Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Poverty Increasing in New World Order Era America

From The Associated Press:

WASHINGTON - Even with a robust economy that was adding jobs last year, the number of Americans who fell into poverty rose to 37 million - up 1.1 million from 2003 - according to Census Bureau figures released Tuesday. [Jobs paying what? -SY]

It marks the fourth straight increase in the government's annual poverty measure.

The Census Bureau also said household income remained flat, and that the number of people without health insurance edged up by about 800,000 to 45.8 million people.

"I was surprised," said Sheldon Danziger, co-director of the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan. "I thought things would have turned around by now."

While disappointed, the Bush Administration - which has not seen a decline in poverty numbers since the president took office - said it was not surprised by the new statistics.

Commerce Department spokeswoman E.R. Anderson said they mirror a trend in the '80s and '90s in which unemployment peaks were followed by peaks in poverty and then by a decline in the poverty numbers the next year.

"We hope this is it, that this is the last gasp of indicators for the recession," she said.

Democrats seized on the numbers as proof the nation is headed in the wrong direction.

"America should be showing true leadership on the great moral issues of our time - like poverty - instead of allowing these situations to get worse," said John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator and Democratic vice presidential candidate. He has started a poverty center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. [Edwards is not poor or poorly connected ~SY.]

Overall, the nation's poverty rate rose to 12.7 percent of the population last year. Of the 37 million living below the poverty level, close to a third were children.

The last decline in overall poverty was in 2000, during the Clinton administration, when 31.3 million people lived under the threshold. Since then, the numbers of people in poverty has increased steadily from 32.9 million in 2001, when the economy slipped into recession, to 35.8 million in 2003.

Tuesday, August 30, 2005

New Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt Essay

In two parts, on Because of the length I will post just the titles and links.

Revolution in Education - Soviet Style

Preparing Children for Virtual/World Classrooms

I often feel we are fighting a war on well over a dozen fronts at once: education, bad trade accords, the United Nations and the exposing the globalists generally, political correctness and cultural destruction, gun control, sustainable development, health and maintaining the individual's control thereof, and doubtless more. And with almost no resources.

Of course, we could always apply for a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation. (I'm kidding, of course.)

Monday, August 29, 2005

Hillary / Frist Brave New Health Care

From the issue of The New American that just appeared on newsstands (those which dare to carry the magazine, that is). I had written of something like this in my projected novel Skywatcher's World, intended to be a Brave New World for the new century. It may never get finished, of course, due to my having to remain busy-busy-busy in order to survive financially (which is what the power elites want from all of us).

Reality is rapidly catching up with the scariest of science fiction. Note the "public-private partnership" implied in the "partnering" between Applied Digital and the Federal Government.

If this does not scare you, then nothing will! Scarier still is the statistics offered, if by some freak chance out of the blue they are accurate, in the American sheeple's willingness to go along with this Brave New World of Frist / Hillary-care to "identify their medical records in case of emergency." The American sheeple react to scare tactics so easily!

My dad brought this to my attention. I might have missed it and not blogged it. Thanks, Dad.

The New Healthcare System
by Christopher S. Bentley
The New American
September 5, 2005

Applied Digital wants millions of Americans to be implanted with an RFID chip for medical purposes, and the Frist-Clinton bill (S. 1262) would pave the way.

Former Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tommy Thompson, who served in the Bush administration’s first term, recently joined the board of directors of Florida-based Applied Digital. Applied Digital is the owner of VeriChip, the company that specializes in making implantable radio frequency identification chips (RFID) for both people and pets.

On July 31, London’s The Business reported that Thompson “is putting the final touches to a plan that could result in US citizens having [an RFID] chip inserted under their skin.” Scott Silverman, CEO of Applied Digital, told WebMD Medical News on July 27 that “some 2,000 people worldwide are using” his company’s implants. “But,” the WebMD report noted, “soon he expects that millions of people will get VeriChip implants every year.”

Silverman also commented to WebMD that when his company “first announced VeriChip, a network poll asked people if they would put one in their bodies. Only 9% said yes. After FDA approval [in October 2004], 19% said yes. When former HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson joined our board, the rate went up to 33%. But our own study shows that if you ask people whether they would have a VeriChip implant to identify their medical records in case of emergency, the positive response goes to 80%.”

Skeptics will dismiss Silverman’s optimistic business forecast as greatly exaggerated, and those with a natural distrust of polls will question the validity of the data. But putting that aside for a moment, consider the fact that Applied Digital is positioning itself to get some major help — from the federal government.

According to The Business report, “the RFID capsules would be linked to a computerized database being created by the US Department of Health to store and manage the nation’s health records.” Thompson said he “intends to publish the proposal in the next 50 days, by which time he plans to have had a VeriChip inserted in his arm.” The former HHS secretary is definitely positioned to use his past employment to help his new employer.

Conveniently, on June 16, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) introduced S. 1262, with its very benign-sounding title of “Health Technology to Enhance Quality Act of 2005.” During a press conference at George Washington University Hospital, Senator Clinton tidily summed up the nature of S. 1262: “This legislation marries technology and quality to create a seamless, efficient health care system for the 21st century.” Senator Frist described it as “an interoperable national health information technology system.”

The bipartisan duo proposed before the Senate “three concrete steps” to construct this “seamless” system. The first one would be to establish “standards for electronic medical records.” S. 1262 would codify into statute the Office of National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, an office already set up by President Bush in April 2004. The coordinator’s major duty would be, among other things, to “facilitate the adoption of a national system for the electronic exchange of health information.” This certainly looks like the same system mentioned by the July 31 London-based Business report.

The second step would be to “[reduce] barriers and facilitate the electronic exchange of health information among providers in a secure and private way to improve health care quality and meet community needs.” S. 1262, if enacted, would do just that by bribing states with “incentive grants,” giving priority to those “that provide assurance that any funding awarded under such a grant shall be used to harmonize privacy laws and practices.” Translation: the bill would take money from taxpayers in some states and give it to other states that “harmonize” their laws with the federal government’s standards. And it wouldn’t take long for those reluctant states that are missing out on their share of the spoils to get in line.

Third, S. 1262 would also allow the government to “use the data [collected in the system] to focus intensely on improving the quality of health care.” “With this data,” said Clinton, “we can begin to move to a health care system that actually rewards providers who give their patients superior care.” S. 1262’s “reward” mechanism allows for “competitive grants” to be doled out “to eligible entities to implement regional or local health information plans to improve healthcare quality and efficiency.” Those on the government’s potential client list are “group health plans or other health insurance issuers,” “health centers,” “rural health clinics,” “consumer organizations,” “employers,” or “any other healthcare providers or other entities.”

Senator Clinton, whose efforts to nationalize healthcare were stymied in the 1990s, now has a capable, influential, and willing cosponsor whose conservative veneer is just the right spoonful of sugar to help this totalitarian socialist medicine go down.

If this socialist healthcare scheme is allowed to pass, and Applied Digital succeeds in partnering with government, then Americans will be seduced into accepting a “seamless” nationalized healthcare system. But those who participate will also end up with a medical ID implant that will undoubtedly morph into a mandatory national ID.

Friday, August 26, 2005

More Educational Social Engineering

At taxpayer expense, of course. Several people have now sent me this. My understanding is that Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano is an archfeminist / leftist who worked with Anita Hill against Clarence Thomas. But notice the incorporation pure vocationalism. No Child Left Behind on steroids?

National school plan suggested
Napolitano to announce reform ideas

Pat Kossan and Chip Scutari
The Arizona Republic
Aug. 23, 2005 12:00 AM

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano today will unveil a national plan for education reform that includes universal preschool for children across the country, a standardized curriculum for all 50 states, full-day kindergarten and year-round schools.

Napolitano is co-chairwoman of a task force with ties to the Democratic Party that researched new approaches for education in the 21st century. The group concluded that American students need substantially more time in the classroom to compete with children in other countries.

The governor, who will make her presentation at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., said much of the plan is about getting children ready for the 21st-century job market.

"I want to contribute to the national sense of urgency," Napolitano said. "The world is changing much faster than our education system. We need to take it up a notch."

The goal of the presentation is to start a debate on the ambitious recommendations. The implication is that national leaders eventually will buy into them. The estimated price tag for the makeover is $325 billion in federal money over the next 10 years.

The proposal calls for the money to come from the federal government but does not specify a source. However, the task force suggested that money for the programs could be generated by avoiding tax cuts proposed by Republican leaders, such as the elimination of the nation's estate tax.

Some of the recommendations:

• Extend the school year in low-performing schools, expand after-school programs, pay for universal preschool and full-day kindergarten and increase federal college grants.

• Develop a uniform, but voluntary, set of nationwide student learning goals, or curriculum, for core courses.

• Improve teacher training and offer financial incentives to entice teachers to work in high-poverty schools.

• Link neighborhood schools with their communities and families by providing such things as social services, English classes, parenting skills classes and home visits.

The task force said its plan would go beyond President Bush's No Child Left Behind approach, which measures students' progress and makes schools accountable "but did not address fundamental challenges facing the education system."

