Thursday, March 08, 2007

HATE CRIMES LEGISLATION IS BACK






HATE CRIMES LEGISLATION BACK






Hardhitting Patriot Preacher Warns Of Fresh Threat From New Congress

By John Tiffany
On Jan. 5, liberal Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee (DTexas) reintroduced so-called “hate crimes” legislation in Congress. The bill is numbered H.R. 254. “Hate” crimes laws—the brainchild of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith—are found in states and locales across America, but this new measure in Congress would enact a federal hate crime statute.Essentially, hate crimes laws would add additional criminal penalties upon anyone convicted of a crime against an individual when that crime, according to the proposed legislation, is “motivated by the actual or perceived race, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability of the victim.”In short, although there are already laws against shooting someone and killing them—it’s called murder—if a perpetrator is found to have committed that crime because of an alleged bias against the victim, it would now be considered a federal crime because of that bias. There will be at least an additional 10 year federal penalty applied, even if— for example—someone only punched another person. If death results in the course of such a so-called “hate” crime being committed, a life sentence in prison is provided for under this federal legislation.This is “thought control” legislation and a piece of police-state-style social engineering disguised in the mask of “fighting hate.” And it constitutes not just a toe in the door, but a veritable jackboot, for, in other countries where the ADL and its allied groups have forced the enactment of hate crimes laws, legislation outlawing even criticism of minorities has traditionally followed.The new hate crimes measure is entitled “The David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act”—or, as it’s being popularly called by its proponents, “David’s Law.” The law is named in memory of a young man who was brutally murdered, sodomized with a lead pipe by his attacker who apparently committed the crime against Ray because Ray was a homosexual.A hate crimes measure was approved by the House of Representatives in the previous Congress, despite the fact that Republicans were in control of the House at that time. And what many do not realize is that the single use of a racial pejorative, for example, such as the so-called “n” word, can be construed as “evidence” of a “hate” crime, even though nasty words are often traded by people engaged in simple fisticuffs.Or, if a black youth, fighting in the street with a Latino schoolmate, used a racial slur offensive to Latinos, that black youth could be held responsible for a federal “hate” crime if he struck the Latino in the course of using the inappropriate slur.Rev. Ted Pike, who has been spearheading opposition to the federal hate crimes laws—and who has done so successfully in the past—points out that, in other countries, socalled hate crimes legislation has been the toe in the doorway for additional “thought control” legislation aimed at limiting freedom of speech in general.For example, if an individual, citing Biblical exhortations against homosexuality, is found to have offended the sensibilities of homosexuals, then that person may be punished for having done so. This is happening today in Canada, in France and in any number of other countries where “antihate” legislation is in force. Or, if someone criticizes the policies of the Anti-Defamation League or the state of Israel, they may be found to have offended Jewish supporters of Israel and therefore punished for having done so. The fact that Arab-American organizations have repeatedly joined the ADL-led chorus demanding hate-crimes legislation in America is rather thought-provoking, considering the fact that Arab Americans who frequently criticize Israel would be among the first targeted by the kind of thought control legislation that has traditionally come in the wake of the kind of “hate crimes” legislation that the ADL is now trying to have enacted at the federal level in the United States.Now, in the judgment of Pike, because the Democrats are in control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, there will be an even greater push to get the legislation enacted.That’s why Pike is urging those who oppose this insidious legislation to redouble their efforts to block H.R. 254 so that it never reaches the floor of the House. H.R. 254 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, and Pike suggests that people contact all members of the committee and urge that they oppose the legislation.Pike suggests that you keep your message short and to the point: “Please don’t vote for the David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act, H.R.254. Hate laws have taken away free speech in Canada and many European countries.” You can write all of the representatives in question (as well as your own representative and every member of the House) in care of the following general address: U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC 20515. To telephone members of the House, you may use the regular number for the U.S. Capitol switchboard at 1-(202) 224-3121. Or there is a toll free number you may use: 1-877-851-6437.
(Issue #8, February 19, 2007)
Please make a donation to American Free Press
Not Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003


Source: http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/hate_crimes_legislation_back.html



F.Y.I.:
Sheila Jackson-Lee:
Member of the U.S. House of Representativesfrom Texas's 18th district
In office1995–present
Preceded by
Craig Washington
Succeeded by
Incumbent
Born
January 12, 1950New York City, New York
Political party
Democratic
Spouse
Elywn Lee
Religion
Seventh Day Adventist *****?????

