IT'S HAPPENING HERE!

We'll begin with a handful of potent quotes:

"This is not a major trade vote. It's a major political vote."
House and Ways Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Ca.)
Congressional Quarterly Today (7/27/05)

"Whatever the economic merits, the vote on Wednesday night made it clear that the political appeal of the trade agreement was low. Only 15 Democrats supported the measure. And despite intense pressure from President Bush and House Republican leaders, 27 Republicans voted against the deal; many others badly wanted to do so." New York Times (7/29/05)

"The importance of CAFTA all along has been that it would serve as a wind-up to give [the Free trade Area of the Americas] momentum."
Larry Birns
Director, Council on Hemispheric Affairs (Washington-based research group_
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (7/29/05)

This comes courtesy of Jim Capo (Chair, N.C. Chapter, Citizens Committee to Stop the FTAA) (more on Robin Hayes below):

At the time of the discussion, Keith Larson only knew that Robin Hayes had voted YES. Imagine how much worse this interview would have gone for Congressman Hayes had Mr. Larson known that Hayes had first voted NO and then switched his vote to YES in the closing minutes of the 60 minute long 15 minute vote?

This is an exceptional example of how bad a Demopublican can look if the media is allowed to ask and follow up to real questions.

The CAFTA afterglow is a target rich environment for exposing the vacuous nature of the majority of our Congressmen. As an added bonus I have attached below a report that details how we came so close to victory on this one that there was not even time for the bad guys to make up good lies to cover their tracks...

1) Charles Taylor's "defective voting card" worked fine three times earlier that evening.

2) Jo Ann Davis voted at 5:05pm but immediately drove so far away from the Capitol (IN rush hour traffic) that she couldn't get back in time (AFTER rush hour traffic) to vote by midnight on a critical bill that the whole world knew by 8:00pm was going to happen that night. Yep, let's do the math: There are 3 hours between 5:05 pm and 8:00pm and 4 hours between 8:00pm and midnight.

3) Robin Hayes. Votes NO then switched to YES more a half hour later. Now there's one case where I might agree, "There ought to be a law."

Man, this is going to be so easy to rip the other side. They had to totally expose themselves as criminals.

Jim

P.S. It's so good, let me say this again. The defeat CAFTA forces in North Carolina did such a great job erecting a near inpenetrable defense we forced the powers to be in Washington to sacrifice and spill on the floor what little credibility they had left. NO to CAFTA at 10-2-1 with 5 Republicans in the Nays column had to be the best showing in the nation!

P.P.S. Hey, don't forget to thank all the Congressmen that voted with us.

The Hotline

CAFTA: Large Store Of Convenience?

Congress Daily's Davis and Goode report, "It appears the razor-thin, two-vote victory" on CAFTA should've "been at least one vote tighter" as Rep. Charles Taylor (R-NC 11) said 7/28 he voted "no" but "because of a computer glitch, it did not register with the final tally." A Taylor spokesperson said he and Rep. Howard Coble (R-NC 06) voted no, but the computer in the House Clerk's office recorded only Coble's vote." GOP aides said "Taylor cast a no vote with a deactivated voting card, which caused the problem."

The "glitch registered with the Clerk's office, but Taylor had since left the House floor and aides said attempts to locate him during the 62-minute vote were unsuccessful." Taylor has "inserted comments" in the Cong. Record "explaining the error and reiterating his opposition."

A spokesperson for Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-VA 01), "the only other nonvoting" member, "said she would have voted" no, but was on her way to a Boy Scout Jamboree event, "which was ultimately canceled because of weather." Davis and Taylor's votes would've created a tie, "which would have meant defeat for the treaty unless GOP leaders found an additional" GOPer to "switch a vote."

Davis "was traveling" to her CD "despite warnings and notices throughout the week from the whip operations on both sides of the aisle that attendance was necessary during the CAFTA vote." A spokesperson: "She just didn't get back on time" (7/28).

Calls into Davis' office asking for more details about the timing of the boy scout event (both the original start time and the time the event was cancelled) went unanswered at press time. The last vote Davis cast on 7/27 was at 5:05 pm on H RES 384 (Hotline reporting, 7/29).

A Million Ways To Say "NO", But Not Enough Ways To Vote No?

Taylor's statement on the CAFTA vote: "The Clerk's computer logs verified that I had attempted to no show my 'nay' vote. I am re-inserting my "No" vote in the record. But even with my NO vote, the bill still passed" (7/28).

From a NC Dem Party release, "Despite his vow to oppose the bill", Taylor "suspiciously missed the vote." He "voted earlier in the evening." According the Clerk of the House, "At 8:15 pm, Taylor voted to provide consideration of CAFTA. He also cast procedural votes at 8:06pm and 7:56 pm... From 11:10 until final passage at 12:03 am, Taylor was missing." NC Dem Party chair Jerry Meek: "When it was time to play offense against unfair trade, Charles Taylor wasn't even on the field. The vote was kept open for an hour and Republicans were arm-twisting and dealing, so Taylor's absence was certainly noticed... Maybe they needed him to stay away so CAFTA would pass. Maybe he was on the phone dealing with his shady Russian bank -- it must've been banking hours in Ivano, Russia" (Release, 7/28).

Were They Present For The Same Conversation?

"Assailed by some as a flip-flopper who sold out NC workers" Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC 08) said 7/28 "he changed his CAFTA vote from 'no' to a key, last-minute 'yes'" after Speaker Dennis Hastert "promised to do more for the embattled textile industry." Hayes: "He said, 'You tell me what you need and we're going to do it.'" Just like a trade vote four years ago, Hayes' vote switch "sparked a political firestorm" 7/28 AM among Dems and "talk-radio listeners in and around Charlotte."

The "final vote was 217-215." His office said Hayes case the 216th "yes" vote. Hastert "had a different view" on "what he had done to get Hayes to change his vote." The "speaker attributed Hayes' switch to grassroots pressure, not to any deal." Hastert: "I did have a discussion with Robin Hayes. But Robin Hayes ultimately talked to his textile people. They encouraged him to vote for the bill ultimately" (Funk/Morrill, Charlotte Observer, 7/29).

Hayes: "I was a solid no, going in." Hayes recalled Hastert saying to him: "We've got to have your vote. What do we need to do, for your people, for jobs in your district, for you to vote for the bill?" Hayes said he "needed new protections for his district's textile producers and workers." Hastert said he'd "do his best." Hayes, on GOP leaders: "They've got a proven history of doing what they say" (Hitt, Wall Street Journal, 7/29).

The restrictions Hastert "promised could come soon." Within 10 days, the Bush admin. "is expected to rule on whether to impose import quotas on Chinese sweaters, wool trousers, bras and other goods." Dems charged GOPers "with buying votes and forcing members to vote against their consciences" (Andrews, New York Times, 7/29).

Charlotte Observer editorializes, Hayes' constituents are "entitled to ask what the heck happened. Rep. Hayes, send us 800 words of so explaining exactly what benefits your district will get for your vote, and we'll tell them" (7/29).

Labor Going Afta CAFTA

UT labor unions "are upset with" Rep. Jim Matheson's (D) vote in favor of CAFTA. UT AFL-CIO pres. Ed Mayne: "We have withheld our endorsement from Democratic candidates before. ... There are more than a few (union leaders) back here who are very, very disappointed" in Matheson. Matheson: "the bottom line for me is that CAFTA will create jobs here in Utah by boosting opportunities for our exporters. Removing trade barriers to Utah products is a good thing for our state's economy and employees" (Bernick, Deseret Morning News, 7/29).

Pelosi's Throwing Punches

Roll Call's Billings writes that House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) "called a last-minute, Members-only meeting" 7/28 "to review the early-morning balloting and the reasoning behind defector's votes." Sources in the room "said Pelosi was furious at the outcome and the votes of some of the 15 Democrats -- notably some in safe districts --who joined the Republicans to pass the bill." One Dem aide: "I've never seen her like that."

Pelosi "told Members ... that there are 'expectations' that come" with top cmte assignments. She "said both privately and publicly that the votes would be reviewed on a 'case-by-case basis,'" since "many of the 15 defectors needed to vote for the bill given their districts and political situations."

Pelosi also "told reporters the House floor turned into an episode of 'Let's Make a Deal' and that for days ... Members had 'offers made' to them" even "charging that ethics rules may have been broken."

Pelosi: "Republicans turned the floor of the House of Representatives into a "Let's Make A Deal" set. It was reminiscent of what happened at the time of the Medicare prescription drug legislation that evening. And again this time they kept the vote open a long time. But many of the overtures that were made to members was made before even going to the floor. So this is about, again, an abuse of power, in an unethical way of passing legislations. And depending on what members decide to do, may require further attention" ("IP," CNN, 7/28).

Not Joined In A Happy Union Anymore...

Madison Capital Times' John Nichols writes that Dems have "relied heavily on labor support to win and hold competitive seats in the House, and its Democratic representatives cannot hide behind the excuses of White House pressure or political necessity that Republicans enjoy." In this vein, leaders of "some of the largest unions in the country indicated that they will not be backing" Dems who voted for CAFTA, including those under the "Frontline" initiative that "seeks to fill the campaign coffers of the 10 House incumbents who are likely to face the toughest challenges" in '06.

