/) ■

March 23, 2005: President Bush refers to theSecurity and Prosperity Partnership of North Ameri-ca as a “union.” “As to what kind of union might there be, I seeone based upon free trade, that would then entail commitment tomarkets and democracy, trans-

parency, rule of law.” (PresidentGeorge W. Bush, press conferenceat SPP launch, March 23, 2005,http://www.whitehouse.gov/news

/ releases/2005/03/20050323-5.html)


A P I m a g e s

A

Task force

co-chairRobertPastor

Go to JBS.org for MoreTo read this article online with active links, go to http://www.JBS.org/freedom,and click on “Myth vs. Fact” under the heading “Campaign News” on theleft side. ■



Virtue • the moral excellence

evident in my life as I consistentlydo what is right

Virtue is a choice.Make it a habit.

Putting Character First! ®

Sponsored by




by Gary Benoit

W hen President Bill Clintonpushed for congressional ap-proval of the North American

Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993,

he argued that the pact would create jobsfor American workers — 200,000 in thefirst two years alone. “NAFTA means jobs,American jobs and good-paying American

jobs,” Clinton assured us. “If I didn’t believethat, I wouldn’t support this agreement.”

Regardless of what Clinton believedthen, it is now clear that the promised jobsnever materialized. In fact, exactly the op-posite has been the case. According to abriefing paper published by the EconomicPolicy Institute in 2006, “In the UnitedStates workforce, NAFTA has contributedto the reduction of employment in high-wage, traded-goods industries, the grow-ing inequality in wages, and the steadilydeclining demand for workers without acollege education.” That paper, written byEPI economist Robert E. Scott, said thatour “growing trade deficits with Mexicoand Canada have pushed more than 1 mil-lion workers out of higher-wage jobs andinto lower-wage positions in non-traderelated industries,” and that “the displace-ment of 1 million jobs from traded to non-

traded goods industries reduced wage pay-ments to U.S. workers to $7.6 billion in2004 alone .” (Emphasis in original.)

Despite the economic devastationwrought by NAFTA, however, its promot-ers try to deny the obvious. At the North

American leaders’ summit in Montebello,Canada, last August, President George W.Bush, with his counterparts from Mexicoand Canada at his side, claimed: “NAFTA,which has created a lot of political con-troversy in our respective countries, hasyielded prosperity.... It’s improved wagesand a better lifestyle and more hope.” Ob-viously, many displaced American work-ers know otherwise.

The Bush administration is workingto expand and strengthen NAFTA, stepsthat would make the economic devasta-tion even worse. For several years, thepresident recommended a trade agreementextending the NAFTA concept to all thecountries of North and South America, ex-cept for Cuba. As he put it in 2003: “Weseek to build on the success of NAFTAwith the Free Trade Area of the Americas.”His FTAA proposal has stalled, but hewas able to ramrod the Central AmericanFree Trade Agreement (CAFTA) throughCongress in 2005, extending the NAFTAconcept to the nations of Central America.

And through the Security and Prosper-ity Partnership (SPP), his administrationis working to build NAFTA into a NorthAmerican Union.

NAFTA was supposed to create jobsand prosperity through “free trade,” just

as the name of the agreement indicates.But NAFTA was never about establish-ing genuine free trade, which would en-tail virtually unregulated exchange of goods across borders. NAFTA was basedon regulated trade, with our trade policyno longer shaped by Congress but by thenew transnational regulatory bureaucracyNAFTA created.

Means to an EndNor is NAFTA just about trade — “free”or otherwise. From the very beginning, itwas intended to be the means to merge themember nations economically and politi-cally, following the path already taken bythe European Union. And in fact, someNAFTA critics, this magazine included,made this very point prior to congression-al approval. But many NAFTA promotersdismissed this charge as ludicrous, claim-ing instead that NAFTA was merely abouteliminating tariff barriers.

NAFTA promoter William A. Orme, Jr.was not among them. Orme is the author

Closed factory:Despite thepromise that NAFTAwould create newjobs, it has had theopposite effect.But the dangersof NAFTA to ourcountry are notlimited to oureconomic well-being.

A P I m a g e s

NAFTA:It’s Not JustAbout Trade!

The North AmericanFree Trade Agreementwas intended from thebeginning to be the

foundational framework for a future NorthAmerican Union.