Becky Hill, Napolitano's education adviser, said many of the strategies being proposed are being used by governors across the country. She also said billions of dollars that were originally promised to No Child Left Behind could be used on these prescribed strategies, such as universal preschool and full-day kindergarten.

"Some of this investment is already happening at the state level," Hill said. She added that in many ways, the plan "is simply validating a lot of stuff that states are investing in with their general fund dollars."

Napolitano has repeatedly said that children need more hours of instruction, teachers deserve higher salaries and classes must be tailored to fit each community's needs. She said schools in her state need improvement, noting that only 17 of 100 Arizona students entering ninth grade go on to get a college degree.

She was asked to serve as co-chairwoman of the task force by John Podesta, a chief of staff to former President Bill Clinton, who said he was impressed by her focus on education in Arizona. One of Napolitano's most notable successes during her first term has been the establishment of state-funded all-day kindergarten programs.

The task force consisted of business leaders, educators and politicians who gathered input at six public forums, including one in Phoenix. Two public policy groups with strong ties to the Democratic Party initiated the report, called "Renewing our Schools, Securing our Future." Podesta is president of the Center for American Progress. Robert Borosage, who heads the Institute for America's Future, was adviser to the campaigns of Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California and Carol Moseley Braun, a former senator who briefly ran for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination.

Napolitano insists this is about textbooks and test scores, not her electoral future. Still, her role in education reform should boost her growing national profile.

"It's not partisan," Napolitano told The Republic. "I don't think education can be a partisan issue if we're going to be successful. Partisan politics in this country can get things stuck. It needs to be what can we do for the next generation of kids. And what do they need."

The report calls the No Child Left Behind Act "a promising start" but says the Bush administration's reform plan isn't funding the right programs and isn't providing schools with enough money to truly renew the system.

U.S. Department of Education spokesman Chad Colby said he hadn't studied the task force's report and wasn't ready to comment.

The plan would require a larger investment of federal education money "accompanied by additional increases at the state and local levels."

Thursday, August 25, 2005

Charging Rent For Stolen Property

Courtesy of David Morris of Lexington.

Click on the link in Paragraph #`13 to send an important message to our senators putting the brakes on Eminent Domain.

David C. Morris
Lexington, S.C.

From: D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h []
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2005 7:03 PM
Subject: Charging rent for stolen property

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h

Congress will return to work in just a few days. This work will consist of robbing, extorting, controlling, and spending the hard-working taxpayer into bankruptcy - handing out favors to friends, and piling up mountains of debts to cripple your children's future.

Since Congress makes the laws they are under the delusion that anything they do is legal, no matter if it is unwise, unethical, or un-Constitutional.

This may seem harsh at first glance, but I don't think it's that harsh when looked at more closely. There is something distinctly criminal about the way politicians do business. And I'm about to share a classic example with you (about charging rent for stolen property).

We need to shed our illusions about what a politician is. They may look nice, sound nice, and dress nice. They may have families and hopes and dreams just like we do. They may not look or sound like Tony Soprano. But the more I have been able to observe them, the more I have come to feel that there is something pathological about most successful politicians.

A successful politician is a person with a compartmentalized mind. A person who can say mutually contradictory things to different people and not even notice the contradiction. A person who can smile, and really mean it, while he punches you in the gut. A successful politician can rationalize or justify anything. These are the hallmarks of a sociopath.

Yes, I know, this is harsh. But I will assert again that it is also true. And yes, I know, there are exceptions, and I also know that not all successful politicians behave badly all the time. But exceptions do not establish the rule. It is important to understand that. . .

Our system has become so corrupt in so many ways that it is very difficult for a non- sociopath to get elected. It now requires a borderline criminal mind to negotiate the intricacies of gerrymandered districts, vote peddling, campaign finance laws, and other aspects of our rigged system. Our electoral process, as currently constructed, requires a person who looks like your neighbor, but behaves like Tony Soprano. It requires a sociopath.

This sociopathology is evident in the responses members of Congress have sent to DC Downsizers about the "Read the Bills Act." These responses are the most clever kinds of lies. Most of these responses have been crafted to persuade the reader that of "course the Congressperson agrees with RTBA," while making no commitment to do anything about it. These responses are the product of minds that can no longer fully distinguish right from wrong. They communicate the semblance of rectitude, but contain the substance of moral rot.

We must shed our illusions about "mom, apple pie, the flag, and the glories of democracy." We must understand that we are in a WAR.

Our enemy is the successful politician. Our enemy is a person who can say one thing and do another. Our enemy considers himself or herself above the standards of behavior that apply to normal human beings. Our enemy is the successful politician. And our enemy gives no quarter.

I will have more to say about this in the weeks and months ahead. I will argue that we need to put ourselves on a war footing - that we must think in a strategic and tactical way, in terms of war, and use war metaphors to focus ourselves for the fight ahead.

But to succeed at this, we must first come to recognize and accept, painful though it may be, the nature of our enemy. Our enemy is the successful politician, and our enemy is a sociopath. Our latest evidence of this comes from the Kelo case, which established the power of government to steal personal property for private gain.

The Kelo case came about because the city of New London, Connecticut seized private homes and land for the purpose of private development. The Supreme Court endorsed this theft, and in this confused day and age, that makes it the de-facto law of the land.

And now the politicians, who run the organized criminal band known as the City of New London, are charging the victims of this theft "back rent" for daring to continue to occupy their own property during the time when their case wound its way to the Supreme Court.

That's right. People who are having their property stolen from them are being charged rent for using their property by the very people who are stealing it from them.

It's time to hammer Congress again. It's time to demand that they do something to stop legalized theft. It's time to demand that they impose stiff penalties for any government entity that steals private property. And the way to do that is to add Downsize DC's enforcement amendment to S. 1313. You can send your message to Congress, demanding this action, by clicking here.

I would also like to thank the latest group of people to help us buy ammunition to fight our war against the criminal politicians. These are their names: Ralph Heymann, Arthur C. Wiggins, Herbert Boehl, John Savard, George C. Dick, J.M. Inks, Jr., William H. Olinger, David T. Yett, George Gardiner, Robert Throwbridge, Nancy Woods, Jason Hurst, Hank Brooks.

And I would like to thank the latest DC Downsizers to make a monthly credit card pledge to expand our fight. These are their names: John Notgrass, Robert L. Morgan, Jerold N. Arnowitz, Todd R. Singer, David A. Stansbury, Douglas Washington, Jeffrey S. Bloduc, David R. Mason.

And I would like to thank the following people for contributing $125 or more to join the Campaign Committee for the "Read the Bills Act": Dominic A. Solimando, Jr., James R. Back, David W. Landram, Dr. Michael Mitchell.

If you would like to join this company of fine people by making a contribution to fund our fight, you can do so here.

There is a box you can check on the contribution form if you wish your support not to be made public.

Thank you for being a DC Downsizer. More soon.

Jim Babka
President, Inc.

D o w n s i z e r - D i s p a t c h
is the official email list of, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation

CONTRIBUTE to the Electronic Lobbyist project is sponsored by, Inc. -- a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government.

You are encouraged to forward this message to friends and business associates, and permission is hereby granted to reproduce any items herein as long as attribution is provided for articles and the subscription instructions above are included.

Tuesday, August 23, 2005


My book Worldviews: Christian Theism vs. Modern Materialism, is now available through the Xlibris Corporation website. Here is the link:

Transforming America, More

Quite a few good articles have appeared lately, too many to post individually and most of them far too long to reproduce here in any event, so I'll post the links and allow readers (I'm assuming I have some readers) to take it from there, reading what they want and ignoring what doesn't interest them.

A good place to start is with Michael Shaw's "The Attempt to Transform the Vision of America," a brilliant summary of the insidious nature of Sustainable Development, including how its purveyors have exploited Hegelian dialectic and worked out a program that will leave Americans enslaved and basically in cages: settlements, in the language of Agenda 21 (working low-wage jobs in cubicles servicing public-private partnerships, no doubt).

Along similar lines, charting the enslavement of America, is Nancy Levant's "Globalized America - Not a Pretty Sight," which ties together steadily increasing gas prices with something the globalists want: a less mobile population.

And see today's Chuck Baldwin article, "Americans Surrendering Liberties: Shades of German History," for another side to the destruction of liberty in America via the so-called Patriot Act, being strengthened in ways very much akin to what transpired in Germany as the Nazis were just coming to power. No, the 9/11 attacks were not our Reichstag, but it might come yet, and when it does, we will be in grave danger of having Martial Law shoved in our faces. Given the sheeplike nature of the majority of America's government-school educated masses today, those who resist will have neither the media nor the sentiment of the masses on their side and will be easily incarcerated.

Dennis Cuddy outlines what was known of Mohammed Atta's background prior to the 9/11 attacks. Is anybody really going to claim that the federal government could not have stopped those attacks, or couldn't have seen them coming?

Shifting gears a little, Dr. Carolyn Dean MD exposes "How the Modern Medicine Monopoly Has Failed Us." More than that, it is killing us. (Some of the above writers have alleged, in other articles, that a behind-the-scenes effort is underway to reduce the world's population--whether by "chemtrails," a laboratory-concocted supervirus, or by some other high-tech means. There are just too many "useless eaters" for the super-elite to effectively control!)

More later, different topics.