PURPOSE-DRIVEN STRIFE


Pastor Rick Warren is the author of "The Purpose Driven Life," which has sold more than thirty million copies. (AP Photo )






Rick Warren and Purpose-Driven Strife

Pastor's Unconventional Approach Inspires Some, Alienates Others


By MARTIN BASHIR and DEBORAH APTON
March 7, 2007 — Pastor Rick Warren of Saddleback Church in California may be the best-known pastor on the planet. His book, "The Purpose Driven Life," has been translated into 56 languages and has sold 30 million copies.
However, the idea behind "purpose driven" is not something Pastor Warren takes credit for creating.

Related: 'Contemporary Worship' OK?

"The history of this idea — 'purpose driven' — is not something I thought up in the first place," Warren explains. "There have been hundreds of books throughout history that talked about worship, fellowship, discipleship, ministry and evangelism."
But while these five purposes are biblically based, there is no denying that Warren has popularized these purposes around the world. He says he has trained 400,000 pastors worldwide to start purpose-driven churches. But it's Warren's untraditional use of the Christian language that may be the reason for his enormous following.
"I like to teach theology to people without telling them it's theology and without using theological terms," he said. "Simple does not mean simplistic. Simple does not mean superficial. Simple means it's clear."
But Warren's "outside in" approach to church growth is now causing rumblings. This past fall, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled "'Purpose driven' methods divide: Some evangelicals object to 'Madison Avenue' marketing of churches that follow author's advice." In North Wilkesboro, N.C., one church exemplifies this schism.
Tom Bartlett is the pastor of Celebration Church — now a purpose-driven church. When he arrived in 2004, the church was more traditional and was in a poor state.
Contemporary Worship
Bartlett said that when he first came to Celebration Church, the congregation was small and shrinking.
"There were 40 people my first Sunday, and I think the church had gotten down to about … 25 to 30 in attendance."

It was a small showing. But then Bartlett began to apply Warren's five strategies for church growth. He started with contemporary worship and, like in hundreds of other purpose-driven churches nationwide, out went the hymns and in came the drums and guitars. Within two years, the congregation at Celebration Church grew from 30 congregants to 300.
"We've taken a particular style that we think reaches the people that we're trying to reach," Bartlett said. "There's a generation of people that we're not reaching by and large. And predominantly, they're younger, and we see them leaving the church in droves."

But not everybody in Bartlett's congregation was excited about the change. One of the first people to leave Bartlett's church was a retired pastor, Joe Owings.
"Their music took on a much more contemporary effect — pop music," said Owings. "[Bartlett] began to use, basically, the 'Saddleback Valley approach' to church growth and so forth. It was during that time that we began to get uncomfortable with the music. The emphasis seemed to be more on younger people and a new generation, and we just felt like we did not fit in."
'Self-Help Ministry'
Warren says on his Web site that "Purpose driven is not about a particular worship style." But many who follow Warren's approach tend to jettison traditional forms of worship.
And what about those people who don't want to hear guitar music, who prefer a quiet, reverent worship?
"Well, that's why there's different churches for different folks," said Bartlett. "And we realize that we're probably not going to reach every person."
But beyond ageism, there's more serious criticism that's now leveled at Warren and his purpose-driven churches: that the fundamental doctrines of Christianity are being mixed with popular psychology to help produce an evangelical version of "self-help."


"Well, the preaching was very much topical preaching," Owings said about the church he parted from in North Carolina. "It tended to deal with how to have a better marriage, or how to do this or how to do this. It was more self-help type ministry."
When asked if he believed that some churches had become pop psychology centers focusing too much on self-esteem and well-being, Owings said, "Yes. It's merchandising. … It tends to use psychological techniques. And it quotes more Freud, maybe, than it does the Bible."