They also "urged the campaign committee to drop Frontline efforts for members who support the deal." Reps. Melissa Bean (IL), Jim Matheson (UT) and Dennis Moore (KS) were "identified in [a] letter" sent to Senate Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi, among others, before the vote. The letter acknowledged "that the party and House Democrats are not homogeneous" but said it is "unacceptable" to support incumbents who "are poised to desert labor on this core issue" (7/28).

Good "Welcome Home" Coverage For August Recess

Chicago Tribune editorializes, Rep. Melissa Bean (D-IL 08) "bucked her party to vote for this trade treaty because she believes it will help create jobs and expand markets for companies in her district. ... Good for her. The freshman... took a brave and principled stand on CAFTA" (7/29).

The "threat hung over" Rep. Dennis Moore (D-KS 03) "for days, a game of chicken between" the Rep. and "some of his most important allies, with all-too-real consequences." But Moore walked off the House floor "with his principles intact" after casting a "yes" vote (Stearns, Kansas City Star, 7/29).

Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH 18) "stood suprisingly alone as the sole" OH GOP House member voting against CAFTA. That's "because the supposedly firm stance of Rep. Steven LaTourette (R-OH 14) shifted. LaTourette "confirmed" he'd "cast the final 'yes' vote" (Riskind, Columbus Dispatch, 7/29).

Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC 02) "who for months had opposed CAFTA," voted for it 7/28, infuriating "sectors of the textile industry that had fought to defeat CAFTA." He said he concluded that "side agreements to the treaty would protect SC textile jobs." And "he said he became increasingly convinced in the past week that CAFTA is needed to bolster security and stability within and beyond CAFTA nations" (Markoe, Columbia State, 7/29).

Correction

The list of CAFTA votes in the 7/29 Hotline mistakenly identified Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV 02) as a Dem.

END

Article from North Carolina:

News & Record, Greensboro, NC
Business
Friday, July 29, 2005
Hayes’ switch passes CAFTA

By Donald W. Patterson
Staff Writer

Textile leaders who opposed the Central America Free Trade Agreement went into Wednesday’s late-night vote in the House thinking they had the numbers needed to defeat the controversial treaty.

They came up one vote short.

The House approved CAFTA 217-215. A tie would have defeated the agreement, which lowers trade barriers between the United States and the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Nicaragua.

The agreement became a referendum on the Bush administration’s trade policies.

“We had a majority going into the vote,” said Lloyd Wood, a spokesman for the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition in Washington. “The CAFTA proponents squeezed the blood out of the turnip.”

One of those who got squeezed, it appears, was North Carolina congressman Robin Hayes, a Republican from the 8th District.

Hayes initially voted against CAFTA Wednesday, but later changed his vote to yes.

Bloomberg News reported Thursday that “a 40-minute delay in the vote was broken after the Republican leadership convinced (Hayes) to switch his vote.”

Hayes said he was not pressured to do so.

He said House Speaker Dennis Hastert came to him after he had voted and made a late pitch for the congressman’s support.

“He basically said, 'We need this vote very badly,’” Hayes recalled. “'We have exhausted all our potential sources and we need your vote. In order for you to vote for us we will do whatever we need to do in your district for people to keep their jobs.’

“That was a very strong promise from a very honorable man. It was an easy decision at that point.”

After switching his vote, Hayes said he got assurances from Hastert, a representative from the White House and the office of U.S. Trade Representative that the administration would take a tougher stance against China.

“China is the big play here,” Hayes said. “Everybody knows China cheats.”

Hayes said Thursday he had gotten calls from officials at Greensboro-based International Textile Group, which has two plants in his district, indicating their support for CAFTA.

One of those calls came Wednesday from Joe Gorga, ITG’s chief executive officer, who said the agreement would benefit the company’s plants in Hayes’s district.

“I laid out the business dynamics in support of CAFTA and we won very narrowly,” Gorga said. “I think Robin made the right decision and I think our industry will benefit from that. For the politics behind it, you are asking the wrong person.”

Only one other member of North Carolina’s House delegation, Sue Myrick, a Republican from the 9th District, voted for the agreement.

Rep. Howard Coble, a Republican whose 6th District includes part of the Triad, voted against CAFTA because of his late mother, Johnnie Holt Coble, who used to work in a textile mill.

“Because of my mama, I know the importance of textile jobs to North Carolina’s economy and a way of life that is all-too-fast disappearing,” Coble said in a statement released prior to the vote. “I fear that CAFTA will accelerate the demise of these domestic textile jobs.”

CAFTA supporters say the treaty will help maintain U.S. textile jobs by providing a strong industry presence in this hemisphere — one that can compete with China.

But because of the loopholes in the agreement, opponents say it will destroy textile jobs.

Coble’s office said 80 percent of the letters, e-mail and calls from constituents were opposed to CAFTA.

Many of those communications came from people in small textile companies.

Generally, textile companies that have operations in Central America or plan operations there supported the agreement. Those that do not — generally the smaller companies — opposed it.

“In my opinion, Congress and the president turned their backs on the American worker,” said Nim Harris, the head of Pickett Hosiery Mills in Burlington, which has seen its work force drop from 150 to 100 this year. “I firmly believe there will be retribution at the polls for those who voted for CAFTA.”

Contact Donald W. Patterson at 373-7027 or donpatterson@news-record.com

END

Courtesy of the John Birch Society:

AFTER A BRUISING BATTLE TO DEFEAT THE CENTRAL AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (CAFTA), THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY GEARS UP TO STOP THE FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS (FTAA)
July 29, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

From: Jaclyn Strelka, Public Affairs
PO Box 8040 Appleton, WI 54912
920-749-3780
jstrelka@jbs.org

AFTER A BRUISING BATTLE TO DEFEAT THE CENTRAL AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT (CAFTA), THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY GEARS UP TO STOP THE FREE TRADE AREA OF THE AMERICAS (FTAA)

It was a brutal battle on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. Complete with arm twisting, badgering, and backroom deal making, the final vote landed in favor of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). At 12:03 a.m. on Wednesday, July 28, the pro-CAFTA forces pushed through a razor-thin victory of 217-215.

Designed to bring about continued job loss, increased illegal immigration – but more importantly – the continued erosion of American independence to a faceless international bureaucracy, CAFTA is simply the dress rehearsal for a larger and more destructive agreement: the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The FTAA, if passed, will encompass 34 countries of the Western Hemisphere, and has been correctly referred to as “NAFTA on steroids.”

Each time the United States approves another agreement, everyday-Americans are punished with job losses and entire industries shipped overseas, increased numbers of illegal immigrants, and a flood of new rules and regulations imposed from governments outside our borders. The FTAA would dramatically accelerate this economic race to the bottom and erosion of our nation’s independence.

However, there is great reason to be optimistic. This hard-fought CAFTA battle, even in defeat, has greatly improved our chances for defeating the FTAA. The John Birch Society has been aggressively fighting so-called “free trade” agreements for years, and has awakened many Americans to the threat they pose. The closeness and fierceness of the CAFTA battle points to the growing opposition to these “free trade” pacts. Now the momentum is swinging our way.

As the Establishment power elite prepares for a final push on this “winner take all” agreement, honest and loyal Americans can be assured that the most effective way to fight this battle is as a member of a chapter of The John Birch Society. It will take organization and a sound plan of action to help Americans overcome the forces we have just confronted over CAFTA.

Since 1958, the John Birch Society has been fighting for the freedom and liberty of all Americans. This next battle against the FTAA may very well be a deciding one in the war for American independence.

END

Article by Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt

THE ROBOTIC CAFTA VOTE
By Charlotte Iserbyt
July 28, 2005
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/iserbyt/iserbyt28.htm

Just what exactly is the significance of the CAFTA vote as it relates to our ability as American citizens to shape our destiny?

When promises of "pork" are made to congressmen to change their votes, is this not bribery? Isn't the use of positive/negative reinforcement operant conditioning (rewards and punishment) basically what the Russian Ivan Pavlov and the American B.F. Skinner recommended as the method to change animal behavior and to create robots? Such conditioning bypasses the brain with all the important functions which distinguish man from an animal: memory, conscience, imagination, insight, and intuition, functions by which human beings know absolutes and truths and are able to know God.

Unfortunately operant conditioning works, whereas trying to persuade a human being to change his mind/vote using reason, logic, etc. does not always work since one is up against an individual's free will and conscience. Have you ever known a dog (an animal without free will or conscience) who would not drool and sit when he is assured of getting a dog biscuit?

The Congressmen who changed their votes from UNDECIDED to YES were victimized by the use of Pavlovian/Skinnerian operant conditioning.

In fact, most of the Congressmen and Senators who voted yes were undoubtedly victims of this inhumane method of controlling behavior through the promise of goodies (pork) for their congressional districts, in which case their constituents will reward them by re-electing them the next time around. Click here to see vote.

The more this animal training method (positive/negative reinforcement) is used on Americans, the more we will see of conscienceless, robotic actions at all levels in our society. I doubt that the Congressmen and Senators who voted yes and those who caved in even know what I am talking about since they have been through the government schools which use the Skinner method K-12 (especially computers), have been exposed to the media's constant conditioning, especially via TV and videos which are Skinnerian operant conditioning machines, and have been lead to believe that it is perfectly normal to make a decision based on the assurance of a reward. Example: In my town of Bath, Maine, the Community Oriented Policing System (COPS) has instituted a program which calls for the police to give medals (rewards) to citizens who do good deeds, the police themselves determining what is a "good" or a "bad" deed! This information is stored in a data bank at the state capitol.