Sunday, August 21, 2005

Martial Law?

Should there be another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, expect it. There could easily be another terrorist attack on U.S. soil due to our government's unwillingness to protect our national borders. Conditions are being orchestrated, and remember, you read it here first.

Sent: Saturday, August 20, 2005 8:56 AM


Aug 13, 2005 -

by staff reports

Martial law? According to a Washington Post story this week, it may not be so farfetched, as the Pentagon is actually already making contingency plans for such a condition. The front-page article was written by Post reporter Bradley Graham, from his recent tour of Northcom headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base. Graham cites sources working at the headquarters of the military's Northern Command (Northcom), located in Colorado Springs, Colorado. Terrorist attacks would be used as the justification for imposing martial law on cities, regions or the entire country. The plans themselves are of course classified, but "officers who drafted the plans" gave him the details. According to the analysis of at least one website commentator, this seems "a deliberate leak conducted for the purpose of accustoming the American population to the prospect of military rule."

The new plans provide for what several senior officers acknowledged is the likelihood that the military will have to take charge in some situations, especially when dealing with mass-casualty attacks that could quickly overwhelm civilian resources. They outline 15 potential crisis scenarios, ranging from "low-end," ("relatively modest crowd-control missions") to "high-end" after as many as three simultaneous catastrophic mass-casualty events, such as a nuclear, biological or chemical weapons attack. In each case, the military would deploy a quick-reaction force of as many as 3000 troops per attack (9,000 total in the worst-case scenario), with more troops made available as needed.

The Post quotes Admiral Timothy J. Keating, head of Northcom: "In my estimation, [in the event of] a biological, chemical or nuclear attack in any of the 50 states, the Department of Defense is best positioned of the various eight federal agencies that would be involved] to take the lead." According to the article, about 1400 National Guard troops have been formed into a dozen regional response units, with smaller quick-reaction forces in each of the 50 states. Northcom may also mobilize four active-duty Army battalions, as well as Navy and Coast Guard ships and air defense fighter jets. In order to get around the limitations on using military for domestic policing (e.g., posse comitatus), the plans might call for using the National Guard, which is exempt from such limitations. "[Keating] cited a potential situation in which Guard units might begin rounding up people while regular forces could not," Graham wrote. - ST

Saturday, August 20, 2005

More Kelo Fallout: Your Government's Punishments.

For standing up for private property rights in postmodern, legal positivist America, dominated by public-private partnerships where money and power have become twin religions. (I might well have emigrated to another country by now--taking my money with me.)

More to come later today (since with the start of Fall Semester we have missed several days of articles and links).

City wants back rent
from Kelo residents
Expects homeowners who lost case to pay hundreds of thousands
Posted: August 20, 2005

© 2005

In the adding insult to injury category, the city officials that triumphed over a group of Connecticut homeowners in a landmark Supreme Court property-rights case are expecting those residents to pay the local government rent dating back to the year 2000.

The June 23 Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London gave the town the approval to seize the residents' homes and transfer them to a private party for development of an office complex. In the highly controversial decision, the justices ruled 5-4 that the economic development resulting from the eminent domain action qualified as "public use" under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution.

The city now says that since it won the case, the homeowners actually have been living on city property since 2000 when it first began condemnation procedures against them, so they must pay back rent – to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

"It's a new definition of chutzpah: Confiscate land and charge back rent for the years the owners fought confiscation," wrote Jonathan O'Connell in the Fairfield County Weekly.

Not only is the city demanding rent, but the buyout offers on the table are based on the market rate as it was in 2000, before most of the growth in the current real-estate bubble.

The New London Development Corporation, the semi-public organization hired by the city to facilitate the deal, first addressed the rent issue in a June 2004 letter to residents, calling the alleged debt retroactive "use and occupancy" payments.

"We know your clients did not expect to live in city-owned property for free, or rent out that property and pocket the profits, if they ultimately lost the case," the agency said. It warned that "this problem will only get worse with the passage of time," and that the city was prepared to sue for the money if need be.

The Kelo case is named after Susette Kelo, who owns a single-family house in New London with her husband. Kelo was told she would owe around $57,000 in rent.

"I'd leave here broke," Kelo told the weekly. "I wouldn't have a home or any money to get one. I could probably get a large-size refrigerator box and live under the bridge."

Matt Dery owns four houses on the building site, including the home his 87-year-old mother was born in and still lives in. Dery's past-due rent, according to the city, exceeds $300,000.

It remains to be seen if a suit will be filed against the residents.

"From a political standpoint, the city might be better off trying to reach some settlement with the homeowners," Jeremy Paul, an associate UConn law dean who teaches property law, told the paper.

Tuesday, August 16, 2005

One Unhappy Republican

I'd think there would be more than one, assuming there is more than one Republican who has read the U.S. Constitution. One thing the author does not mention about Condi Rice that's definitely relevant to her performance: she is a card-carrying member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Courtesy of Joan Masters.

One Unhappy Republican
By Michael Scheuer
Published August 15, 2005
The Washington Times

Before resigning from the CIA in late 2004, I had a chat about politics with a good friend who encapsulated his view of the difference between the two parties, saying the Democrats are liars and the Republicans are stupid. I have thought about that since and decided I would amend his conclusion by adjusting the characterization of Republicans to say that some senior Republicans are incompetent and most treat their supporters as stupid. To be honest, I will admit that I have voted the straight Republican ticket in each election since reaching voting age thirty-plus years ago. I vote Republican because I am a nationalist, anti-abortion and a strict constructionist.

Since resigning, I have had reason to believe my friend's definitions with my adjustments are accurate. The Democrats quickly proved true to form. One of Sen. Harry Reid's first acts after becoming his party's Senate leader was to electronically re-lynch Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and then Howard Dean, the gadfly screecher who chairs the party, damned the Republicans for being "white and Christian." In a few hundred words, Mr. Reid and Mr. Dean reminded Americans that Democrats remain what American history shows they always have been, the party of the "four S's": Slavery, Secession, Segregation, and Socialism. Justice Thomas is not the Democrats' "kind" of African American, so segregate him. Public service and white Christians are anathema to a party that has no God and whose support comes from the slaves they keep segregated in the empire of single-issue interest groups they hold in thrall. This reality should be kept in view by anyone who thinks Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has "Democratic centrists" to appeal to.

That said, the Republicans have reached new lows in treating their supporters as a herd of stupid, unthinking cattle who are content to sit quietly as their rulers undermine national security and allow America's defeat by Islamic extremists. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent performance on Jim Lehrer's Newshour can only be explained by concluding either that Miss Rice is stupid, or that she and the Bush administration are confident Republicans are addled and will swallow any executive-branch bilge.

Now, Miss Rice is a brilliant, not a stupid woman. Her career is one of uninterrupted excellence, dedicated public service and steady professional advancement -- a record, it must be noted, that no African American woman has achieved under Democratic auspices. Like Justice Thomas, Miss Rice is not the Democrats' "kind" of African American.

Yet Miss Rice knowingly says stupid things and expects the party faithful like me to believe them. On Iraq, she told Mr. Lehrer "we must maintain political momentum" toward late-2005 elections, implying the electoral process itself will ensure "the insurgency loses any hope of holding a political base for their brutal and violent activities."

This is nonsense. The Iraq insurgency is intensifying, meaning it already has a political base and that the base is growing; history proves insurgencies do not exist in hostile political environments. It also is absurd Western-think to suggest, as Miss Rice did, that successfully holding an election will discourage the insurgents and cause them to fold their tents and shelve their Kalashnikovs. In this regard, Miss Rice should review the situationdevelopingin Afghanistan.

Topping this nonsense, Miss Rice advised the Newshour's audience on the coming Iraqi constitution. "And I would caution," Miss Rice said, "against reading drafts" of the constitution. Like the Wizard telling Dorothy and friends to ignore the man behind the curtain pulling levers, Miss Rice says the drafts are meaningless works-in-progress. Miss Rice and the administration, of course, count on Republicans following this stupid advice and not noticing until too late that the Iraqi constitution is creating an Islamic and anti-American state that will be a breeding-and-staging ground for extremists and a destabilizing force in the Middle East.

So there's the dilemma, fellow Republicans. Do we buy the pap Miss Rice dispensed and ignore the incompetence that sees Michael Chertoff taking the Department of Homeland Security back to the drawing board, and FBI Director Robert Mueller unable to buy a workable computer system and proud of the FBI's dearth of expertise about Islamic militancy? Or do we gag, say enough, and demand that President Bush and Miss Rice begin telling Americans bluntly that their country is in a heck of a fix in the Islamic world made much worse by the Iraq war and fire the incompetents who have made it less safe since September 11.

Fortunately for America, the Reid-and-Dean-led Democrats are irrelevant to our decision. They are too busy describing U.S. soldiers as Nazis and keeping the shackles on their slave empire of one-issue groups long enough to lose the presidency in 2008.

Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran with the CIA, created and served as the chief of the agency's Osama bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center. He is also the author of "Imperial Hubris."

Friday, August 12, 2005

CAFTA Fight Shows We Can Stop the FTAA!

For the sake of the future of this country, if it is to have one, let us hope so! Article by Tom Gow. (A shortened version will appear in the August 22, 2005, The New American.)