NAFTASPECIALREPORT




of the 1993 book Continental Shift (laterrepublished under the title Understanding

NAFTA), described by the Boston Globe as “the best, most balanced picture of the[NAFTA] issue yet to appear.” In a col-umn appearing in the Washington Post for November 14, 1993, just a few daysbefore Congress approved NAFTA, Ormeapprovingly wrote that “NAFTA wouldrestructure the continent, with lines of people and goods running north-to-southas well as east-to-west, and once-fixedborders blurring in overlapping spheres of economic influence and political power.”

NAFTA, he said, “is the framework for arelationship that would restructure muchmore than just trade.”

Summarizing the debate about the trueintent behind NAFTA — eliminating tar-iffs or creating a “European-style com-mon market” — NAFTA promoter Ormeadmitted that the NAFTA critics were “es-sentially right”:

When NAFTA was first proposed,critics in all three countries claimedthat its hidden agenda was the de-

velopment of a European-style com-mon market. Didn’t Europe also start

out with a limited free trade area?And, given the Brussels precedent,wouldn’t this mean ceding somemeasure of sovereignty to unelectedbureaucrats? Even worse, wouldn’tthis lead to liberalization and col-laborative policy making in manyother sensitive areas, from monetarypolicy and immigration to labor andenvironmental law?

NAFTA’s defenders said no. Theyargued that the agreement is designedto dismantle tariff barriers, not builda new regulatory bureaucracy....

Yet the critics were essentiallyright. NAFTA lays the foundationfor a continental common market,as many of its architects privatelyacknowledge. Part of this founda-tion, inevitably, is bureaucratic: Theagreement creates a variety of con-tinental institutions — ranging fromtrade dispute panels to labor and en-vironmental commissions — that are,in aggregate, an embryonic NAFTAgovernment.

NAFTA promoter Henry Kissinger, a keymember of America’s foreign-policy es-

tablishment, also acknowledged during the1993 NAFTA debate that NAFTA wouldbe far more significant than just anothertrade agreement. “It [NAFTA] will repre-sent the most creative step toward a newworld order taken by any group of coun-tries since the end of the Cold War, andthe first step toward an even larger visionof a free-trade zone for the entire West-ern Hemisphere,” the former secretary of state enthused in a column appearing inthe Los Angeles Times for July 18, 1993.“[NAFTA] is not a conventional tradeagreement, but the architecture of a new

international system.”On November 29, 1993, nine days afterthe U.S. Senate passed the NAFTA imple-mentation legislation, completing congres-sional action, National Security AdviserAnthony Lake sent a memo to PresidentClinton stating: “Hemispheric institu-tions, including the OAS [Organizationof American States] and Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank and now the NAFTAinstitutions, can be forged into the vitalmechanisms of hemispheric governance.”This internationalist perspective is par-

ticularly infuriating when one realizesthat Lake, in his role as national securityadviser, should have been telling the presi-dent how to keep our nation independent,not how to submerge our nation in hemi-spheric governance.

End GoalThe record of the last 14 years shows thatnumerous elitists have been trying to moveus in the direction described by Orme, Kis-singer, and Lake. The Republican presi-dent now residing in the White Househas been a willing partner in the drive tocreate a merger, as was his Democraticpredecessor. If these individuals achievetheir goal, not just jobs but the indepen-dence of our great country and even ourconstitutionally guaranteed freedoms willbe lost. Yet the very fact that they have hadto proceed slowly and stealthily, and haveexperienced setbacks such as the stalledFTAA agreement, shows that the unfold-ing NAFTA-NAU process can be exposedand reversed. ■

“NAFTA means jobs, American jobs and good-paying American jobs,” then-President Clinton assu“If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t support this agreement.” Regardless of what Clinton believed thnow clear that the promised jobs never materialized.

Under the EU:National flags fade

in importancewhile the EU flagis on the rise.

If the NorthAmerican Unionis created, ournational flagwill also fade inimportance —

without actuallybeing eliminated.