It's Not About You?
Warren said that there is a danger in merging Christianity with psychology.
"Absolutely, there's a danger," he said. "Because what it does is feed this self-centeredness … I say, it's not about you. It's all about God. And one of the biggest myths is that all mega churches are alike. Well, they're not."
Warren also admitted that it can be difficult to strike a balance between the concerns of modern life and a focus on the Bible.
"When you're preaching and teaching the good news, you walk a very fine line where you're taking the world of the Bible and the world of today, and you're building a bridge between those [worlds]," he explained. "Now, it's easy to be biblical if you don't care about being relevant … And it's easy to be relevant if you don't care about being biblical. I happen to want to be both."
And so does Bartlett, who, at a recent church service, preached practically about love and giving out life skills to married couples. Bartlett firmly believes in using modern methods to convey old truths — that God wants us to live an abundant life.


"I think the problem most theologians have [with us] is that we don't use the big theological words. But we talk about the terms of repentance, we talk about the terms of justification and sanctification," he said. "And so we may not use the theological terms, but the concepts are conveyed in a way that people can understand."
Paying the Price

So the debate goes on: Is the purpose-driven method simplifying Christianity in exchange for church growth? The founder of the movement says the conflicts and divisions are inevitable costs.
"You know, I wouldn't intentionally want to cause pain to any person or to anyone," Warren said. "Am I willing to put up with pain so the people [that] Jesus Christ died for can come to know him? Absolutely."
Warren said that if some churches may suffer as a result of applying some of those principles, then "that's the price."
"Every church has to make the decision. … Is it going to live for itself, or is it going to live for the world that Jesus died for?"
When asked if he thinks that some of these splits are actually because Christians themselves are indulgent and refusing to change, Warren said, "Oh, without a doubt."
And when asked if he blames them, he replied, "I do blame them."


Wednesday, March 07, 2007

HYPObureauCRISY














HOW WILL THEY BE REMEMBERED?


THE BRAWLER & THE BLOOD-CLOT?



HERE ARE JUST A FEW TID-BITS FOR WHICH THEY ARE ALREADY FAMOUS:

WMD'S: WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRACTION'S.

WALTER REED ARMY HOSPITAL IN SHAMBLES, YET, $100 BILLION MORE REQUESTED TO FURTHER "FIX-THINGS" IN IRAQ.


REVOLVING DOOR OF COMBAT DUTY ASSIGNMENTS IN IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN FOR REGULAR ARMED FORCES, THE RESERVES, AND THE NATIONAL GUARD. ONE TOUR OF COMBAT DUTY, JUST ISN'T ENOUGH!

WE GOT SADAM HUSSEIN, BUT, WHERE'S BIN LADEN? THE SUPPOSED CULPRIT OF 9-11.


FINALLY BY:

"WE HAVE NOTHING, BUT, FEAR ITSELF!" THE ADMINISTRATION'S CREDO.



P.S. DICK CHENEY, JUST LIKE JOSEPH RATZINGER, PLAYED A LEADING PART IN SEEKING OUT A CANDIDATE FOR THEIR RESPECTIVE OFFICES. HUH? AH, THAT'S JUST A PHENOMENAL COINCIDENCE.

COUEY GUILTY!


Couey Guilty In Jessica Lunsford's Death

POSTED: 12:20 pm CST March 7, 2007
UPDATED: 3:13 pm CST March 7, 2007



MIAMI -- A Florida jury has convicted John Couey of the sexual battery and murder of 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford.

Live: Couey Murder Trial Verdict http://www.ketv.com/video/11195083/index.html


The jury convicted Couey of first-degree murder, burglary, kidnap and sexual batter in the case.


Prosecutors said he buried Lunsford alive in trash bags.

In closing arguments, prosecutors told the jury the physical evidence against John Couey is overwhelming. They said the evidence, and the man's own admissions, are enough to convict him.

Couey is charged with first-degree murder, sexual battery on a child, kidnapping and burglary. He admitted to investigators shortly after his arrest that he committed the crime, but the confession was thrown out because he did not have a lawyer present as he had requested.

Couey's defense attorney pointed to unanswered questions in the case and suggested the focus on Couey was the result of media and community pressure.

Distributed by Internet Broadcasting Systems, Inc. The Associated Press contributed to this report. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Source: http://www.ketv.com/tu/5naDNkG9e.html

JESUS, ALIVE AND WELL IN HOUSTON?


http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2928479 Click and watch ABC " The Outsiders" Report.