Block the Globalists’ Next Stepping Stone to World Tyranny – STOP the FTAA!
by Tom Gow, Vice President, The John Birch Society
August 5, 2005

In the wee hours of July 28th, pro-CAFTA forces managed to squeak out a razor thin victory in the House by a vote of 217 to 215 – overcoming their final hurdle. The administration had signed the CAFTA agreement in May of 2004, but refused to allow Congress to vote on implementing legislation for more than a year, until sufficient support could be lined up for the highly controversial agreement.

We had high hopes of defeating CAFTA or forcing an even further delay, so we are naturally disappointed. But we are not at all discouraged by the outcome, since the battle itself has helped us enormously to build opposition to the more dangerous threat – the Free Trade Area of the Americas. We consider ourselves fortunate that FTAA negotiators felt they needed this intermediate CAFTA step. The hard-fought CAFTA battle allowed us to get a jump start on building opposition to the FTAA over which there had been previously little public awareness or concern.

Speaking to representatives of the Organization of American States on January 16, 2002, President Bush pledged, “We’re working to build a Free Trade Area of the Americas, and we’re determined to complete those negotiations by January of 2005.” Those negotiations are still not completed. Moreover, the FTAA agreement was to have been approved by Congress and put into effect this year. That timetable appears to have been shoved back at least a year.

Growing Opposition
In fact, there are several indications that the momentum in the battle to stop the FTAA may be swinging our way. As reported in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, “Free trade supporters cheered the Central American trade pact's passage Thursday, but said the narrow victory may provide little momentum for reaching their larger goal: a trade zone spanning the Western Hemisphere.”

Regional trade pacts are no longer a theory to many Americans, as was the case when Congress approved NAFTA in November 1993. Almost a million Americans have lost jobs as a result of NAFTA alone. In a tenth anniversary assessment of the trade pact’s impact, the Christian Science Monitor noted, “[NAFTA’s effects are] evident from the job-training centers in southern Texas to the ‘NAFTA ghost towns’ of North Carolina, with their shuttered textile plants.” Other industries now see themselves seriously threatened by these trade pacts.

Moreover, the open borders desired by proponents of these pacts are no longer theory. Millions of Americans already are angered by the impact of uncontrolled immigration. The decline of the American middle class is also no longer a theory. American capital, which supports the productivity needed for a high standard of living, continues to flee abroad in response to perverse government policies. Our own government also encourages a flood of low-wage labor to enter our borders. Indeed, the CAFTA battle has bought invaluable time to inform and activate those who recognize these dangerous trends.

It was a welcome surprise that CAFTA proponents had to work so hard to assemble their majority. Since much of the opposition was based on partisan politics and narrow economic concerns, we were pleased that the pro-CAFTA forces had so much difficulty. In the process of assembling their majority, they were forced to employ pressure tactics that provide important ammunition to alert others to what is really at stake with the FTAA.

According to the estimates of one congressman, proponents were willing to promise at least $47 billion in pork to “persuade” legislators to buy in to CAFTA. For those who do not recognize the underlying conspiratorial track record and objectives, such determination was hard to understand.

Puzzling Pressure
Many who viewed CAFTA as primarily a trade pact were undoubtedly puzzled by the determination of congressional leaders and the administration, given the relatively small purchasing power of the CAFTA nations. Only hours before the vote, House and Ways Committee Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif., offered this non-explanation for the intensity of the battle: 'This is not a major trade vote. It's a major political vote.'" [Congressional Quarterly Today (7/27/05)]

But intense partisanship aside, the demand for CAFTA was primarily from the top down, as the New York Times afterwards confirmed: “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)]

CAFTA’s proponents kept the agreement’s real significance hidden from public view, even downplaying the fact that CAFTA was to be a stepping stone to the FTAA. After the vote, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution interviewed several sources who were suddenly more candid: "'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,' said Larry Birns, director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs, a Washington-based research group." [The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (7/29/05)]

But pro-FTAA forces obviously intend to keep the “it’s all about economics” smokescreen intact. The impact of the FTAA and hemispheric integration on our borders is carefully ignored. The impact on U.S. sovereignty is also hidden, even denied by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Track Record of Deception
Americans need to recognize that the globalists who have a grip on our government have a track record of deceiving the public as to what they are building. They have no respect for the right of Americans to decide their own future. An authoritative acknowledgement of that arrogance appeared in the 2002 “Special Davos Edition” of the international edition of Newsweek. In “Death of a Founding Myth,” CFR member Michael Hirsh stated:

“[T]he internationalists were always hard at work in quiet places making plans for a more perfect global community. In the end the internationalists have always dominated national policy. Even so, they haven’t bragged about their globe-building for fear of reawakening the other half of the American psyche, our berserker nativism. And so they have always done it in the most out-of-the-way places and with little ado.” [Emphasis added]

The reference to “our beserker nativism” appears to be a veiled criticism of American patriotism as a dogmatic preference for our own culture and institutions and a resistance to blending with the world. But isn’t national pride healthy? What caused most Americans to rally to support their nation following 9/11? Do not Americans have a right to be told what is meant by this statement in the preamble to the CAFTA agreement: “[The governments of Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the United States of America] resolved to: … CONTRIBUTE to hemispheric integration....”? Can we trust the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative when it maintains that CAFTA does not threaten U.S. sovereignty despite numerous explicit provisions to the contrary in the text of the agreement?

When the European Common Market was first proposed, another branch of the same globalist cabal, with the aid of our home-grown elitists, visited the same deception on the unsuspecting peoples of Europe. The political sponsors assured their constituents that the Common Market was only concerned with creating a prosperity zone through lowered tariffs and that the sovereignty of member nations would not be compromised. It has since come out that some of these leaders knew they were lying at the time. As we have documented many times in these pages, the FTAA is intended to follow in the footsteps of the European Union. These regional pacts are designed to wipe out national sovereignty so that nations, through these pacts, can be more readily merged into a world government dominated by the United Nations.

A Process, not a Destination
As with the Common Market and the EU, the FTAA would unleash a steady process of subversion, the full impact of which would not be felt immediately. The chains of servitude would be fastened gradually, lest the nations rise up and throw off their would-be master. Although the EU provides the model, the process, even in Europe, is far from complete. So when politicians insist, as so many did with CAFTA, that before making a decision they first need to study the finalized agreement, alarm bells need to sound. Such a mind set already reflects a willingness to judge the poisonous FTAA “candy” based on whatever is stated on its label, and an unwillingness to acknowledge that national suicide is the plan.

The change in political arrangements the FTAA architects seek to set in motion would impact Americans very much like a Communist takeover. To see that this is so, one need look no further than the influence of Fidel Castro in the halls of government of many South American nations, not to mention our immediate southern neighbor.

What America could use today are more statesmen like those senators who opposed our entry into the first world-government trap – the League of Nations. At the time, proponents were willing to water down their League in order to gain a foothold for their plan with America’s entry. But Senator Borah correctly argued, “You can’t amend treason.”

Full Speed Ahead!
The CAFTA battle drives home several important lessons on how to successfully fight the FTAA. If a growing core of Americans will heed these lessons we can prevail:

* We must take this threat seriously. Half-way commitments won’t do it. We must expect even more pressure and deception in support of the FTAA than we saw with CAFTA.

* Political action to replace representatives is tempting but not the answer. There are too many turkeys. Our problem with Congress stems from an ill-informed and uninvolved electorate that listens to the wrong voices. Getting rid of one ambitious opportunist who marches to the Establishment’s dictates only to reelect another of the same stripe in the same environment – is a frustrating waste of time. Yet well-meaning Americans have pursued this quick fix for decades -- hire them, leave them alone, and if they disappoint us fire them. The better answer is to change the climate (see below) and engage our representatives between elections. Then most reps will get the message, and, for those who don’t, election turnover will be meaningful. The Constitution puts House members up for frequent reelection (every two years) just to remind them to whom they should be accountable.

* A partisan political response is certainly a waste of time. The CAFTA vote doesn’t mean that left-wing democrats are our new friends (their support is unreliable). A bitter pill for many political activists to swallow is the recognition that at the moment those carrying the Conspiracy’s ball are primarily Republicans, many of whom wish to be perceived as conservatives!

* We must build grassroots opposition and pressure Congress based on the FTAA’s conspiratorial agenda to build a Western Hemisphere EU, not on partisan political or even on economic grounds. The FTAA threatens America’s continued survival as an independent nation by promoting a supranational hemispheric government and political merger and open borders with other nations. We must expose the forces, hands, and goals, not just the immediate consequences over the first year or two, which might be minimal.

* The economic consequences of the FTAA, particularly its long-term consequences are important, but the Conspiracy can overcome narrowly based opposition, as we have just seen with CAFTA. Proponents will promise anything to get their foot in the door with an open-ended plan that can be escalated gradually (as with the UN). So, in our communications, we can’t allow proponents to hide comfortably behind their smokescreen that the FTAA is merely about “free trade.”

* We must develop solid, informed constituent clout. Clout, not reason, is the primary language of politicians. Unfortunately, too many congressmen are schooled that their primary accountability is to their party leaders, whom they believe can control their careers. These party leaders are in turn controlled by the Conspiracy.