NAFTASPECIALREPORT



SHIPPING SUPPLY SPECIALISTS

ORDER BY 6 PM FOR SAME DAY SHIPPING

CALL FOR A FREE COPY OF OUR COMPLETE 384-PAGE CATALOG

CHICAGO • ATLANTA • DALLAS • LOS ANGELES • MINNEAPOLIS • NYC/PHILA

1-800-295-5510 uline.com

• CORRUGATED BOXES• STRETCH WRAP

• LABELS

• CARTON SEALING TAPE• BUBBLE CUSHIONING

• SCALES

OVER 850 BOX SIZES ALWAYS IN STOCK

Stop The NAU (North American Union)

Since 1967, the Cameron family has been providing

precision machining servicesto one of the nation’s most

active hi-tech markets.

404 N. Bowser Road Richardson, TX 75081 Phone (972) 235-8876

Fax (972) 235-1750 [email protected]

MACHINECAMERON

SHOP

Whether your job calls forCNC or manual, we provide

the quality workmanship and service you deserve.

For a birthday,a sick friend,or just to say

you care, call TLC Florist &Greenhouses, Inc.

We can deliver around the corner or around the world.

Major credit cards accepted

®



Stewart H. Welch, Jr. CLU3940 Montclair Road, Suite 500Birmingham, AL 35213

1-800-709-7100

Life Insurance • Annuities • Long Term Care

Alabama




by John F. McManus

W hen appended to trade, theword “free” brings to mind un-encumbered transactions. The

term has been applied to NAFTA (NorthAmerican Free Trade Agreement), CAFTA(Central American Free Trade Agree-ment), and other so-called free-trade pactsthat the United States has signed. Almostcompletely ignored in commentary aboutthese “free trade” agreements is the re-vealing fact that, while the measures carrythe label “free,” they are book-length andchock full of mandates governing the ex-change of goods. The NAFTA agreementalone fills over 1,700 pages. If buyersand sellers have to submit to such a mas-sive array of regulations as those foundin NAFTA, using the word “free” in thename of this or any similar trade agree-ment is deliberately misleading.

In fact, NAFTA and other trade agree-ments like it are polar opposites of genuinefree trade. Moreover, free trade is impos-sible to achieve unless certain conditionsare met.

Lewis E. Lloyd’s 1955 book, Tariffs:The Case For Protection , contained achapter entitled “Free Trade and the RealWorld.” He listed eight assumptions thatwould have to be realized if free tradecould exist. The first is that taxes must besimilar. If only one country’s producersare burdened with heavy taxation, then theelement of fairness doesn’t exist.

Similarly, because unnatural advan-tages can be achieved through currencymanipulation, there would be a need fora single monetary system. Then, businesslaws and business ethics would have tobe harmonized. Wage rates among thetrading partners would also have to besimilar. If freedom were to exist in the in-

ternational marketplace, Lloydclaimed, migration of workerswould have to be allowed. Andadd to all of this the need to beassured that there would be nomilitary action taken by onenation against any others — avirtual impossibility. Thoughhe never used the term, Lloydwas suggesting what has morerecently come to be known as a“level playing field.”

To create these conditions ona worldwide basis, there wouldhave to be global governance— all nations answering to oneruling body, a body with the mili-tary power to back up its will. Insimple terms, there would be a

need for world government.It becomes obvious that thiskind of “free trade” is not in thebest interests of Americans whovalue our unique American lib-erties under the U.S. Constitu-tion. Moreover, most businessleaders prefer that their transac-tions involve “fair” trade. Yet inNovember 1993, though NAFTAdid not represent fair trade, theHouse and Senate approved U.S.entry into this pact, and President

Clinton signed the measure intolaw on December 8, 1993.

NAFTA Never Meant to Keep PromisesNAFTA was sold to Congress and theAmerican people with fervent promisesthat it would stimulate commerce withour neighbor nations, and also that itwould create American jobs, curtail il-legal immigration, and have no harmfulimpact on U.S. independence. But thepromises were not kept, as millions lost

jobs, factories closed, illegal immigrationcontinued, and NAFTA’s judicial panelstrumped U.S. court decisions. Yet ourpolitical elitists continue to push for newtrade agreements similar to NAFTA, andthey are doing it for a reason other thanhelping Americans.

Some internationalist heavyweights didindicate the purpose of the pacts. In theOctober 1, 1993 edition of the Wall Street

Journal , for instance, David Rockefeller(who hardly ever authors a newspaper col-umn) wrote an article wherein he called

Trucks haul their cargo into theUnited States from Mexico.