In our anguish over this sovereignty-busting vote we must not forget to thank all who voted NO on the CAFTA. Pick up the phone and get busy making thank you calls. And be sure to ask them to vote NO on the forthcoming FTAA. Congressional switchboard number is: 202-224-3121. Special thanks should go to those who were "undecided" and refused to succumb to the offers of funding for bridges, roads, etc. Yesterday's list of the "undecideds" can be accessed by going to thelibertycommittee.org. Find out from today's media coverage which of the "undecideds" held firm in their convictions.

This is just the beginning of our assault on the traitors in Washington who are selling our birthright for a mess of pottage. They are the Judases of the 21st Century. Judas betrayed our Lord to the pharisees for thirty pieces of silver. Our Congressmen have betrayed their constituents in exchange for lucrative deals promised by the White House.

All of us who fought this battle so valiantly will NOT stop now. We are fortunate that we have one more chance to take a stand for America and all that she represents. If we came this close to victory in the Senate and the House, there is no reason under the sun, except laziness and lack of focus, that we cannot defeat the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA) when it comes up for a vote. Stay tuned by going to www.stoptheftaa.org.

Cicero in the year 42 B.C. discussed what is going on in the Halls of Congress when he said:

A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor—he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation—he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city—he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.......Cicero, 42 B.C.E.

© 2005 Charlotte T. Iserbyt - All Rights Reserved

Charlotte Iserbyt is the consummate whistleblower! Iserbyt served as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration, where she first blew the whistle on a major technology initiative which would control curriculum in America's classrooms. Iserbyt is a former school board director in Camden, Maine and was co-founder and research analyst of Guardians of Education for Maine (GEM) from 1978 to 2000. She has also served in the American Red Cross on Guam and Japan during the Korean War, and in the United States Foreign Service in Belgium and in the Republic of South Africa.

Iserbyt is a speaker and writer, best known for her 1985 booklet Back to Basics Reform or OBE: Skinnerian International Curriculum and her 1989 pamphlet Soviets in the Classroom: America's Latest Education Fad which covered the details of the U.S.-Soviet and Carnegie-Soviet Education Agreements which remain in effect to this day. She is a freelance writer and has had articles published in Human Events, The Washington Times, The Bangor Daily News, and included in the record of Congressional hearings.

Website: www.deliberatedumbingdown.com

E-Mail: dumbdown@blazenetme.net

From the John Birch Society:

Build on the CAFTA Loss to STOP the FTAA!

As you have probably already learned, the House passed CAFTA early this morning by 217-215. (See how your Representative voted.)

Although we are deeply disappointed by this loss, we are not discouraged. From the beginning, we recognized that the pro-CAFTA forces would wield enormous pressure on individual congressmen to obtain a favorable vote. Although rarely mentioned in the news, the reason for the intense pro-CAFTA pressure is that globalists regard CAFTA as an important stepping stone to their even more dangerous Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

We sincerely thank all of you who worked hard to stop CAFTA. We've heard back how many of you have had repeated and lengthy personal contacts with your Representative and/or his staff regarding this dangerous trade pact. We're also aware that many of you have used our online resources to help persuade others to put the pressure on Congress.

Here are our thoughts as we retool for the FTAA battle:

* This hard-fought CAFTA battle, even in defeat, has greatly improved our chances for defeating the FTAA. The closeness and fierceness of the battle points to the growing opposition to these "free trade" pacts. The momentum has actually swung our way. Furthermore, the CAFTA battle, by serving as a dress rehearsal for the FTAA battle, revealed the pressure tactics of the pro-CAFTA forces, and provided valuable extra time for informing Americans about the dangers of the FTAA and mobilizing them to oppose it.

* All of us have learned a lot from this CAFTA battle that can be put to good use in stopping the FTAA. One of the biggest lessons is that personal contact with congressional offices is definitely a must in an important campaign like this; however, there must be a large increase in the number of voters doing this.

* As we gear up for the FTAA battle, remember that these "free trade" pacts are part of the power elite's long range agenda of subordinating the U.S. to a world government. The NAFTA, WTO, CAFTA, and FTAA stepping stones to first regional, then world government are clearly following the European Union model; and in fact, the same internationalist power elite designed and developed both the FTAA and the EU.

* Since we're facing a Conspiracy, engaging in debates over the economic consequences of the FTAA will not be as effective as exposing the sovereignty-destroying plan and the evil planners behind it.

* We recommend a two-pronged attack: (1) continue to expose the FTAA deception to your Representative and Senators; and (2) greatly escalate your efforts to expose the FTAA deception to others in your sphere of influence, enlist them to do likewise, then leverage this new support to greatly increase the pressure on your congressmen to vote NO on the FTAA.

* The most effective way to fight this battle is as a member of a chapter of The John Birch Society. It will take organization and a sound plan of action to help Americans overcome the forces we have just confronted over CAFTA.

* As we shift gears from the CAFTA battle to the FTAA battle, remember to shift your attention from STOPCAFTA.com to STOPtheFTAA.org.

Although our nation's independence, our God-given rights, and the American Dream are all in the cross-hairs of the power elite, the fierce CAFTA battle has given us the additional time, knowledge, and fire in the belly that we'll use to beat the FTAA!

Last night--not long after midnight, apparently, the House approved CAFTA. The vote was almost as narrow as is mathematically possible: 217-215. If just one person had voted differently, the vote would have been a tie, and had two people voted differently, the trade deal would have been blown out of the water at least for the moment. Judging from an AP article, it looks as if such factors as "maintaining democracy in the Western hemisphere" were slightly larger factors in convincing the wavering House members than anything to do with trade. Later I will post the specifics of the vote.

Is the vote just hours away? A day? One thing is clear: unless they are sure they have the votes, the Bush Regime won't send CAFTA to the House for the actual vote!

From WorldNetDaily.

President calls secret meeting to pitch CAFTA
Controversial trade bill vote could come today, sources say
Posted: July 27, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Sarah Foster
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45467

With Congress scheduled to adjourn at the end of the week, the Bush administration and Republican leadership on Capitol Hill are working around-the-clock in an all-out effort to secure passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement before the August recess.

The Senate approved the controversial trade bill 54-45 on June 30, but opponents of the measure within the House of Representatives have maintained a steady resistance. Critics include not only Democrats, but Republicans concerned about CAFTA's threat to U.S. independence and its potential to draw American manufacturing jobs south of the border.

To rally support within Republican ranks, House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., has requested "full attendance" of all members of the GOP Conference to attend a special meeting at 9 a.m. today, at which George W. Bush will speak. As is the conference's policy, no staffers, no media, and no Democratic members of the House will be admitted to hear the president.

The House Republican Conference, made up of GOP members, exerts strong control over the legislative agenda, according to the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste. "The conference holds closed-door meetings to explicitly detail the party's message on issues and to ensure that members vote accordingly," CAGW reports.

No one knows when the vote on CAFTA will occur, but it could come as early as this afternoon. Or – as Tom DeLay put it – "it could come at 4 in the morning, "whenever we have the votes."

Some 218 votes are needed for passage, and critics and proponents predict the outcome will be extremely close. Indeed, it could be decided by just one vote.

The insider publication Congress Daily reported yesterday that 123 House members plan to vote "yes" or are leaning toward "yes," with 172 members planning to vote or leaning to vote "no." That leaves 138 members who are undecided or not saying.

"That' why President Bush is making a special effort to talk to House Republicans behind closed doors," Kent Snyder, executive director of the Liberty Committee, told WorldNetDaily. "They know how close this vote is going to be. They know the grassroots constituents from around the country are rallying against it, so they're doing everything they can – selling bridges, giving away bridges, making promises they'll never keep, they're doing everything they can to get this through.

"Bush is going to put on the heavy hand, and if the leadership feels they have the votes they will walk out and give House members short notice that the vote is coming up. They want the whole thing over within 15 minutes."

Snyder and the Liberty Committee have played a major role in mobilizing opposition to CAFTA within Republican ranks. The group is a nationwide network of grassroots activists dedicated to restoring constitutional, limited government – using the Internet as a way to make their concerns known to their representatives in Congress. For months it has been urging opposition to the trade agreement, which the committee maintains would cause irreparable harm to the independence of this country.

Rep. Paul, R-Texas, founder of the Liberty Committee, says he opposes the treaty because it undercuts and circumvents the Constitution.

"I oppose CAFTA for a very simple reason: It is unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade. The plain text of Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 is incontrovertible. Neither Congress nor the president can give this authority away by treaty, any more than they can repeal the First Amendment by treaty. This fundamental point, based on the plain meaning of the Constitution, cannot be overstated. Every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution."

Last week Snyder made the unusual move of letting the public know how each representative intends to vote on CAFTA before the bill comes to the floor. A tally showing the members' intentions had been compiled by the print publication Congress Daily, which polled each representative. But since Congress Daily is not posted on the Internet, Snyder retyped the list and sent it out via the Internet to the thousands of Liberty Committee members.

An updated list was posted late yesterday on the committee's website.

"I figured the public would like to know some of this inside information which they never get," Snyder says. He has heard that the phones in the members' offices have been ringing non-stop ever since.

Recent stories:

Treaty opponents link vitamins to trade deal

Free-trade pact a threat to U.S. sovereignty?