* Start early (now) to build opposition to the FTAA, even before a final agreement is negotiated. It is much tougher to get politicians to change minds later. We must insist that reps take a position now – no waiting to study the precise text of the agreement hammered out or to read some report of some commission.

* Be polite, but firm with congressmen. We must control our fear and anger. Don’t make political threats. Our objective should be to make the rep want to support us. That means we must address them individually as if they are sincerely motivated to do what is best for their country. Allow them to save face by appealing to their reason. Speak softly, but as Teddy Roosevelt advocated, carry a big stick. Our big stick is the clout among their constituents the reps see we are intent on mobilizing. Each rep needs to discover that you are reaching his political base (e.g., with calm, persuasive letters to the editor). Our greatest clout is with our own representative. We should seek to win over each one today, and let tomorrow’s political chips fall where they may.

By far the best way to build sufficient constituent clout to stop the FTAA is as an active member of a local Chapter of The John Birch Society. During the CAFTA battle, our Chapters were the focal point of inspiring, determined action to pressure Congress to vote no. We need to quickly increase the number and size of our Chapters for the FTAA battle. Now more than ever, the solution to stopping the globalist conspiracy is to work through Chapters of The John Birch Society.


Tuesday, August 09, 2005

Ron Paul on Immigration and the Welfare State

From this week's Ron Paul's Texas Straight Talk at

Immigration and the Welfare State
Ron Paul (R-Tx)
August 8, 2005

More and more of my constituents are asking me when Congress will address the problem of illegal immigration. The public correctly perceives that neither political party has the courage to do what is necessary to prevent further erosion of both our border security and our national identity. As a result, immigration may be the sleeper issue that decides the 2008 presidential election.

The problem of illegal immigration will not be solved easily, but we can start by recognizing that the overwhelming majority of Americans- including immigrants- want immigration reduced, not expanded.

Amnesty for illegal immigrants is not the answer. Millions of people who broke the law by entering, staying, and working in our country illegally should not be rewarded with a visa. Why should lawbreakers obtain a free pass, while those seeking to immigrate legally face years of paperwork and long waits for a visa?

We must end welfare state subsidies for illegal immigrants. Some illegal immigrants-- certainly not all-- receive housing subsidies, food stamps, free medical care, and other forms of welfare. This alienates taxpayers and breeds suspicion of immigrants, even though the majority of them work very hard. Without a welfare state, we would know that everyone coming to America wanted to work hard and support himself.

Our current welfare system also encourages illegal immigration by discouraging American citizens to take low-wage jobs. This creates greater demand for illegal foreign labor. Welfare programs and minimum wage laws create an artificial market for labor to do the jobs Americans supposedly won’t do.

Illegal immigrants also place a tremendous strain on social entitlement programs. Under a proposed totalization agreement with Mexico, millions of illegal immigrants will qualify for Social Security and other programs- programs that already threaten financial ruin for America in the coming decades. Adding millions of foreign citizens to the Social Security, Medicare, and disability rolls will only hasten the inevitable day of reckoning.

Economic considerations aside, we must address the cultural aspects of immigration. The vast majority of Americans welcome immigrants who want to come here, work hard, and build a better life. But we rightfully expect immigrants to show a sincere desire to become American citizens, speak English, and assimilate themselves culturally. All federal government business should be conducted in English. More importantly, we should expect immigrants to learn about and respect our political and legal traditions, which are rooted in liberty and constitutionally limited government.

Our most important task is to focus on effectively patrolling our borders. With our virtually unguarded borders, almost any determined individual- including a potential terrorist- can enter the United States. Unfortunately, the federal government seems more intent upon guarding the borders of other nations than our own. We are still patrolling Korea’s border after some 50 years, yet ours are more porous than ever. It is ironic that we criticize Syria for failing to secure its border with Iraq while our own borders, particularly to the south, are no better secured than those of Syria.

We need to allocate far more of our resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.

If we took some of the steps I have outlined here - eliminating the welfare state and securing our borders - we could effectively address the problem of illegal immigration in a manner that would not undermine the freedom of American citizens. Sadly, it appears we are moving toward policies like a national ID that diminish our liberties. Like gun control, these approaches only punish the innocent, as criminals will always find a way around the law.

Notes on Bob Inglis's 8-8-2005 Walk & Talk in Greenville

Note to All,

Reporting on tonight's Walk & Talk with Bob Inglis in Greenville, by and large
I'd say we ate him for supper. He was smooth--kept his cool pretty well in
front of a mostly hostile audience (maybe one person who said anything was
*for* these trade agreements or thought they'd benefitted ordinary working

I outlined these reasons why he should have voted No to CAFTA: (1) It is based
on the same flawed model as NAFTA, being an expansion of NAFTA; NAFTA basically
destroyed this country's manufacturing base by shipping it outside our borders;
(2) It threatens U.S. sovereignty; here I quoted from CAFTA's Preamble and also
noted the international bureaucracies; (3) CAFTA is un-Constitutional (Article
I, Sect. 8, Paragraph 3; Article VI); (4) CAFTA is not an isolated agreement
but part of a process, one that began even prior to NAFTA but ending with the
FTAA which aims at the regional integration of 34 nations--I displayed the
books *Integrating the Americas* published by the David Rockefeller Center at
Harvard University Press as documenation that this is not just paranoia or
"conspiracy theory" and *Regional Integration* about Europe published in the
late 1950s as evidence for how long the elites have been planning; I also noted
the new CFR document "Building a North American Community"; (5) How to deal
with China: get out of the WTO, revoke China's permanent "favored nation"
status or whatever the dickens it is called; then negotiate arrangements with
China that are *our* arrangements not subject to approval by globocrats; all
the while creating a less regulated and a more free-enterprise-friendly
environment in the U.S.

Inglis questioned whether it was NAFTA that destroyed our manufacturing base or
whether it was just changing technology leading us into an age when
manufacturing isn't as prevalent. (I don't think I made the point clearly
enough that these changes have been carefully orchestrated to take the economy
and the job market in a specific direction.)

His answer to the objection from U.S. sovereignty hasn't much changed; he
doesn't take seriously the claim (raised not by myself but several others) that
CAFTA contains provisions that threaten our ability to purchase vitamins and
dietary supplements without a doctor's prescription although Joyce pointed out
that such freedom of purchase has already been decimated in Australia; someone
else pointed out that the Europeans are losing ground in this area.

I asked him whether the multibillion dollar pharmaceutical industry favored
CAFTA, and he answered Yes--in his follow-up I'm not sure but I think he called
me a "leftist" (!) He noted that a lot of "leftists" oppose CAFTA (which some
do because they don't think it is socialist enough). LOL! I haven't been
called a "leftist" since my sophomore year in college.

He didn't have an answer I could fathom to the claim that CAFTA is

He also didn't have an answer to my observations about CAFTA's leading to the
FTAA, or about the involvement of the CFR and global elites. Such matters are
clearly not on his radar screen. (He said he doesn't know anybody in the CFR
or who wants to eliminate this country through a regional integration
process.) All this means is that Inglis is not really one of the movers and
shakers (not that he would admit it if he was).

He thinks that if we withdrew from the WTO the stock market would take a huge
plunge immediate and it would be 1929 all over again. (I observed that stocks
are overvalued, because of the huge injections of unbacked credit pumped into
circulation by the Federal Reserve during the noxious 1990s--no I didn't call
them that, but only because in the heat of the moment I didn't think of it.

He made an interesting point about intellectual property rights built into
CAFTA that supposedly would protect our products from China, although how this
would keep China from "stealing our stuff," as he put it, escaped me.

He did not have an answer to those who argued that he, Bob Inglis, sold out
South Carolina's 4th District most of whom opposed CAFTA and wanted him to vote
No to CAFTA--other than, "it's a complicated world" implying if not stating
openly that we are simple.

The last guy to speak, some older guy I didn't know, was someone I didn't know
but argued that NAFTA had created all these good paying jobs, that more people
were working in American than ever before, that the average income was higher,
etc., etc., but didn't seem to have a single item of documentation to
substantiate his claims.

I spoke with one of his staffers after the meeting broke up, a black girl named
April, and asked her to keep her ear to the ground about just what it would
take to get Bob Inglis's attention focused on the FTAA and on opposing it, on
the grounds that it is a whole lot more dangerous than CAFTA!

The meeting broke up when the library folks started turning out the lights.
I'm pumped up. I think I'll go to the Spartanburg one tomorrow night!

Steven Yates
Adjunct Instructor, Philosophy
USC-Upstate and Greenville Technical College
Greenville-Spartanburg, S.C.
Board Member, S.C. Chapter, Citizens Committee to Stop the FTAA
Watch for WORLDVIEWS: Christian Theism vs. Modern Materialism (due out soon!)

Monday, August 08, 2005

Yates Is Published on CAFTA

Yes, I've finally weighed in even though I am mainly summarizing objections to CAFTA already made by others, but now this evening's meeting with Bob Inglis in Mauldin should be even more interesting!