A P I m a g e s

“Free trade” agreements are composed of large numbers of all-encompassing regulations. Do such tight controls really make

trade “free,” and are they in America’s best interests?

Is It “Free Trade” orSomething Else?

FREE TRADE

SPECIALREPORT




by Kelly Taylor

F or a variety of reasons, the UnitedStates is getting creamed in worldtrade. In trade with China alone,

America’s trade deficit jumped from $6million in 1985 to $201 billion in 2005.Most U.S. trade ills are the result of neg-ligent U.S. policy decisions — allowingother countries to severely penalize Ameri-can manufacturers via a Value Added Tax,actually funding the transfer of U.S. assetsoverseas through the U.S. Export-ImportBank and Overseas Private InvestmentCorp., insuring U.S. companies againstloss for failed business ventures in foreign

countries, etc. Now, as countries that pro-vide what equates virtually to slave-laborwages increasingly participate in the worldeconomy — further putting Americanbusinesses at a disadvantage — Americanpoliticians are aiding our competitors onceagain in the world-trade arena. As if build-ing foreign infrastructure were not enough,our politicians are working to lower thecost of transporting imports throughout theUnited States. They are building what hasbeen called the “NAFTA Superhighway.”

The NAFTA Superhighway is a termcoined by critics of a plan to create a mas-sive new North American transportation/ trade corridor system intended to handlethe anticipated increased flow of Chineseand other foreign goods into our coun-try. This is not “just another highway.”The Trans Texas Corridor (TTC), already

under construction, will be part of thesystem. According to the Texas Depart-ment of Transportation, it will, at points,include “separate lanes for passenger ve-hicles and large trucks; freight railways;high-speed commuter railways; infrastruc-ture for utilities including water lines, oiland gas pipelines; and transmission linesfor electricity, broadband and other tele-communications services.” And thoughTexas Governor Rick Perry is disinclinedto tell Texans about the true purpose of theTTC (in Texas, he says that it is needed toimprove that state’s economy and relievetraffic congestion), he is not so shy whenhe is in Mexico. In August, Perry heldmeetings in Mexico with Jose NatividadGonzales Paras, the governor of a Mexicanstate. Investigative journalist Jerome Corsidiscovered a Mexican government website

Kelly Taylor is an Austin-based writer and film-maker, and the producer of a politically based TV talk show.

ExpressRoute toPoverty Proposed NAFTAsuperhighway systemfrom Mexico to Canada

NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAYSPECIALREPORT

U.S. policy already gives foreign competitors almost every advantage in trade, yet ourgovernment is working hard to make shipping foreign imports cheaper than ever before.




ment plan to build a superhighway or byacting to aid the building and merger.

Congressman Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) isan example of the deniers. In response toa constituent inquiry about these issues,Franks claimed:

While there are non-governmentalorganizations actively endorsing acommon regulatory scheme betweenthe U.S., Canada, and Mexico, therehas been no action taken by the Unit-ed States Government itself....

A North American Highway orhighway system could not be autho-rized by the federal government with-out significant new legislation. Theinterstate highway system authorizedin 1956 has been completed and thefunding program to build it expiredin the early 1990s. The federal-aidhighway program that exists today isa state managed program.

In other words, if anything is happening,

state governments and private entities areto blame — there is no federal involve-ment. But evidence of federal governmentinvolvement is abundant. NASCO is fund-ed largely by the federal government’sDepartment of Transportation. Moreover,Congress has passed the Intermodal Sur-face Transportation Act, the Transporta-tion Equity Act for the 21st Century, andthe Safe, Accountable, Flexible, EfficientTransportation Equity Act — all of whicheither provided the long-term planning orfunding for new “High Priority Corridors”

that mainly run from Mexico to Canada.The Federal Highway Administration isalso providing $833 million between 2005and 2009 under the Coordinated BorderInfrastructure Program “to facilitate/expe-dite cross border motor vehicle and cargomovements.” The list goes on.

Some congressmen are blatantly spon-soring such a corridor. Indeed, Texas GOPSenator John Cornyn sponsored a bill tocommit U.S. taxpayer money to build thecorridor in Mexico — twice. And under

the auspices of NAFTA, the Bush adminis-tration is, for the first time, allowing Mexi-can trucks to bring goods throughout theUnited States.