Sarah Foster is a staff reporter for WorldNetDaily.

While waiting to see what happens with CAFTA today (if anything, if the Bush Regime doesn't yet have the votes): this, from Joan Masters, offers a somewhat lengthy but clear and succinct account of the dangers of Sustainable Development for Liberty under what little is left of the U.S. Constitution penned by Henry Lamb. He, Tom DeWeese and Michael Shaw are the primary authorities on Sustainable Development. I can only recommend readers go to the links provided throughout the document below for further information on one of the most dangerous movements of our time.

[begin email]

Charlotte's City Council has a Sustainable Development Committee!!
Please print Henry Lamb's Briefing Paper, and share in with every
person you can reach. Knowledge is POWER, and this knowledge
has been withheld from American citizens!!
Suzanne
Charlotte, NC

July 23, 2005, 21:54:04 GMT

Advance Bulletin
http://www.freedom21santacruz.net/site/articles.php

Agenda 21 / Sustainable Development > The Cost of Sustainable Development
http://www.freedom21santacruz.net/site/article.php?sid=156

A briefing paper that discusses the threat Agenda 21 poses to the US Constitution.

A Briefing Paper
By Henry Lamb, Executive Vice President
Environmental Conservation Organization

If there is a bedrock principle upon which our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution, and our nation was constructed, it is this: government is empowered by the consent of those who are governed. To translate this principle into self-governance, our Constitution provides for public policy to be enacted by elected representatives of those who are governed. To further protect those who are governed, our Constitution ingeniously balances the power of government among the legislative, administrative, and judicial branches. Balance occurs as the result of continous competition among the branches of government, and among the three levels of government, federal, state, and local. American society is organized around this bedrock principle. The first course of bricks-and-mortar in our government, however, is the requirement that public policy be enacted by officials elected by those who are governed.

There are people who believe this method of public policy development is obsolete. The President's Council on Sustainable Development, for example, says:

"We need a new collaborative decision process that leads to better decisions; more rapid change; and more sensible use of human, natural, and financial resources in achieving our goals."(1)

There are people who believe there is a more important principle around which society should be organized. The Vice President of the United States says:

"We must make the rescue of the environent the central organizing principle for civilization. Adopting a central organizing principle -- one agreed to voluntarily -- means embarking on an all-out effort to use every policy and program, every law and institution, every treaty and alliance, every tactic and strategy, every plan and course of action -- to use, in short, every means to halt the destruction of the environment and to preserve and nurture our ecological system. Minor shifts in policy, marginal adjustments in ongoing programs, moderate improvements in laws and regulations, rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change -- these are all forms of appeasement, designed to satisfy the public's desire to believe that sacrifice, struggle, and a wrenching transformation of society will not be necessary."(2)

We are witnessing in Missouri, and across America, a shift in the way public policy is being made. The power to make public policy is shifting away from elected officials to non-elected individuals who are using the "new collaborative decision process" to reorganize society around the central principle of "protecting the environment."

Were this initiative to arise from the people who are governed, expressed through their elected officials, defined and debated in public, and decided through a public vote by the appropriate governmental bodies, then there could be no complaint. But neither the change in the decision process, nor the adoption of "protection of the environment" as society's central organizing principle, are initiatives that arise from the people who are governed. Both ideas arise from the international community, crafted into policy documents by the United Nations and presented to the world through United Nations Conferences, particularly the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992.

Agenda 21, a 288-page "soft-law" (non-binding) document adopted by 179 nations in Rio, sets forth very specific public policy objectives designed to reorganize societies around the central principle of protecting the environment. The process called for is "a new collaborative decision process" called consensus building.(3) To comply with the UN's recommendation, Executive Order 12852 was issued June 29, 1993, creating the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). The Council, consisting of 29 non-elected federal officials and selected representatives of major environmental organizations and industry, proceeded to translate Agenda 21 into 154 specific public policy recommendations to be implemented throughout America. The purpose of the policy recommendations is "to achieve our vision of sustainable development." The Council adopted the UN's definition of sustainable development:

"...to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."(4)

Throughout Missouri and across America, communities, both rural and urban, are being transformed into "sustainable communities," through the implementation of public policies that originate in Agenda 21, and other UN docuents, Americanized through the President's Council of non-elected officials, and brought to local communities through a coordinated program of "collaborative consensus building" facilitated by trained experts.

The Congress of the United States -- elected by those who are governed -- has not enacted legislation that defines or authorizes a national policy of sustainable development. No state legislature has enacted legislation that defines or authorizes a policy of sustainable development. Nevertheless, the policies conceived by the international community are being implemented in local communities in Missouri and across America.

For example, in November, 1995, the Missouri Department of Conservation issued a 175-page draft of Coordinated Resource Management Plan (CRMP). The plan was not created in response to legislation reflecting the demands of the private owners of 93% of the land in Missouri, the people who are governed; it was created to "...sustain our natural environment," and because "other state and federal agencies have already begun efforts like CRM...."(5) Moreover, the plan endorsed the creation of a UN Biosphere Reserve in the lower Ozarks, a project sponsored by The Nature Conservancy, whose national president is a member of the PCSD, and several federal agencies headed by appointed officials who also are members of the PCSD.

As a result of local citizen response, the CRM was terminated on March 19, 1997 by Jerry Conley, Director of the Missouri Department of Conservation. In a March 27 press release, Conley ridiculed citizens' groups that had expressed concern about the United Nation's influence on the CRMP as "pure unadulterated bunk." He said concerns about shifting governmental authority over to non-elected groups was "absolute hogwash."(6)

An analysis of the CRM, however, revealed objectives, methodology, and language, very similar, and in some cases identical, to those found in Agenda 21, the Global Biodiversity Assessment, and Sustainable America: A New Consensus. Consider the evolution of the following idea:

Agenda 21: "Compile detailed land capability inventories to guide sustainable land resources allocation, management and use at the national and local levels"(Chapter 10.7(f) p. 86).

Global Biodiversity Assessment: "Include methods that limit the use of land resources through zoning schemes; use incentives and tax policy to foster particular land-use practices; create and enforce tenure arrangements...and establish easements...that seek to establish landscape characteristics favourable to biodiversity" (Section 13.1.3(5), p. 926).

Sustainable America: "Government agencies, conservation groups, and the private sector should expand the use of ecosystem approaches by using collaborative partnerships...for sustaining ecosystems and biodiversity. Develop indicators which can be used to monitor the status of ecosystems...for restoring damaged ecosystems." (Chapter 5.2(1-5) p. 119).

Missouri's CRMP (Coordinated Resource Management Plan): "Determine current status, prioritize, select and maintain/restore selected reaches or watershed units...(Objective 1.2(a)). Manage private lands in the watersheds of identified priority stream reaches to ensure protection of target biological communities through partnerships, watershed committees, incentives and other methods (Objective 1.2(c)). Support the establishment of an Ozark Man and the Biosphere Cooperative. Seek formal designation as a U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program, and work towards implementation of its goals/objectives (Objective IX.1(A&C).

This minute sample only suggests that the Missouri plan may have been influenced by ideas that first emerged in Agenda 21 and other UN documents and the PCSD. A more comprehensive reading of Agenda 21, Chapter 10 "Integrated Approach to Planning and Management of Land Resources," and the Global Biodiversity Assessment, Section 13 "Measures for conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of its components," will reveal that the entire plan is based largely on the ideas first advanced in these documents.

Even though the CRMP was terminated, its very existence is evidence of the effort to reorganize society around the central principle of protecting the environment, rather than around the central principle of government empowered by those who are governed. Until the latter half of the 20th century, natural resources on, and under the land, were considered to be the property of the person who owned the land. Throughout the United Nations documents, as well as the policy documents of the agencies of the federal government, natural resources are considered to be a "public resource" whether on private or public land. The CRMP displays the influence of that changing attitude. The people who own 93% of the land in Missouri believe they still own the natural resources on their land and they did not ask the federal government or the state government to "plan" how they might use their property. Their resentment resulted in the plan's termination. But that only slowed the process; it did not end the federal government's determination to comply with the recommendations of the United Nations.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) is seeking to implement a Memorandum of Agreement with Missouri Soil and Water Conservation Districts. Such an agreement would make "partners" of the local Districts in the federal agency's expanded program of comprehensive natural resource planning.

The influence of Agenda 21, and other United Nations treaties and policy documents is very clear in the implementation of land use policies in rural America. The United Nations policy on land use was adopted in 1976 by the UN Conference on Human Settlements (HABITAT I). The Preamble says, in significant part:

"Land...cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice.... Public control of land use is therefore indispensable."(7)

Twice during the 1970s, minority interests in Congress attempted to pass the Federal Land Use Planning Act, which embraced the UN policy on land use. Twice, the effort failed. Nevertheless, the federal government, through the implementation of administrative rules and regulations, has continued to pursue a policy of "public control of land use."