Article by yours truly at

Sunday, August 07, 2005

Henry Lamb on the FTAA: U.S. Sovereignty is Slip-Sliding Away

This, without a doubt, is the best short article on the subject since the passage of CAFTA. Each of the links in this is a trove of information on what the super-elites have been planning for the Western world. (Conspiracy? Absurd! They're not hiding anymore!)

Henry Lamb
U.S. sovereignty
slip-sliding away
Posted: August 6, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005

It began in 1994. All the attention was focused on the new WTO emerging from the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations. Little attention was paid to the Summit of the Americas meeting in Miami. The assembled ministers agreed to create a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas and that it would be completed by January 2005, entering into force by December 2005.

For ten years, 34 governments have been conducting negotiating sessions throughout the Americas, fashioning a new trade agreement that will swallow up both NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and CAFTA, the Central American Free Trade Agreement, and, quite literally, much of the U.S. Constitution.

The final draft agreement addresses every aspect of trade in the Western Hemisphere and requires that every dimension of the agreement be "WTO compliant." Chapter II contains two provisions that should disqualify the document immediately from any serious consideration by the U.S. Congress.

Article 4.2 contains this language:

4.2. The Parties shall ensure that their laws, regulations and administrative procedures are consistent with the obligations of this Agreement. The rights and obligations under this Agreement are the same for all the Parties, whether Federal or unitary States, including the different levels and branches of government. ...

This language requires that existing laws – at every level of government – be conformed to the requirements of the agreement. It requires that all future laws conform as well. The effect of this agreement takes away law-making power from duly elected representatives of the people and gives it to unelected bureaucrats, most of whom represent foreign nations.

This language is consistent with the WTO, NAFTA and CAFTA, all of which were approved by Congress. Both NAFTA and the WTO have required revisions of dozens of domestic laws. CAFTA will do the same, and the FTAA will continue to take away laws that the peoples' representatives have enacted.

This process is transforming the meaning of national sovereignty. Article 3(g) stipulates that the agreement is governed by the principles of "sovereign equality." This is a term that arises from the 1995 publication of "Our Global Neighborhood," the report of the U.N.-funded Commission on Global Governance. In Chapter II, under the heading Democracy and Legitimacy (page 66), a lengthy discussion proclaims that the concept of national sovereignty must be revised. Ideas are introduced such as:

"... countries are having to accept that in certain fields, sovereignty has to be executed collectively ..." (page 70)

"... there is a need to weigh a state's right to autonomy against its people's right to security." (page 71)

"It is time to think about self-determination in the emerging context of a global neighborhood rather than the traditional context of a world of separate states." (page 337)

Thus, the concept of "sovereign equality" emerges to replace the concept of national sovereignty.

National sovereignty embraces the belief that every nation has equal sovereignty – independent and supreme authority over its territory. "Sovereign equality," on the other hand, is the belief that every nation has equal sovereign authority – under a common, or collective, supreme authority. The FTAA represents this supreme authority in the Western Hemisphere, in much the same way as the European Union seeks to become the supreme authority in Europe, both of which are subservient to the WTO, which functions within the United Nations' family of international organizations.

These two provisions alone should be enough to scrap this agreement. The negotiators have accepted this language, as has the administration. Congress is the only hope Americans have to reject this entangling agreement. Congressmen will not read this language, however. They will listen, instead, to the lobbyists, the arm-twisting messengers from the administration and editorials from the major media.

They will be told that the agreement is an expansion of free trade and that failure to approve the agreement will label the U.S. as isolationist, a rebel in the global neighborhood. These arguments have been successful with NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO. Ordinary people know better.

Ordinary people still have time to be heard on this agreement. Ordinary people elect these representatives, and politicians are dependent upon them for re-election. Ordinary people are the only power on earth greater than the power of the U.S. government. If ordinary people fail to defend their freedom, no one will defend it for them.

The Free Trade Agreement of the Americas is an extraordinary erosion of freedom, for this nation and for every citizen.

Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.

The Real Purpose of CAFTA

Did Walter Williams, the celebrated free market economist at George Mason University, really support CAFTA? That is truly scary! (That the sellout Rush Limbaugh did, I can believe.) This takes the form of an open letter, with a link at the bottom. Possibly a bit extreme in places, and I'm dubious about some of the author's remarks, but this still seems worth a look. Courtesy of Joyce Worthington.

The Real Purpose Of The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA)
By Deacon Elurby

Dear Professor Walter Williams,

During your hosting of Rush Limbaugh's radio show today, you covered the recent passage of CAFTA, giving your listeners your reason for supporting it, which reason was the traditional libertarian defense of individual freedom, and which freedom would include, say, allowing the U.S.-based merchants of McDonnell Douglas, Hughes Electronics and Loral Space and Communications to sell rocket technology to our enemy, Red China, so that she's able to target U.S. cities with nuclear-tipped missiles from Chinese soil. Right, professor?

Well, those free-traders did sell that dual-use technology to Red China, and, recently, its Peoples Liberation Army officers threatened America with a nuclear strike if she interfered with China's claimed property, Taiwan.

You, Rush Limbaugh, and a host of other conservative-/libertarian-leaning rightists, too numerous to list here, are weak-minded on the subject of GATT-engendered "free trade" treaties, which have as their underlying purpose the establishment of Global Economic Socialism--effected by a THIRD-Way-hatched ONE-WORLD government (explained below).

Yes, I mean to give offense by using that term, "weak-minded," as you and Rush and the rest of so-called "FREE-TRADERS" appear to be BLIND, but USEFUL, dupes for the architects of Global Economic Socialism and one-world government.

Or, are you folks privy to the secret plan and supportive of it?


You and Rush and the rest are wrong!, and you are either clueless about the underlying purpose of CAFTA, or you are agents for GLOBAL ECONOMIC SOCIALISM and ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT.

In the past, you've used Rush's term, "kooks," to put down anyone who even hints at embracing the idea that a diabolical conspiracy exists to destroy Western democracies - particularly the U.S. because of its wealth and power - and to establish one-world government, but while you resolutely and contradictorily argue in defense of America's constitutional RULE OF LAW!--as if you really cannot see any contradiction in touting trade agreements that DIRECTLY remove U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL authority - that is, directly diminish America's CONSTITUTION-PREMISED sovereignty - and gravely alter U.S. CITIZENS' social/cultural/political/financial life, which life the Framers had constitutionally sought to protect (I was just now overwhelmed by a sense of futility in trying to reach you and Rush, but I'll continue).

As we, and the rest of the world, become more and more steeped in the tyranny that those GLOBALIST-DRIVEN conspirators are applying day-by-day, you naysayers and doubters ought to be waking up about now.

The evidence is too stark for you to ignore, professor--to keep on snoozing while America - the West - is being destroyed!

But, alas, it's as if you and Rush and the rest have ABANDONED REASON FOR MADNESS (to borrow a line from that eye-opening movie, Lord of the Rings, which is really about warring between virtuous, freedom-loving men and evil tyrants who would enslave them for evil ends), because the stark evidence was there for you folks to see several decades ago!

This and so many other paleoconservative scribblers have tirelessly worked to sound the alarm, but to no avail (the recent loss of Dr. Samuel Francis was a stunner for my political/cultural camp!).

So this letter is a very tedious repetition for me, trying once again to wake-up you SOMNAMBULISTIC free-traders on the Right.

This time, you're being asked to observe what you clearly see is happening around you, then to check it against what a farsighted "conspiracy nut," Lt. Colonel Archibald Roberts, had predicted and documented (with references, but not included here) in his booklet, "The Anatomy of a Revolution," originally published in THE WOMAN CONSTITUIONALIST on August 3rd, 1968:

"[Page 18] The tax-exempt Ford Foundation, which poured in more than 500 million dollars during the year 1966 to finance revolution in the United States, is also a promoter of one-world dissolve the United States of America; to subject her citizens to the dictates and whims of alien courts; to transfer U.S. military personnel and material to a one-world army; to directly tax the American people so as to reliably support one-world government; to establish a serf-society, which shall be paid for its labors at a rate to be determined by the self-appointed Caesars of the world [think of those Zionist Jewish NEOCONS surrounding President Bush, professor]; to move this captive labor force anywhere on the globe at will [you may recall my eassys, "A Borderless World is Terrifying," "Globalism Dissected," and "North/South Corridor," in which I relate the HOW and the WHY and the WHO of it]; and to void private property rights [hmmm!, professor, does that ring a bell for you this summer?]--except in the case of the mattoidelite ["mattoid" means "a person of unbalanced mind bordering on insanity," which term correctly characterizes those empire-building NEOCONS], who shall have title to all.

"The aristocracy of finance [he means the Jewish/Anglo Big-Banking cabal and the international/transnational CORPORATISM it now controls] thus clearly predicts the disenfranchisement of free men [in Western democracies], the breeding of a submissive world population [through an open-borders, interracial, forced INTEGRATION--and its resulting mongrelization of once-racially homogeneous communities; especially of the too-resistant white communities in the West], and the elimination of any independent intelligence [think of the corruption and dumbing-down of MASS MEDIA, ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTIRES, PUBLIC EDUCATION and CHURCHES these past 60 years, professor] which might, now or in the future, challenge the man-gods of this 'Brave New World.'