Unless it is stopped, the superhighwayis coming. The only remaining questionis, “What ripple of consequences willhappen because of its building?” The firstconsequence will be an almost completeloss of border security. Under the guise of facilitating efficient border crossing, bor-der security will be dismantled — prepar-ing for a free flow of people across North

America. Instead of going through checksat the border, imports will be inspected inthe originating country, monitored elec-tronically, and then not inspected againuntil they are in middle America. Onceunloaded at Lazaro Cardenas, contain-ers will pass virtually unchecked overthe Texas/Mexico border, using the su-perhighway, en route to the Kansas CitySmartPort, one of several inland ports.Only there will containers undergo in-spection — and then by Mexican customs

officials! Feel safe?

And the stripping of bordersecurity can only exacerbateour illegal-immigration prob-lems and further drive downAmericans’ wages. Unless gov-ernment policies are changed, itwill only get worse, owing to themassive lay-offs that will occuras the cheaper shipping costssend even more U.S. manufac-turing jobs overseas.

Do not forget the physical re-quirements of a road the widthof four football fields. Accord-ing to TxDOT, the TTC willdisplace nearly a million Texans— nearly four times the numberdisplaced by Hurricane Katrina,requiring more than 500,000Texas acres. That is the numberdisplaced in just one state!

These are just some of themore notable consequences of this wrongheaded policy. Let’sreject this! ■

U.S. textile plants have moved to China — which has the trade advantages of cheap labor, artificiallycheap money, and less regulation. Now, U.S. leaders are poised to help China lower its shipping costs tothe United States via a superhighway running from Mexican ports.

A P I m a g e s

Across America, grass-roots organizations are working to stop the NAFTA Superhighway. Manpoliticians are listening. But other politicians contribute to the problem, either by denying thatthere is a government plan to build a superhighway or by acting to aid the building and merger.



2900 E. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, CA 92806

Phone 714-632-1440 Ext. 101 • Fax 714-632-7221 • www.freightmgmt.com

The Experts in Streamline Shipping Solutions

Let Freight Management save your company$1 Million in expenses this year alone!

Reduce Freight CostsStreamline Operations

Increase VisibilityLocal, National and Global Solutions

Start Realizing Savings Within 60 DaysDedicated Customer Support Teams

35 + Years in the Industry

No Fee Programs AvailableGuaranteed Pre-AuditPost Audit Available

This process starts with a no charge freight study.

Roger Given,MBA, CPAFinancial Advisor*

*Securities offered through H.D. Vest InvestmentServicesSM, Member SIPC. Advisory Servicesoffered through H.D. Vest Advisory ServicesSM,Non-bank subsidiaries of Wells Fargo & Company,6333 North State Highway 161, Fourth Floor,Irving, TX 75038, (972) 870-6000

Comprehensive Wealth Management2015 Bluffside Terrace

Colorado Springs, CO 80919(888) 822-4430

[email protected]

Given

& Associates,

CPAs, PC

TOPEKA’S MOSTCOMPLETE

HEALTH FOODLINE

Natural Vitamins, Minerals,Herbs, Natural Foods,

Books, Dietetics, Teas, Proteins,Nuts, Juicers, Pure Distilled

Drinking Water & Ice

1507 SW 21st St. cor. WashburnTopeka, KS 66604-3172

PHONE: (913) 235-9710FAX: (913) 235-9716




by Dennis Behreandt

The world has always had itsidealists. Frequently enough, theyhave dreamt of erecting a paradise

on Earth where the squabbles of nations,the ravings of dictators, and the recurringbanes of famine and disease would bemade relics of the past in a unified worldruled by a single globe-spanning govern-ment. Such was the vision and the hopeof John Lennon when he sang the lyricsto the song “Imagine.” Such was the hopeof the World Federalist Association which,

as late as the 1980s, blithely called for aworld government on the basis that hu-manity was one large family.

That kind of idealism perished on 9/11.There are still some who believe that re-gional and world schemes for governmentmake more sense than national govern-ments. But instead of pointing to variousutopian fantasies of peace and prosperity,today’s internationalists point to threatsand risks they say can’t be managed byindependent nations.