The UN's policy of "public control of land use" is not limited to rural lands. Agenda 21 speaks profusely about controlling land use and human behavior in urban areas. The second UN Conference on Human Settlements (HABITAT II), held in Instabul in 1996, was devoted exclusively to "sustainable communities." The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was asked to prepare a report on the United States' progress toward achieveing the sustainable communities described in Agenda 21. The 26-page report was prepared by HUD's Andrew Euston, who says:

"One choice is to go as we go and do as we do -- without regard to the grave cumulative changes that have undermined the earth as humanity's cornucopia, our bread basket, our source of health, vitality and pleasure, and of hope for our future. This, we are told by science, is the unsustainable choice. The other choice is to create a deliberate transition to sustainability -- that is, to design it, for one definition of the word `design' is `to intend' for a definite purpose".(8)

"To go as we go and do as we do" describes the individual freedom that arises from a government that is empowered by the consent of those who are governed. Such actions are clearly "unsustainable," according to HUD, operated by non-elected individuals, unaccountable to those who are governed. Euston further describes the sustainable communities his "Agenda for Sustainability" intends to create:

"Sustainability is a fresh ethical paradigm for science, for society and for every responsible and concerned individual. It is a shift required of modern society as a whole. There will be the linking up of networks of communities of varied sizes within quite varied and multiple regional contexts, such as `Community Constellations' linked by compacts based upon common interests. Between the communities will be rural landscapes -- highly functional landscapes -- based upon entirely fresh understandings of landscape ecology.

"For this hopeful future, we may envision an entirely fresh set of infrastructures that use fully automated, very light elevated rail systems for daytime metro region travel and nighttime goods movement; we will see all settlements linked up by extensive bike, recreation and agro-forestry `E-ways' (environment-ways); for most communities transit, walking and bikes become people's preferred choices because they work and because people want it that way. We will be growing foods, dietary supplements and herbs that make over our unsustainable reliance upon foods and medicines that have adverse soil, environmental, or health side-effects (urban gardening, suburban edible landscaping, urban-rural truck farming and community-supported farming); less and less land will go for animal husbandry and more for grains, tubers and legumes. Gradually, decent standards of equity will be in place for women, for children and for the disadvantaged.

"At all levels of governance there must be commitment to the integration of society's social, economic, and ecological objectives. This local rebalancing can be done within the dictates of natural ecology, and this task has become civilization's central challenge -- an enterprise termed here `Sustainable Community Development.'"(9)

Euston's vision, which is the vision of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, did not arise from those who are governed, expressed through a publicly debated law enacted by duly elected representatives of those who are governed. His vision emerged from United Nations agencies, codified in Agenda 21, refined by the President's Council on Sustainable Development, and is now being implemented in Missouri, and across America, not by state legislatures and county commissioners, but by "Visioning Councils," and "Stakeholder Councils," consisting of non-elected individuals who are not accountable to those who are governed.

With great fanfare, St. Louis has launched its quest for "St. Louis 2004." Even the most cursory analysis readily reveals the influence of the top-down wisdom of the United Nations, the President's Council on Sustainable Development, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Development. One of the objectives of St. Louis 2004 is to "Inventory the region's plants, animals and ecosystems." The PCSD says "Convene planning sessions among all stakeholders to agree on ...methodologies for collecting data and conducting assessment of...biodiversity."(10) Agenda 21 says: "Undertake long-term research into the importance of biodiversity...with particular reference to new observations and inventory techniques."(11)

Another objective is to create "Sustainable neighborhoods - Support residents in the creation of self-sufficient neighborhoods." HUD's vision of a "Sustainable Community," is discussed above. The PCSD says:

"...provide incentives for regional collaboration on issues such as transportation...,and land use, that transcend political jurisdictions. Develop design tools [which] include model building codes; zoning ordinances; and permit approval processes for residential and commercial building, use of recycled and recyclable building materials, use of native plants that can reduce the need for fertilizers, pesticides, and water for landscaping...."(12)

Agenda 21 calls for:

"Adopting and applying urban management guidelines in the areas of land management, urban environmental management,infrastructure management.... Developing local strategies for...integrating decisions on land use and land management. To improve the social, economic, and environmental quality of human settlements, countries should adopt the monitoring guidelines adopted by the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (HABITAT)...."(13)

Still another objective of St. Louis 2004, Air Qulaity, is an "apple-pie-and-motherhood" recommendation behind which lies all manner of planned regulatory initiatives to implement recommendations of the PCSD, Agenda 21, and the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change. The PCSD's revised Charter instructs the Council to "not debate the science of global warming, but...instead focus on the implementation of national and local greenhouse gas reduction policies."(14) The instruction to "not debate the science" is consistent with the administration's position on global warming, despite growing skepticism in the scientific community about the human influence on global climate. More than 140 climatologists and astrophysicists have now signed the Leipzig Declaration, which says, in part:

"The polocies to implement the [climate change] treaty are, as of now, based solely on unproven scientific theories, imperfect computer models -- and unsupported assumptions that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action. We do not agree. Many climate specialists now agree that actual observations from weather satellites show no global warming whatsoever -- in direct contradiction to computer model results. Based on the evidence available to us, we cannot subscribe to the politically inspired world view that envisages climate catastrophes and calls for hasty action."(15)

In 1992, Agenda 21 called for governments to promote and develop "integrated energy, environment, and economic policy decisions for sustainable developent, and integrated rural and urban mass transit for sustainable social, economic and development priorities."(16) With the approval of the administration, the United Nations adopted the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change which requires that the United States reduce its greenhouse gas emission to a level seven percent below 1990 levels by the year 2008-2012. The President has announced that he will sign the Protocol.

The PCSD, and the administration, have been preparing to comply with the requirement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for several years -- without debating the science. Congressman John Boehner (R-OH) discovered an internal memo within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), prepared by Michael Shelby in EPA's Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. The memo set forth 39 measures that could be implemented to reduce greenhouse gas emissions -- without Congressional involvement. Some of the measures discussed in the memo include:

*Tighten CAFE standards from the current 27.5 mpg to 33.5 in 2010; 40.9 in 2020; and 45.1 in 2025.
Levy a 50-cent per gallon tax on gasoline using the obscure Trade Expansion Act of 1962 which allows the Secretary of Commerce, not the Congress, to authorize a gas tax in certain circumstances.

*Use BACT (Best Available Control Technology) as a condition for construction permits. "The EPA could begin raising objections to state determinations..." the report advises.

*Full pricing for roads -- which would require states to match federal funds with monies derived from "user fees,"

*EPA-mandated emission control technology required in State Implementation Plans.
Pay-at-the-pump insurance program (25-cents per gallon).

*Emission-based registration fees.(17)

When the President signed the New Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) into law, more than 700 counties instantly fell into "non-attainment," which authorizes the EPA to implement whatever measures it chooses to force those counties into compliance -- without Congressional involvement.

The extent to which Agenda 21 and the PCSD have influenced public policy in America is truly astounding, especially since there has been no Congressional debate, definition of "sustainable development," or authority for its implementation. It may be surprising to Representatives Joan Bray and Russell Gunn that their HB994, which creates the "Environmental Equity and Justice Commission," would comply with the recommendations of both Agenda 21 and the PCSD. Agenda 21 says "Governments should carry out exposure and health assessments of populations residing near uncontrolled hazardous waste sites and initiate remedial measures."(18) The PCSD says, "Environmental Equity: Develop measures of any disproportionate environmental burdens (such as exposure to air, water, and toxic pollution) borne by different economic and social groups."(19) Other objectives of St. Louis 2004 that are prescribed by the United Nations and the PCSD include: Race and difference summit; Safe places for kids; Employer commitment to education; Downtown revitalization; Regional Park and Greenway system; New industries; Land trusts; and Minority and women-owned business expansion.

It is possible that the non-elected individuals who worked "collaboratively" to identify the objectives of St. Louis 2004, accidentally reached the same objectives set forth by the United Nations. Indeed, is is likely that few of the participants ever heard of Agenda 21, or Sustainable America: A New Consensus. It is certain, however, that the facilitators of the "collaborative censensus process," are quite familiar with both documents.

Similar "Visioning Councils" and "Stakeholder Councils" are at work across America. In Florida, the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) is implementing a "Demonstration project" consisting of five "Sustainable Communities." A spokesman for the DCA denied that the program had anything at all to do with the United Nations. The program's objectives, however, are nearly identical to those of St. Louis 2004. In Santa Cruz, California, the plan is actually called "Local Agenda 21," and the objectives are a mirror-image of St. Louis 2004. Such is the case across America.

Elected officials should be concerned about both the substance of such "visions" or plans, as well as about the process by which such plans are devised. All such plans are justified by the desire to create a "sustainable future." Americans should demand that above all, any plans for the future must protect and preserve the bedrock principle on which America was founded: government is empowered by the consent of those who are governed. It is that principle, enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, that guarantees individual freedom, private property rights, free markets, and national sovereignty. Neither the bedrock principle, nor the fundamental freedoms it provides, are mentioned in Agenda 21, or Sustainable America: A New Consensus. Existing government processes are said to be "intractable,"(20) while the President's Council on Sustainable Development calls for "a new collaborative decision process...."

The "consensus-building" process is designed to by-pass the intractability of elected government officials and the process set forth in the U.S. Constitution. It is a "top-down" policy development process that was initiated with the adoption of Agenda 21, nationalized through the President's Council on Sustainable Development, and is now being implemented by an army of NGOs (non-government organizations), largely coordinated by federal government agencies and the international NGO leadership.

The World Resources Institute (WRI), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Maurice Strong's Earth Council (EC), and the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI), represent the international NGO leadership. The WRI, IUCN, and WWF are largely responsible for the development of Agenda 21 and the United Nation's social and environmental policies. The EC and ICLEI are largely responsible for implementation. According to Jeb Brughmann, Secretary-General of ICLEI, the organization was actually created by the UN.(21) The WRI publishes a newsletter called NGO Networker, which reports the status of various NGOs' progress toward the implementation of UN policies.