"There is a terrible familiarity about the totalitarian concepts of the Ford Foundation. The thought persists that we have heard these degenerate ideas promoted in recent times-allegedly backed by the authority of the United States government.

"But, of course! These projections are incorporated, and identified as official policy, in the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) [are your eyes fluttering a bit, sleepy professor?], in the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), and in the highly propagandized but technically obscure Kennedy Round."


"But, of course! These projections are incorporated, and identified as official policy, in the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT) [are your eyes fluttering a bit, professor?], in the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), and in the highly propagandized but technically obscure Kennedy Round.

"The gradual approach to CONTROL OF WORLD TRADE [my emphasis] as an objective of world government [hmmm!would the professor and Rush Limbaugh support those free-trade treaties if they really believed their purpose was to establish one-world government and enslave Mankind to it; and, ergo, to shred the U.S. Constitution for a bordlerless North America, then world?], under the United Nations, was overtly made by the financial-industrial cartel, via GATT, in 1947. In his 1961 Report to the Congress on U.S. participation in the United Nations, President John F. Kennedy (hence the subsequent designation of the 'Kennedy Round' for the third phase of this progressive plan) said, in effect, that under United Nations mandate the United States is OBLIGATED TO REBUILD THE WORLD [my emphasis], to pour all U.S. wealth into the hands of international cartelists for redistribution to the 'have-nots,' and to emigrate the U.S. population as their skills and energies are needed in the underdeveloped nations [and, professor, we may have to emigrate to our now-exported manufacturing plants just to survive; read my essay, "A Borderless World is Terrifying," regarding what I have called "The Great Leveling".

"In the second phase announcement of 1964 [are you staying with me here, professor?], President Lyndon B. Johnson revealed that emerging nations are to be industrialized [to include Red China] under UNCTAD. Small and medium-size business owners destroyed by such relocation of production [think Wal*Mart importing Red-China-made goods, professor] and labor skills [think Mexicans, Central-Americans and South-Americans taking American CITIZENS' jobs through both OUTSOURCING and INSOURCING: aka "The Great Leveling"] will, he said, be compensated for such losses by loans from the United Nations International Monetary Fund, which theoretically will enable ruined American businessmen to enter new fields of endeavor [reminds me of your IGNORANT and SMUG advice to that caller from Maine, telling him - simple-mindedly so! - to find other employment if NAFTA had devastated industry there]--leaving the market open to tariff-free imports from UNCTAD-industrialized nations

Read my essay, "The NAFTA Debacle"

and my collection of essays,
"Corporate America: What Went Wrong?"

"The Kennedy Round, implementing the provisions of GATT and UNCTAD, went into effect on January 1, 1968.

"The American business community, to appreciate their bleak future [this was written in 1968, professor!], should examine the pertinent United Nations General Assembly Resolutions to which the Kennedy Round refers.

"The key to achieving these one-world objectives is, of course, power--military power to enforce the edicts of the financial-industrial cartel [think INSIDE JOB and 911; and think of the Patriot Act's potentially draconian usurpations]. The transfer of military power into their hands [NEOCONS' hands, firstly, then the U.N.'s] is being accomplished in the name of disarmament [which President Reagan reversed, after Jimmy Carter's defanging of our military and spy agencies, and which defanging began again under President Clinton, but was radically reversed by NEOCONS pulling off that Northwoods-type plan on 911, ensuring NEVER-ENDING employment for that MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX that President Eisenhower warned about].

"One-world propagandists and their dupes belabor the expression 'general and total disarmament' as a label for their publicly announced goal of 'international peace and security.' This is, however, a false and misleading label; for the fact is that what is actually proposed by them is a central political authority [think WTO and World Court and Codex and much more, as part and parcel of this socialistic, communistic GREAT LEVELING] backed by overwhelming armed force [this transformation of U.S. armed services could be accomplished only by its FEMINIZATION through an all-volunteer, all-races-are-equally-welcome, citizen-or-not recruiting policy].

It is painfully clear that such an international 'peace' force-now imminent [think of U.S. military personnel being forced, at this time, to wear U.N. head covers and patches]-is intended not to insure peace, but to insure the involvement of Americans and their soldier-sons in interminable 'no-win' military adventures--a series of Koreas and Viet Nams which will create a climate of conflict to justify a war-based economy [Colonel Roberts couldn't have imagined a 911-premised, NEOCON-contrived push for such adventures in the Middle East, which primary purpose there is the protection of Israel not an oil-grab, as the latter is Zionists' payoff to the Gentile West for sacrificing its blood and spending its treasury in protecting Israel from Islamic Arabism, in perpetuity!

And no matter that as I scribble this letter, professor Williams, those Zionist Jews are betraying the U.S. for a future-bedding of Red Chinese wh_res, against U.S. interests, selling them America's secret technology; for which TREASONOUS CRIME all they needed to do was publicly apologize, as they had done just a of few weeks ago; and, no doubt, WITHOUT STOPPING that treachery!--think of the U.S.S. LIBERTY!; of those FIVE DANCING ISRAELIS!; of those hundreds of "ARTISTIC" JEW-SPIES, caught and sent home without any investigation, before and after 911!; of JONATHAN POLLARD!; and of so many other examples of Zionist Jews' deadly underhandness towards their BILLIONS-GIFTING "best friend": America's badly duped and cheated TAXPAYERS!; and let us not forget Marxian Jews' deadly contributions to America's popular culture, as explained in here by a truth-telling Jew, Rabbi Daniel Lapin of Toward Tradition (Oops! Is it anti-Semitic of me, professor, to relate one Jew's criticism of other Jews?): ].

"'Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace,' an unscrupulous policy of unending military entanglements [the U.S. now has troops stationed in 100-plus nations, bleeding her treasury towards certain bankruptcy], was revealed with stunning impact during the war in Korea, when it became known that the United Nations controlled the action on both sides of the thirty-eighth parallel. The agony in Korea was the first U.N. 'no-win' war instigated to advance 'trade and aid' objectives of the financial-industrial cartel. As a matter of historical record, it should be noted that the United States military establishment in South Korea is still designated, 'The United Nations Command'...As a second objective, these stage-managed wars serve to intimidate, to confuse, and to condition the populace, thus leading to public resignation and ultimate acceptance of one-world government as a 'solution' to the world's political ills.

"Lastly, a centrally controlled United Nations army will be employed to crush recalcitrant government and counter-insurgents (i.e., anti-U.N.) people [what U.S. and British armed forces are now doing worldwide; and think of Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Oklahoma City--and the once-strong, now-defunct Militia Movement]. For confirmation of the totalitarian concept embodied in the thrust for a United Nations 'peace' force, we need but recall the U.S.-sponsored Carnegie Endowment plan, 'Apartheid and United Nations Collective Measures,' which envisages hurling American soldiers against the government of South Africa in a massive blitzkrieg to reduce that country to a submissive state within the United Nations body [but actually accomplished through trade sanctions instead of military force; and, yet, the former Yugoslavia was not so fortunate as to suffer only U.N./U.S. economic sanctions].

"Enforcing legislation which will activate a United Nations army is now before the United States Congress in the form of Senate Resolution No. 32 House Resolution No. 130 and other bills of similar nature. The authority to transfer the United States military establishment to United Nations central control was carved into stone by the Congress in 1961, i.e., Public Law 87-297."


"Enforcing legislation which will activate a United Nations army is now before the United States Congress in the form of Senate Resolution No. 32 House Resolution No. 130 and other bills of similar nature. The authority to transfer the United States military establishment to United Nations central control was carved into stone by the Congress in 1961, i.e., Public Law 87-297.

"The lineage of Illuminism [yes, professor, there really is an Illuminati-driven cabal operating through high-government (and military) offices, here and abroad] is today within reach of their ancient goal of world government via the lofty United Nations organization. The United Nations is, without question, the prime instrument for covertly imposing a one-world government upon the people."

Well, professor, I'm almost finished.

Are you still a bit sleepy, or are you now wide awake?

Colonel Roberts continues, tying the Council of Foreign Relations to one-world machinations, explaining that it espouses the goal of "destroying the Constitution and sovereignty of the United States." And he quotes an anti-U.N. congressman, Usher L. Burdick: "To bring this country into line to accept world government, many things must be done by the United Nations and her agencies, such as UNESCO [keep in mind that President George W. Bush has agreed to continue funding UNESCO with taxpayers' money]. First of all, love of country on the part of the people of the United States is found by these conspirators to be very deep and hard to destroy. Here UNESCO comes into play, and out it goes among the school children of the United States with specially trained teachers from Columbia University who teach these children that love of countryinterferes with a loyalty to a world organization; that they must be fitted, educationally and temperamentally, to forget love of their own country and transfer their loyalty to the world organization[think of the open-borders DIVERISTY and WE-ARE-THE-WORLD movements these past decades, professor]."

"The international cartelist structure through which the collateral descendants of eighteenth-century Illuminists control the United States government and its people today [he's referring here to Marxist and Zionist power-/money-brokers in the West] is represented by the subversive Council on Foreign Relations...[which] has been exposed by extensive research and much testimony as being actively engaged in destroying the Constitution and sovereignty of the United States of America...[and] has managed to force many of its members into positions of power in both political parties...