In 2004, writing in the journal Foreign Affairs , published by the Council on For-eign Relations, the most influential for-eign-policy think tank in the United States,Robert Pastor argued that progress towarda more secure future “can only occur withtrue leadership, new cooperative institu-tions, and a redefinition of security thatputs the United States inside a continen-tal security perimeter, working togetheras partners.” In other words, security de-mands that we build a North AmericanUnion. Pastor, though, doesn’t call it that.

He calls it a North AmericanCommunity.

The new world of globalrisk, according to theoreticianslike Pastor, requires the forma-tion of supra-national organs of governance in order to mitigatethreats that the individual na-tion-state alone supposedly can-not manage. This, however, is adangerous misconception, a de-lusion that if allowed to be putinto concrete practice would notonly mean the end of liberty asAmericans have long understoodit, but would also open up newand particularly virulent dangersthe likes of which the world hasnot seen before. Indeed, contrary

to the beliefs of internationalistslike Pastor, both liberty and se-curity require the maintenance of sovereign and free nations.

Metaphor of a Sinking ShipTo understand why it is the nationstate that is the best solution to aworld society filled with risk, youneed to think like a naval archi-tect. A ship functions in an envi-ronment that is inherently unsafe.Subject to the unpredictable and

sometimes violent vagaries of wind andwater, a vessel can stay afloat only so longas it maintains its watertight integrity. Inthe event that the hull is breached, the shipwill sink, if proper countermeasures havenot been incorporated in its design.

For centuries, those countermeasuresprimarily have taken the form of bulk-heads used to create watertight compart-ments. Currently, even for large yachtsbuilt for private use, regulations requiremultiple watertight compartments so thatif any one compartment floods, otherswill remain dry and the vessel will remainafloat. Palmer Johnson, builders of the156-foot mega yacht Anson Bell (since re-named) went further. According to Power & Motoryacht , regulations require “theinclusion of five watertight bulkheads,creating seven watertight compartments,

Anson Bell has six bulkheads, creatingeight compartments.” If even two suchcompartments on the Anson Bell sufferflooding, the super yacht will still remainafloat, its passengers safe and secure.

Internationalists arguethat global risks requireglobal governance. Inreality, global risks are bestmanaged by independentnations.

NAU merger:Anartist’s conceptionof what the flag ofa North AmericanUnion might look like.Internationalists areurging integrationas a strategy to wardoff threats in a riskymodern world.

Global Risks,National Solutions

USA v. NAUSPECIALREPORT




In this sense, nations arelike watertight compartments,with secure borders acting asbulkheads. This understand-ing of national sovereignty, infact, played a significant rolein shaping the thinking of theFounding Fathers as they builtthe constitutional framework for the United States duringthe early years of the repub-lic. Recognizing that the 13original colonies were inde-pendent and sovereign, theframers of the Constitutioncreated a federal system of national government that lefta great deal of power to thestates comprising the United

States. This approach wasexplicitly defined in the 10thAmendment, which reservesto the states and the peoplethose powers “not delegatedto the United States by theConstitution, nor prohibitedby it to the States.”

This federal organization of the United States was part of the constitutional plan for ad-ditional watertight compart-ments within our government

itself. “By reserving to the states consider-able power,” noted Ohio Northern Univer-sity professor of political science David C.Saffel, the federal arrangement “lessenedthe likelihood of centralized tyranny.”

International FederalismIn the same way that the retention of im-portant powers by the American states haslong stood as an important bulwark againstthe erection of centralized tyranny in theUnited States, independent, sovereign na-tions stand themselves as bulwarks againstthe potential spread of a variety of disas-trous policies, including tyranny. Considerthe two greatest dictators of the 20th cen-tury, Hitler and Stalin. Unquestionablyboth would have been eager to satisfy theirunquenchable thirst for power by seeking

dominion over the entire globe.Hitler, for instance, would have found

his quest more easily attained had he risento power in a world that already includedthe European Union rather than a collec-tion of independent states. As it was, theAustrian madman was forced to abandonpolitical means of conquest for militarymeans as soon as his ambitions broughthim into conflict with sovereign nationswilling to fight for their independence.True, a bloody and terrible war ensued, butthe growth of the Nazi dictatorship waschecked and driven back by nation statesfighting for their very existence. Stalinand the Soviet Union, also confrontedby independent nations intent on retain-ing their sovereignty, were contained andprevented from enveloping all the nations

of the world in a communisttyranny. If either dictator hadgained power within a su-pranational power structure,he would have been able toextend his tyranny muchfurther and much faster. Afuture dictator with similarambitions might salivate atthe prospect of taking powerin the European Union.