At the local level, NGOs that initiate the consensus process rarely identify themselves with Agenda 21, or any of the international NGOs. The process is designed to appear to be a purely local initiative resulting from the demands of the local community -- ostensibly, the people who are governed. Rarely, however, does the community at large --the actual people who are governed -- even learn of the process until it is well underway. Typically, the individual or organization that initiates the consensus process in a local community is affiliated, and often funded, by one or more of the international or national NGOs. The first step is to identify other individuals and organizations in the community known to be sympathetic with the goals of Agenda 21. Those individuals are invited to participate in the organization of the effort. A "Visioning Council" will emerge, consisting of individuals selected because of their predisposition of support for the aims of the effort, and to reflect "representation" from across the community spectrum. The Council then holds a series of meetings to solicit input from the community.

Two important problems arise from this process: first, the participants who provide input are often carefully selected, especially in the formative stages; and second, the input solicited is in response to a predetermined agenda. Often, the participants are not aware that the agenda has been predetermined. The facilitator at these meetings is often a trained professional, hired for the purpose. The facilitator's purpose is to "build consensus." Consensus is not agreement; it is the absence of expressed disagreement.(22) As the process continues, the local media is recruited to report the wonderful work of "citizens" of the community to develop a "vision for the future." Occasionally, professional public relations consultants are used to develop a positive community context for the unveiling of the vision document. By the time the final document is presented, local elected officials have little choice but to support the program. Politicians, as well as individual citizens, who express concerns about the program are labeled as "anti-environmental," or worse. The consensus process is an ingeniously designed and skillfully implemented process to by-pass local elected governing bodies and the larger community of people who are governed.

The final step is implementation. No policy document developed by non-elected officials carries the weight of law. Therefore, it is necessary to find ways to get the policies written into enforceable law. Early in the process, federal, state, and local administrative officials are brought into the process at the local level. Federal agencies have long ago found ways to reinterpret existing legislative authority to allow for the implementation of Agenda 21 objectives. Ron Brown, then-Secretary of the Department of Commerce, told the 10th meeting of the PCSD that his Department had determined that they could implement 67 of the PCSD's 154 recommendations within the framework of existing legislative authorities. The Department of Interior is implementing the Ecosystem Management Policy, by reinterpreting existing legislative authority. The EPA is implementing Agenda 21 objectives, and the objectives of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, by revising existing Clean Air Standards through the rule promulgation process. Using the carrot-or- stick method, federal agencies are using incentives or penalties to encourage state and local agencies to do the same. Where existing authorities cannot be stretched enough to accommodate the objectives of Agenda 21, new incremental legislation is proposed, or administrative rule changes are initiated.

To ensure overall compliance with the community vision developed by the local Visioning Council, a favored technique is to develop a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Visioning Council, or a quasi-public entity created to succeed the Council, and the various governing bodies within the multi-jurisdictional area embraced by the plan. The MOA typically requires any development approval by any of the local governing agencies to be approved by the Council as a means to coordinate implementation of the plan throughout the plan area.

The local plan often takes several years to complete, but when complete, the transformation of society around the central organizing principle of protecting the environment is well established. The central organizing principle of government empowered by the people who are governed is effectively relegated to the ash heap of history.

Endnotes
1. "We Believe Statement number 8," Sustainable America: A New Consensus, President's Council on Sustainable Development, February, 1996, p. vi.

2. Al Gore, Earth in the Balance, (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1992), pp. 269-274.

3. Agenda 21, Paragraph 2.4, p. 19.

4. The World Commission on Environment and Development, (The Brundtland Commission), Our Common Future, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 43.

5. Missouri Department of Conservation, "The Big Picture: Questions and Answers About Coordinated Resource Management," p. 2.

6. Missouri Department of Conservation, Outdoor News via MissouriLink, Product ID: 352, March 27, 1997.

7. United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (HABITAT I), Agenda Item 10, "Preamble," Vancouver, British Columbia, May 31-June 11, 1976.

8. Andrew Euston, Community Sustainability: Agendas for Choice-making & Action, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, September 22, 1995.

9. Ibid.

10. Sustainable America:, Op Cit., Chapter 10(7)(1), p. 136.

11. Agenda 21, Op. Cit., Chapter 15.5(f), p.132.

12. Sustainable America:, Op Cit., Chapter 4(1)(2); 4(3)(1), pp 91-95.

13. Agenda 21, Op. Cit., Chapter 7.4, 7.9(h), 7.16(a), pp. 52-54.

14. Revised Charter, President's Council on Sustainable Development, April 25, 1997, p. 7.

15. The Leipzig Declaration, adopted in Leipzig Germany, November 9-10, 1995, published in its entirety (with all signers as of December, 1997), in cologic, November/December, 1997, p.12.

16. Agenda 21, Op. Cit., Chapter 9.12(b); 9.15(a), p. 79.

17. Michael Shelby, EPA Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation memo, "More Tons One-Pagers, May 31, 1994, (on file).

18. Agenda 21, Op. Cit., Chapter 20.21(c), p. 201.

19. Sustainable America: Op. Cit., Chapter 1, Goal 3, p. 16.

20. "Community Sustainability," HUD, Op., Cit., p. 5.

21. Joan Veon, "Earth Council: Rio+5," ecologic, March/April, 1997, p. 17.


22. Richard H. Graff, Techniques of Consensus, reported in ecologic, March/April, 1997, p. 13. Graff says: "A well-crafted question provokes thought and elicits no response."

--------------------------------------------------
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]

Content © 2003, 2004, 2005 Freedom 21 Santa Cruz, All Rights Reserved.
Contributed articles do not necessarily represent the views of Freedom 21 Santa Cruz

I sent the following to each of our Representatives from South Carolina about an hour ago:

Steven Yates, Ph.D.
Board Member, Citizens Committee to Stop the FTAA
Residence: 3500 Pelham Rd., #216
Greenville, South Carolina 29615
(864) 288-0043
yates2005@bellsouth.net

July 25, 2005

FAX to:

The Honorable James Clyburn
6th Congressional District of South Carolina
United States House of Representatives

Dear Representative Clyburn:

I am writing to urge you to vote against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). I trust you will not object to receiving this from someone outside your district. As a concerned citizen of South Carolina, I am sending this to all South Carolina Representatives.

It is evident from the text of this agreement that it is about far more than trade. CAFTA’s own Preamble describes its aims as a stepping stone to the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), which would unite 34 nations of the Western Hemisphere and create a megastate along the lines of the European Union (EU). Mexico’s President Vicente Fox is on record is having endorsed openly this hemispheric integration along the lines of producing a “United States of the Americas” akin to the EU.

That makes CAFTA a truly dangerous agreement. Those of us observing how the EU operates do not want to live under a megastate whose rulers would be bureaucrats not elected by the American people and answerable only to each other.

Moreover, under the sections of CAFTA dealing with Government Procurement (Chapter 9, Article 9.2), foreign judges could step in and tell the citizens of any of the States in the United States to change their laws if those laws were perceived as according “favorable treatment” to Americans. The federal government would be obligated under CAFTA to step in and force the States to do it! Thus CAFTA-created bureaucrats could overrule U.S. law!

Article I, Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution, which you swore to uphold in your oath of office, states, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.”

Article I, Section 8, paragraph 3, of the Constitution designates Congress as having the sole authority to “regulate Commerce with foreign nations …”

Article VI states clearly that the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of this Republic. Nothing in the Constitution, therefore, allows Congress to delegate or “outsource” this responsibility to any other legislative entities via “free trade” agreements. CAFTA, however, gives both legislative and judicial powers to transnational bodies of individuals we did not elect and will not answer to American voters.

In sum: CAFTA is unconstitutional! That the Senate endorsed it should not be decisive! From a Constitutional standpoint, your oath of office—to uphold the Constitution—obligates you to vote against CAFTA.

Sincerely,

(signed)

Steven Yates, Ph.D.
Greenville, S.C.
Board Member, Citizens Committee to Stop the FTAA

Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt has written the following, although the Liberty Committee's list is now a few days out of date.

HELP DEFEAT CAFTA!
By Charlotte Iserbyt
July 25, 2005
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/iserbyt/iserbyt27.htm

Since this vote is so very crucial relative to continued USA sovereignty, not only am I calling my two congressmen, I am calling ALL the Republicans who are committed to voting YES and those who are wavering on how to vote. In my case, I point out I worked in the Reagan Administration, am an author, and I leave my name, address, website, tel. no. etc. and ask that my message be put on the congressman's desk.

It's great to have the Liberty Committee's list of congressmen in favor, opposed, and on the fence. We must use it. All you need to do is to print out the list found at thelibertycommittee.org and then get to work by calling the Congressional switchboard at 202-224-3121. I have found the staff in the first three Republican Congressmen's offices, Barton, Bass, and Beauprez, very cooperative and understanding. However, I was unusually polite (for me, that is, on an issue like this!). The old saying about catching flies with honey rather than vinegar applies. They promised to put my message on congressman's desk.

The following is my pitch:

I inform them of the following remarkable comment by former President of the Soviet Union MIchael Gorbachev:

During a visit to London in March 23, 2000, former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev, referred to the emerging European Union (EU) as 'the new European Soviet.'