As in the days of the Jocobine Society, control of government for subversive purposes is achieved by securing covert control of the nation's money. The power of the purse was transferred from the Congress to the hands of INTERNATIONALISTS [my emphasis; and think of internationalists Bush & Company today, professor] by passage of the Federal Reserve Act of December 23, 1913. Since that date, the members of the Council on Foreign Relations, whose Regents are holders of the Class 'A' stock of the Federal Reserve System, have dictated the course of the American destiny and the future of her people [are you or Rush a member of the CFR?]."

Regarding the Federal Reserve, Colonel Roberts quotes Congressman Louis T McFadden:

"...We have in this country one of the most corrupt institutions the world has ever known. I refer to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve BanksWhen the Fed (Federal Reserve Act) was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world system was being set up here...A super-state controlled by international bankers, and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure! Every effort has been made by the Fed to conserve its powers, but the truth is--the Fed has usurped the Government. It controls everything here and it controls our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will...I charge them," Mr. McFadden declared in his bill directing investigation of the Federal Reserve, "...with the crime of having treasonably conspired and acted against the peace and security of the U.S. and with having treasonably conspired to destroy constitutional Government in the U.S."

Roberts continues with his own observations:

"The names of the chief conspirators, who pose as the protectors and benefactors of mankind while secretly furthering nihilistic objectives, adorn the rosters of honor-laden organizations and societies in America and in Europe...Many Americans are convinced that these political madmen must be isolated and neutralized if the American social structure is to escape extinction, and if our children are to survive and serve as the living foundations of a free civilization."


"The gradual approach to CONTROL OF WORLD TRADE [my emphasis, professor] as an objective of world government under the United Nations was overtly made by the financial-industrial cartel, via GATT, in 1947."

Would that you and Rush and the rest of your "free-trade" compatriots could extrapolate - could THINK. (or maybe it's a matter of abandoning treasonous thinking?) - you'd PATRIOTICALLY work hard and warn your fellow citizens that NAFTA and CAFTA are sons of GATT; and, ergo, treaties that the INTERNATIONALISTIC conspirators use to destroy America and install their tyrannical, fascistic, socialistic, communistic, corporatistic one-world government [yes, professor Williams, the THIRD-WAY COMPROMISE joins all those bad political camps together--against the Founders and Framers' pursuit of goodness and truth in this nation-state America, effected and once-protected by their WE-THE-PEOPLE Constitution].

Would that you and Rush and other weak-minded (or conspiratorial-minded?) rightists were not an Iron Curtain against the truth about those CAFTA- and NAFTA- and GATT-boosters, separating the citizenry from any knowledge about their actual EVIL-CABAL-DRIVEN purposes, then, maybe...

Sound the alarm, professor and Rush and all the rest of you free-traders!, before there is no hope for Western democracies' recovery from this MARXIST- and ZIONIST- and CORPORATIST-driven decline towards HELL-ON-EARTH globalism.

Or, are you still snoozing--or are you a conspiratorial-minded booster for one-world government and Global Economic Socialism?


-Deacon Elurby

P.S. On second thought, and in my humble opinion, it is far too late to turn it around. So go back to sleep...and my apologies for disturbing your slumber.


Friday, August 05, 2005

Dear Congressman, About Your CAFTA Vote ...

Brilliant, hard-hitting article by Phyllis Spivey belongs on blogs everywhere.

It is becoming clear to me that we have to stop pulling punches. Things are coming down to the wire too fast, and we no longer have the luxury of always being "polite." At public meetings, etc., we have to hit our Senators and Representatives with the real and existing threat to the U.S. as an independent nation. Our sovereignty has already been compromised severely by NAFTA tribunals and by our entanglements with the World Trade Organization which I learned just this morning was able to overrule a U.S. court in Massachusetts (details later).

Civil disobedience is not out of the question once the power elites start their push for the FTAA in Congress. Watchdog groups should be prepared to assemble to ensure that the Federal Government plays by its rules during the vote ("15 minutes" means 15 minutes!). We should be prepared to be arrested, if that is what it takes. I fully believe there are going to be political prisoners within what used to be America's borders before this is over.

On to the Phyllis Spivey article. Note the concluding section at the end. I intend to have a copy on hand for our 4th District Representative, Bob Inglis.


Phyllis Spivey
August 5, 2005

It was a sad day for America. Some say it was the day America died, for the events of July 28 portend the end of America as a sovereign, independent nation. And you, Congressman, who swore to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, betrayed your country in the disgraceful post-midnight, vote-buying debacle that delivered the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA).

It’s not as if you didn’t know what the passage of CAFTA would mean for the United States. The agreement, after all, has been widely touted as an extension of NAFTA and we all know what that has brought: drugs, gangs, disease, and a never-ending invasion of illegal job seekers and dependents, not to mention record trade deficits.

CAFTA-crats even followed the NAFTA script, making the same deceptive promises they made for NAFTA eleven years ago. NAFTA will bring greater prosperity to member countries, they assured. It will knock down trade barriers and create expanded markets for U.S. goods. Sure, we might lose a few low-paying manufacturing jobs, but those would be replaced with higher-paying, better quality service sector jobs.

Sounds ridiculous in the face of reality, doesn’t it, Congressman? We’ve watched NAFTA suck up nearly a million U.S. jobs even as the trade deficit with Canada and Mexico ballooned to a whopping $111 billion last year. And, how about those claims that NAFTA would raise Mexican living standards and keep workers at home?

The ink on the accord was barely dry when Mexico declared bankruptcy and the peso collapsed; Mexico sank into its worst depression in 60 years and U.S. taxpayers underwrote a mega-billion dollar bail-out. Turning a flood of illegal border-crossers into a tsunami that shows no sign of abating, NAFTA has literally moved the Third World, with all of its problems, into the First World, overwhelming U.S. law enforcement, job markets, schools, and hospitals.

Perhaps you remember, Congressman, how NAFTA zealots embraced Mexico’s (then) president Carlos Salinas de Gortari, praising him for reversing socialism and unleashing a market-driven economy. Post NAFTA, they went mum as he went on the lam from murder and drug charges, and slunk into exile in Cuba.

Mexico’s current presidente, whining and petulant one minute, demanding and arrogant the next, is so disliked by his own people that his political party currently rates third with the electorate. Pollsters say the people’s main concerns are the economy, unemployment, insecurity and the influence of narcotraffickers, all things NAFTA was supposed to fix.

Most of Mexico’s banks are owned by foreign interests now, the Mexican economy is still in the tank, and Mexican peasants are poor as ever. Humiliatingly dependent on U.S. dollar remittances from Mexicans residing in the U.S., the NAFTA-emboldened Mexican government not only encourages illegal border-crossers, it helps them get here and, once here, insists that U.S. policies favor them. And many now come carrying drugs.

Today – as you surely know, Mr. Congressman – Mexico is little more than a narco-state, responsible for 92% of the cocaine sold in the U.S. in 2004 and wracked by warring drug cartels. Law enforcement officers on both sides of the border are increasingly attacked by paramilitary units, aka "Zetas," escorting drug shipments into the U.S. and reportedly offering a $50,000 bounty on Border Patrol agents and police officers.

Rampant lawlessness throughout Mexico prompted a U.S. State Department travel advisory, warning Americans about the violence; it has just been renewed. In Nuevo Laredo, the busiest border entry into the U.S. and where neither the military nor the federal police have been able to stop the killing, the U.S. ambassador announced – two days after your vote for the border-opening CAFTA – that he was closing the consulate for security reasons.

Congressman, the drug gangs in Nuevo Laredo are fighting for control of the lucrative route into the U.S. CAFTA promises to enhance it.

In fact, CAFTA will build on all the problems produced by NAFTA and extend its failures to the poverty-laden countries of Central America and the Dominican Republic. But all these things you know, Congressman, just as you know that modern trade agreements are less about trade than about redistributing people, power, and wealth.

Still, you voted for CAFTA, and it was approved by a paltry two votes. Were you, like many of your colleagues, bought off or blackmailed? Or did you simply decide to cast your lot with the corporate elite and the international socialists intent on destroying American sovereignty?

One thing more: don’t ever again tell us you’re against illegal immigration, or that you believe in a truly free market, or that you stand for a strong, independent America. Your CAFTA vote tells us everything we need to know about you.

A Disgusted American

Dear Reader: If you agree with the above letter, clip and send to your member of Congress, addressed as follows: The Honorable ________________, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20515.

(Southern California Congressmen who voted for CAFTA: Congressmen Dana Rohrabacher, Ed Royce, Christopher Cox, Gary Miller, Jerry Lewis, Darrell Issa, David Drier, Mary Bono, Ken Calvert)

Related Articles:
The Official CAFTA Vote Story
The "Selling Out" of America
CAFTA: How Elected Officials Betrayed America

© 2005 Phyllis Spivey - All Rights Reserved

Phyllis is a researcher and freelance writer specializing in political analysis. She has been published in Lew Rockwell’s Rothbard-Rockwell Report, The Welch Report (on-line), The Orange County Register and is a regular contributer to, The Sentinel Weekly News, Corona, California. She holds a Christian worldview and writes primarily on trade, economic, education, environmental, and immigration issues.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?