Hitler and Stalin are ex-treme examples, but thelessons apply equally withregard to the seeminglymore pedestrian proposi-tions imagining deeper andbroader integration of thenations of North America.

Suppose a North AmericanUnion is achieved and sup-pose that, as a result, thethree formerly independentnations find they need to har-monize and standardize theirhealthcare systems — not afarfetched supposition sinceunder NAFTA there has beensignificant movement to har-monize standards in variousprofessions. Would formerU.S. citizens enjoy having

the Canadian healthcare system, wherein 2003 about 13 percent of citizens hadtrouble getting in to see a family doctor?Or, worse, would former Canadian andU.S. citizens rather be forced into somesemblance of Mexico’s segregated sys-tem with one set of healthcare providersfor workers, a separate set for governmentemployees, and a third set of healthcareproviders for “certain executives in theoil, telephone, and electrical industriesand in the government [who] have spe-cial benefits to access the private medicalsystem”?

Whether against the threats of tyranny,war, disease, or even the threat of incompe-tent socialist bureaucratic bumbling, nationsserve as bulkheads preventing the spread of disastrous problems and ideas. ■

Myths of regionalism: People in boats row past the EU parliamentbuilding in Strasbourg, France. Regional integration, such as hasoccurred in Europe, exposes larger numbers of people to risk. Bycontrast, sovereign nations act as bulkheads, limiting the spread of risk.

A P I m a g e s

In the same way that the American states stand as an important bulwark against centralized tyrannyUnited States, independent nations stand themselves as bulwarks against the potential spread of a vof disastrous policies, including tyranny.

USA v. NAUSPECIALREPORT



Refrigerated Storage Trailer Rental, Inc.P.O. Box 90411

Houston, Texas 77290(281) 376-6222

Specializing in the rental of refrigeratedequipment, RSTRI serves Houston andthe surrounding areas with temporaryand permanent on-site refrigeratedstorage equipment.

Our refrigerated rental units come in awide variety of sizes, ranging from 8- to12-foot trailers that can be pulled witha pickup, on up to 53-foot 18-wheelers.And everything in between.

www.refrigerated-storage.com

EXHAUST SYSTEMS

SERVICES INC.

“If you can keep your head while those

around you are losing theirs, then perhaps

you don't understand the seriousness of

the situation.”

P.O. Box 18225Pensacola, FL 32523

Ron Paul’s

“Texas Straight Talk” (888) 322-1414

I S A I A H 4 0 : 3 1

Retire Safe, Early and Happy...©© W. Neil Gallagher, PHD. 1996 All Rights Reserved

The Gallagher Financial

Group isyour personalpartner. Every strategy, everyportfolio is tailor-madefor you, the individual client.

For more information on The Gallagher Group visit www.docgallagher.com or call

(800) 434-4362. You can also write us at 1845 Precinct Line Road, Suite 215, Hurst, Texas 76054.



1321 N. Franklin St.Dublin, GA 31021

(478) 272-2530FAX (478) 272-2731

www.Evanscabinet.com

Petersburg

Montgomery

Quality Craftsmanship since 1957

Luxurious Mahoganynish adding style to your

kitchenRouted Raised PanelHardwood Door

Semi Concealed hingingproviding sturdy support

Streamlined looks in aclassic designNatural nish that gives

wood its true beauty

Recessed panelhardwood doorSemi Concealed hinging




The situation is even bleaker south of theRio Grande. The effects of NAFTA havebeen felt most acutely in the Mexican ag-ricultural sector, where huge numbers of Mexico’s poor farmers have been put outof business, unable to compete with heav-ily subsidized, cheaper produce from the

United States. Ironically, it is in the pro-duction of corn, a crop that originated inMexico and remains a staple of the Mexi-can food supply, where NAFTA-inducedeconomic distortions have been most se-vere. As cheap American corn has floodedMexican markets, Mexico’s wealthy farm-ers have been forced to shift to other cropsto survive. Those who cannot do this — themillions of rural Mexicans who rely onsubsistence farming centered on corn cul-tivation — have seen their already precari-ous standard of living spiral downward.