I point out that what Bush is implementing in this hemisphere is the same communist regional system (regionalism is communism) and can be similarly referred to as The New American Soviet. All regions being created internationally are modelled on The European Union.

This scenario is quite similar to the three-stage plan outlined by Stalin at the 1936 Communist International. At that meeting, the official program proclaimed:

"Dictatorship can be established only by a victory of socialism in different countries or groups of countries," after which there would be federal unions of the various groupings of these socialist countries, and the third stage would be an amalgamation of these regional federal unions into a world union of socialist nations. (quote courtesy of Prof. Dennis Cuddy)

In closing I ask them to consider some of the reasons why Holland and France rejected the European Union Constitution, thus slowing down the loss of sovereignty in Europe and the move towards a Soviet system, and point out that the CAFTA vote is similar in its importance, and is thus the most important vote ever taken by the U.S. Congress.

I apologize for bothering them with a request from outside their congressional district/state, but emphasize my decision to do so is based on my deep, deep concern for our country and our children's futures, and the threat posed by all international treaties, but especially CAFTA, since its passage will represent the end of our nation's sovereignty and the political/economic and social freedoms to which Americans have become accustomed.

Please keep me posted regarding whatever reactions you get. Also, please forward to your lists.

Thanks for listening and God bless all of you who take this last ditch stand!

© 2005 Charlotte T. Iserbyt - All Rights Reserved

Charlotte Iserbyt is the consummate whistleblower! Iserbyt served as Senior Policy Advisor in the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), U.S. Department of Education, during the first Reagan Administration, where she first blew the whistle on a major technology initiative which would control curriculum in America's classrooms. Iserbyt is a former school board director in Camden, Maine and was co-founder and research analyst of Guardians of Education for Maine (GEM) from 1978 to 2000. She has also served in the American Red Cross on Guam and Japan during the Korean War, and in the United States Foreign Service in Belgium and in the Republic of South Africa.

Iserbyt is a speaker and writer, best known for her 1985 booklet Back to Basics Reform or OBE: Skinnerian International Curriculum and her 1989 pamphlet Soviets in the Classroom: America's Latest Education Fad which covered the details of the U.S.-Soviet and Carnegie-Soviet Education Agreements which remain in effect to this day. She is a freelance writer and has had articles published in Human Events, The Washington Times, The Bangor Daily News, and included in the record of Congressional hearings.

Website: www.deliberatedumbingdown.com

E-Mail: dumbdown@blazenetme.net

The bad news is that Bob Inglis (R-SC, 4th District) will probably vote for CAFTA even though he must know that a lot of us out here find his doing so objectionable. I believe he cut a deal with someone, most likely in the Bush Administration or close to it. In our noon meeting in Spartanburg today (Let's Talk, he called it) he listened patiently while several attendees hammered him with objections about CAFTA's Constitutionality (See Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 3), about how CAFTA is not really a free trade agreement but part of a long-term process eroding the sovereignty of this nation, and about how it just expands the job-destroying features of NAFTA. None of these objections seemed to faze him, although he had no answers to any of them other than, "what is the alternative, with China having 1.3 billion people working practically for free?" Of course, the same globalism (via the World Trade Organization is responsible for that particular mess.

But Jim Capo, who directs the N.C. Chapter of Citizens Committee to Stop the FTAA and has mentored the S.C. group, wrote down an Inglis quote that is definitely worth preserving. Vintage Republican politics these days:

Jim Capo: "I am of course partial, but I thought the money quote on the day from Inglis was, 'Anytime America enters into a free trade agreement, we limit our freedom...It's just like signing a mortgage though. It limits my freedom. But, I get the benefit of having a house for my kids to grow up in.' (I took notes and that was the actual quote that you can go to print with.)

"The guy is party to the sellout of our country AND our kids future and this is how he explains himself.

"Hilarious if it was not so serious.

Jim"

The realization: Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court has made one statement to the effect that Roe v. Wade was "decided wrongly" but also says that he was merely defending his client, and also said that Roe is now the settled law of the land. Of course, that is just one issue. Roberts has never gotten his hands dirty on such issues as affirmative action / diversity engineering, radical feminism, or any other aspects of the culture wars, and to my knowledge has yet to be asked whether he believes such cases as Kelo were rightly or wrongly decided, and why. So is he just another Establishment man? (He is not in the CFR, so far as I've been able to determine, but that's not quite definitive; neither is George W. Bush himself in the CFR.)

Also worth noting, obviously, is that this guy is only in his early 50s. He could be the person to shape the character of the U.S. Supreme Court for years to come--that is assuming that we have any chance of remaining a sovereign nation where the Court's following the Constitution is even an issue.

Patrick J. Buchanan
But what kind of conservative?
Posted: July 25, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
WorldNetDaily.com

© 2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Will George Bush be seen historically as the George Patton – or the George McClellan of the culture wars? That question endures.

For with his nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, the president consciously chose to avoid battle with the Left. As he did not want a fight, Bush named a conservative without a single scar from the culture wars and no record of having served. He chose an establishment-conservative, not a warrior-conservative.

Judge Roberts is a man of high intelligence and integrity, and an accomplished advocate who has argued dozens of cases before the Supreme Court. Educated in all-boys Catholic prep schools, he attended Harvard and was the managing editor for the Harvard Law Review. He clerked for William Rehnquist and did a tour of duty in the Reagan White House. His resume has Supreme Court candidate written all over it. He even looks like a Supreme Court justice, right out of central casting – and he ought to and almost surely will be confirmed.

But is he the kind of conservative who will roll back court decisions that represent nothing more than the imposed will of previous justices? Faced with questions such as whether Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, will Roberts confirm "settled law"? Or has he the convictions of an Antonin Scalia, a William Rehnquist or a Clarence Thomas, to re-examine and reverse settled law that violates the Constitution? Will he look to precedent or back beyond precedent to the original intent of the Founding Fathers?

We do not know. For neither Roberts' resume nor his brilliant career provides conclusive evidence. For there is simply no record of his having ever, in 30 years in the law, rolled up his sleeves and plunged into any social or ideological brawl over issues like affirmative action or religious rights.

Having lost the White House and Congress, what the Left seeks today is a holding action, a "conservative" justice who will vote to confirm and consolidate the gains the Left has made through the courts. Sandra Day O'Connor is the kind of conservative they seek, a jurist who votes to ratify and conserve liberal precedents.

Roberts' wife has made a statement by joining "Feminists for Life," but Roberts never joined the Federalist Society of conservative lawyers. We are being reminded of that. In congressional hearings he has said the arguments he made in the solicitor general's office of Bush I represented the government's views, not his own. Supporters point out that as head of litigation at Hogan and Hartson, Roberts represented liberals as well as conservatives.

Thus, it is not unfair to say George W. Bush has appointed a stealth conservative. He will not legislate from the bench, but there is no evidence he will overturn laws the Warren Court and its progeny legislated from the bench. Yet, as he is clearly a conservative, and no liberal, it is the Left that is fearful, while on the Right there is unease.

President Bush must know that his legacy is at stake in how Roberts votes. Whether he succeeds in reshaping the court – where Ike, Nixon, Ford, Reagan and his own father all failed – now depends on Roberts. If he joins the Scalia-Thomas-Rehnquist wing, conservatives will praise the Bush nomination forever. If Roberts goes wobbly, as O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy did, the president will be seen as having failed.

For Bush the stakes could not be higher. For even with O'Connor's departure, Chief Justice Rehnquist at 80 and ailing, and Justice Stevens at 85, he is not likely to get more than three nominations before his time is up. To remake the court, all three must be in the Scalia-Thomas mold. One mistake and all is lost.

Which makes one wonder whether Bush truly wishes to roll back the Warren Revolution or to fight these culture wars.

For there were any number of potential nominees – Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit, Michael Luttig of the Fourth (whose judicial records were stronger than Roberts' and whose battle scars as warrior-conservatives were immensely more impressive) – who were passed over. Though their nomination would have ignited a battle – one the president would win – about them, there would have been no doubts.

One wonders, why did the president not choose one of them? Why did he decide not to fight? Why did he not draw the line in the sand with his first nomination? Is this as conservative a candidate as we are likely to get? Are the rumors true that, after Roberts, comes Alberto Gonzales?

Will George W. be seen in retrospect as a Reagan conservative – or his father's son when it comes to naming justices and fighting the culture wars? Within a year, we will have the answer.



Patrick J. Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party’s candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of the new magazine, The American Conservative. Now a political analyst for MSNBC and a syndicated columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national television shows, and is the author of seven books.

Don't the power elites usually get what they want, with or without the votes. I can see provisions of CAFTA being implemented here in the West even if by some chance it is voted down in the House. Courtesy of Joan Masters

It's full steam ahead for EU constitution, even after 'No' votes
By Daniel Hannan
News.Telegraph
(Filed: 17/07/2005)

You may have got the impression that the European constitution was dead - that the French had felled it, and the Dutch had pounded a stake through its heart. If so, think again. The constitution is being implemented, clause by clause, as if the No votes had not happened.

While British ministers chunter on about the document being "in deep freeze", other countries are plunging ahead with ratification. Since the No votes, three nations - Cyprus, Malta and Luxembourg - have gone on to approve the text. All right, these may not be the three mightiest powers in Europe, but their endorsement means that 13 of 25 members have now said Yes.

Eurocrats see this number as enormously significant. "It is a strong signal that a majority of the member states thinks that the constitution correlates to their expectations," said the Commission president, José Manuel Barroso, on hearing that Luxembourg had ratified. "The constitution is not dead," added the Grand Duchy's prime minister, Jean-Claude Juncker. The European Parliament has duly set up a committee to look at how to proceed with implementation.

Formal ratification by all 25 states is regarded in Brussels as a technicality. To all intents and purposes, the EU is carrying on as though the constitution were already in force. Most of the institutions that it would have authorised are either up and running already, or in the process of being established. My researches have produced the following non-exhaustive list:

• The European Space Programme

• The EU criminal code

• The European Defence Agency

• The common asylum policy

• The mutual defence clause, which replicates Nato's Article Five

• The External Border Agency

• The Fundamental Rights Agency (née Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia)

• Autonomous politico-military command structures

• The European External Action Service (that is, the EU diplomatic corps)

• The EU prosecuting magistracy

• The Union Foreign Minister - that silky socialist, Javier Solana

• The Charter of Fundamental Rights

Whenever a chunk of the constitution comes before my committee in the European Parliament for approval, I ask: "Where in the existing treaties does it say that we can do this?"

"Where does it say we can't?" reply my federalist colleagues, giggling at their own cleverness like Mr Toad in The Wind in the Willows. Pressed for a proper answer, they point to a flimsy cats-cradle of summit communiqués, Council resolutions and commission press releases. The more honest of them go on to explain that this is how the EU has always operated: first it extends its jurisdiction into a new area and then, often years later, it authorises its power-grab in a retrospective treaty.

The 25 member governments, they argue, have endorsed the constitution; so has the European Parliament and so, as of last Sunday, have most national parliaments. It is clear where Europe wants to go, Hannan. So will you please stop being so literal-minded? I carry on feebly with my protest: how can they wish away the referendum results? Surely it counts for something that people have voted No.

"They weren't really voting against the constitution," I am told. "They were voting against Chirac. Or against Turkey. Or possibly against Anglo-Saxon liberalism". Against anything, apparently, except the proposition actually on the ballot paper.

Then again, the EU has never been especially interested in public opinion. The ruling ideology - peace in Europe through political integration - is thought to be too important to be left to the ballot box. If a plebiscite elicits the wrong response from the plebs, they must be suffering from what Marxists used to call "false consciousness". They misunderstand their true interests. They need better information, more education. And, in the meantime, the project goes on.

It is in this context that we should understand Mr Juncker's considered view - cheered to the echo by MEPs - that "the French and Dutch did not really vote 'No to the European Constitution". We may regard such comments as an entertaining hallucination. We may view the whole Carry On film in Brussels as hilarious. But, when the laughing stops, the constitution will be in place.

# Daniel Hannan is a Conservative MEP for South East England



© Copyright of Telegraph Group Limited

Yet another reason why the House's approval of CAFTA would be a disaster for America--and just another stepping stone towards its end as a sovereign nation.

CAFTA undermines immigration laws

By: TOM TANCREDO - Commentary
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/07/18/opinion/commentary/71705195445.txt

Congress will soon take up the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which many see as an extension of NAFTA and a precursor to the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas that would convert all of North and South America into one integrated market.

Opinions about CAFTA's impact on the regional economy vary widely among members of Congress based largely on what the agreement will do for their constituents. But in the rush to highlight who wins and who loses when these trade barriers come down, almost everyone has overlooked the troubling non-trade provisions that are tucked into the voluminous document.

CAFTA would do more than just phase out tariffs and open new markets ---- a lot more. For example, buried among its nearly 1,000 pages, the agreement contains an expansive definition of "cross-border trade in services." This definition would give people in Central American nations a de facto right to work in the United States. CAFTA is more than a trade agreement about sugar and bananas. It is a thinly disguised immigration accord.

The immigration provisions are cloaked as "service agreements" in the document that have become standard fare in most trade agreements.

One article of CAFTA reads, "Cross-border trade in services or cross-border supply of services means the supply of a service ... by a national of a party in the territory of another party." CAFTA goes on to stipulate that member nations take care to ensure that local and national "measures relating to qualification requirements and procedures, technical standards and licensing requirements do not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade in services," and to guarantee that our domestic laws are "not in themselves a restriction on the supply of the service."

What those provisions mean is that a foreign company would be empowered under CAFTA to challenge the validity of our immigration laws. If an international tribunal rules against us, Congress would then be forced to change our immigration laws or face international trade sanctions. These tribunals have the authority to rule that U.S. immigration limits, visa requirements, or even licensing requirements and zoning rules are "unnecessary burdens to trade" that act as "restrictions on the supply of a service."

This hidden legislation to open the U.S. border is only the beginning.

The chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, which oversees most international trade matters, believes that these kinds of immigration provisions are fair game for future trade deals as well.

If CAFTA were really just about trade, the agreement would be little more than a few pages long, declaring that tariff treatment for U.S. and Central American goods will be on a reciprocal basis. But it isn't. In reality, CAFTA is about expanding a growing body of international law that supersedes our own.

If CAFTA is approved, Congress' "exclusive" authority to regulate immigration policy will be subjugated to the whim of international tribunals and trade panels ---- in much the same way that Congress' once supreme constitutional authority to "regulate commerce with foreign nations," has already been largely ceded to the WTO.

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., is a member of the House International Relations Committee.

"So finally you know the truth."
~~Dark City

The Council on Foreign Relations has let the cat out of the bag, so to speak, with their publication on their website of Building a North American Community. We finally have the answer to what is behind the huge push for CAFTA, according to its own Preamble a stepping stone to the FTAA. And we also know why our government is doing nothing about illegal immigration. They are doing nothing about illegal immigration because once the power elites have officially dissolved the borders between the United States, Canada and Mexico there will be no problem to solve!

The CFR's document can be found at http://www.cfr.org/pdf/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf

Everyone who believes America is worth preserving ought to read it. If this plan comes to fruition, America as we know it will have ceased to exist by 2010.

Here is Joseph Farah's commentary (we posted Phyllis Schlafly's early last week):

Joseph Farah
Between the Lines
Merger with Mexico
Posted: July 20, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

One of the most frequently asked questions I hear is this: Why does the federal government refuse to accept its responsibility to enforce immigration laws and border security?

Now the answer is becoming clear.

And it's not pretty.

The shadow government – the elitists – do indeed have a plan. And it is a plan that does not include any vestige of U.S. sovereignty or constitutional government. It is a plan for merger – a European Union-style government for North America and eventually the rest of the Americas and the world.

It's all spelled out in the latest reports by the Council on Foreign Relations. There's a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter."

Though there has been no national debate on merger with the corruption and socialism of our neighbors to the north and south, there is a roadmap. And unless the American people rise up in righteous indignation against this plan, the roadmap to merger will become the inevitable, guiding force in setting U.S. policy.

In many ways, it already has.

The goal of this merger couldn't be clearer – "a common economic space ... for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital and people flow freely."

The CFR's strategy calls specifically for "a more open border for the movement of goods and people." It calls for laying "the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America." It calls for us to "harmonize visa and asylum regulations." It calls for us to "harmonize entry screening."

More open? How could it be any more open? How could the flow of people be any freer? Criminals, terrorists, drug dealers and other undesirables cross into the U.S. on a daily basis – unchecked, unmolested, unscreened. How could we have any less enforcement?

Well, imagine Mexico as the 51st state. That's a picture of what the CFR has in mind with regard to the flow of human traffic back and forth between the two countries.

By the way, even though you didn't hear any national debate about this plan, your president has already committed you, your children and your grandchildren to this policy, according to the CFR.

In "Building a North American Community," the shadow government's 59-page manifesto for merger, we are informed President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "committed their governments" to this goal March 23 when they met in Texas.

You might remember that little get-together. It was there that Bush characterized the the Minuteman organization of heroic citizen border monitors as "vigilantes."

Last month, a follow-up meeting was held in Canada, suggesting this plan be put on the fast track. The U.S. representative, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, explained at that time that "we want to facilitate the flow of traffic across our borders."

Silly me. I thought the objective of Homeland Security was to protect the American people from terrorist attacks! But the real goal is making it easier for Mexicans and Canadians and anyone else using those territories to enter our country undetected and unmolested.

The CFR plan also calls for massive redistribution of wealth – more of your hard-earned money flowing to Mexico and Canada to make this panacea possible. It also calls for the implementation of "the Social Security Totalization Agreement" so that illegal aliens will be certain to bankrupt the system Bush claims to be trying to save.

It is a stunning betrayal of the will of the American people, the Constitution of the United States, the Declaration of Independence and all of our notions of limited government, self-government, freedom, sovereignty, the rule of law and justice.

I don't know how else to say it: It is an open conspiracy to commit treason.

It's time to fight the War of Independence all over again.


SPECIAL OFFER!

First-edition, hardcover copies of Joseph Farah's Taking America Back are available exclusively from WND. While a paperback edition is scheduled for release this fall, the limited collector's edition is ready for purchase now at paperback prices.

If you'd rather order by phone, call WND's toll-free customer service line at 1-800-4WND-COM (1-800-496-3266).

Joseph Farah is founder, editor and chief executive officer of WND and a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host. He is also the founder of WND Books. In addition to his daily column in WND, he writes a nationally syndicated weekly column available to U.S. newspapers through Creators Syndicate.