With no change from their millennia-old corn-centered style of farming, largenumbers of Mexico’s rural poor have flednorthward to the United States to survive,accounting for a generous proportion of the flood of illegal immigrants threatening

to overwhelm our country. “The assump-tion was that tens of thousands of [Mexi-can] farmers who cultivated corn wouldact ‘rationally’ [under NAFTA] and con-tinue farming, even as less-expensive cornimported from the United States floodedthe market. The farmers, it was assumed,

would switch to growing strawberriesand vegetables — with some help fromforeign investment — and then exportthese crops to the United States. Instead,the farmers exported themselves,” writesLouis Uchitelle in a February 2007 articlefor the New York Times that explored whyNAFTA — contrary to the promises of itsframers — has failed to halt or even reduceillegal immigration.

Not only in the agricultural sector hasNAFTA failed to live up to the hype. With-in months after NAFTA came into forcein January 1994, Mexico was plungedinto a currency crisis that rocked globalfinance. Though the peso was eventuallystabilized — thanks largely to the gener-osity of the Clinton administration withAmerican taxpayer dollars deployed to

prop up Mexico’s currency— the Mexican economy hascontinued to stagnate, nevercoming close to the healthy6.5 percent average growthin GDP from 1950 through1980. Real wages, in fact, arelower now than they were 25years ago, and overall eco-nomic growth has averageda paltry 1.3 percent per year,more than 30 percent behindthe average growth rate of comparable middle-incomecountries around the world.The estimated 500,000 Mex-icans a year who choose thehazards of illegal residencyand employment north of the

Rio Grande are eloquent tes-timony to the abject failureof NAFTA-style managedtrade to cure Mexico’s eco-nomic woes. As one illegalimmigrant quoted in a recent

Los Angeles Times article put it, “If it weretrue that NAFTA was good for Mexico, wewouldn’t be here.”

On one thing do supporters and op-ponents of NAFTA all agree: the NorthAmerican Free Trade Agreement hasgreatly benefited the corporate and finan-

cial elitists in all three countries, allow-ing capital to collude more easily acrossinternational boundaries. All availableinformation shows significant growth inincome and assets among the wealthiestfew percent in all three countries, growththat is strongly linked to more open bor-ders. These are, of course, the very peoplewho have been pushing NAFTA from thebeginning, in cahoots with political lead-ers, and the deal has paid off handsomelyfor both groups — as it was intended to dofrom its inception.

NAFTA has indeed “forced adjustment”on millions of people throughout NorthAmerica, and its contemplated successor,the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), if allowed to go for-ward, will inflict more of the same. ■

Well-heeled: One of Mexico’s wealthy takes a stroll underthe approving gaze of Felipe Calderon, Mexican president

and supporter of NAFTA. The trade agreement has benefitedMexico’s elitists at the expense of millions of subsistencefarmers and the rest of the Mexican working class.

A P I m a g e s

On one thing supporters and opponents of NAFTA all agree: the North American Free TradeAgreement has greatly benefited the corporate and financial elites in all three countries, allowincapital to collude more easily across international boundaries.



Clark’s Nutritional Centers havethe vitamins, minerals, herbs,

and other supplements you needto keep your health and tness attheir highest levels, plus all thelatest information about themavailable through our extensive

online catalog.

eep your Americafree...

and your familysafe.

The John Birch Society Standing for Family and Freed

JBS.org/Freedom

K

HELP PREVENT AMERICA FROM GOING

DOWN THE DRAIN!

(818) 837-1310 453 Jesse Street

San Fernando, CA 91340

• Residential• Apartments• Commercial• Industrial

RIVERSIDE4225 Market Street

Riverside, CA 92501(951) 686-4757

Fax (951) 686-5678Deli (951) 686-9970

RANCHO MIRAGE

34175 Monterey Ave.Rancho Mirage, CA 92270

(760) 324-4626Fax (760) 969-6730

LOMA LINDA 11235 Mountain View Ave.

Loma Linda, CA 92354(909) 478-7714

Fax (909) 478-0814

Mail Orders:(800) 251-8996

Online Orders:

LocationsServing You:



See Dean Sellers Ford for your new Freedom Machine

2600 Maple RoadTroy, Michigan

(248) 643-7500

www.deansellersford.com