Jesus Might Be Alive and Well in Houston


Jose de Jesus Drinks, Smokes and Claims to He's the Second Coming


By JIM AVILA
March 6, 2007— A few weeks ago, in a tattoo parlor in the hip art deco district of Miami Beach, people were lining up to get "666" tattooed on their bodies, and then smiling through their pain. But these are not devil worshipers. They see themselves as devout followers of Jesus Christ. But the major difference that separates them from other Christians around the world is that the Jesus Christ they worship is alive and well — and living in the suburbs of Houston.


Daniel Alvarez Doubts 'Second Coming'

These people belong to a new movement devoted to a man who calls himself the Second Coming of Jesus, and also claims the title of Antichrist, which to him is the next incarnation of Jesus on earth, not an evil being. To show their devotion, some followers ink themselves with "666." One follower said, "I just want to make sure it's visible, that everyone knows my life belongs to the man." Another said, "I want everyone to know I'm one of the antichrists."
They and others like them are fervently devoted, some say fanatically, to a 60-year-old Puerto Rican whose legal name, to his pleasure, is Jose de Jesus, or "Jose of Jesus." He counts followers in more than 30 countries; some say they total more than a million. But where does this man, who claims to be God, live? Not where you might expect: He resides with his wife in a suburban community just outside Houston.
The Birth of 'Jesus'
When asked to explain who he is, de Jesus responds: "Jesus Christ, man, the second manifestation, the Second Coming of Christ." He acknowledges that "it bothers a lot of people" that he calls himself Jesus.
De Jesus' beginning was anything but grand. Born in Puerto Rico, de Jesus grew up poor, living in government housing. He stole for a living to pay for his teenage heroin addiction and admits to eight felony charges that put him behind bars for nine months.
Like many, de Jesus says he was born again in prison. From there he moved to the United States, where he became involved in church youth groups, and eventually a minister in Boston. But it was a vision, de Jesus says, that turned him from man of God to being God.


"The same spirit that was in Jesus of Nazareth, and the same spirit is in me. He came to me. He [integrated] with my person in 1973." de Jesus says this happened when two angels came to him in a vision, and while he admits there's no real way for him to prove that he's Christ, he says his followers aren't asking for proof.
"So you tell the millions of followers I have that … this guy is a liar. You know what are they going to say? Is that I prefer his lies than what religion gave me. I prefer, see because when they believe in what I teach, they activate angels in their life."

'Jesus Drank Wine Because He Didn't Have Dewar's'
His followers do seem happy. They greet him with mariachi bands at airports and often collapse in tears when they see him preach. But when he speaks to them, it is without theatrics. No holy rolling, no healing — it's a pretty straightforward lesson in the fundamentals of what he believes. And it's an upbeat, no-fault, sin-free message. This self-proclaimed Jesus does not believe in sin, hell, the devil or damnation of any kind.
"Before the presence of God, there's no more sin," he says. And with no sin, de Jesus teaches his followers, there's no devil and no need for prayer, because after Jesus of Nazareth died and was resurrected, one can literally do no wrong in God's eyes.
De Jesus says things like murder and theft are crimes, but not sins, and that people are punished for these crimes on earth. "Heaven doesn't have anything to do with your behavior," he says.
And de Jesus practices what he preaches: He loves women and has been married twice. He smokes cigarettes and while enjoying a glass of scotch, he says, "Jesus drank wine because he didn't have Dewar's."
De Jesus doesn't mind that his ministry often gathers in the corner tavern. "Like my former, Jesus of Nazareth, he used to go to places like this and the religious people, they used to criticize him. … I'm just doing the same kind of thing."
But he does draw the line: no drugs, and he says no getting drunk.

"Jesus never got drunk and I never get drunk. I enjoy life. I enjoy everything that I do."

'The Super Raza'
De Jesus has come a long way from Puerto Rico, and those rough times. Today his believers give money freely. And where does all the money go? Joane de Jesus, the daughter of the man called Jesus, is the official accountant for the ministry. She says, "What you see as luxuries are gifts that members have given him. They're just very grateful, and they want to give him gifts."
There are no rules in de Jesus' church. Anything goes when you follow "Jesus of Suburbia." But he is serious about being the Second Coming of Christ. And along with his followers, he also has many detractors. Some who think he's the devil incarnate and others who think he's just a charlatan and a con man. One of the things that makes him so hated, so controversial, is that he preaches the Catholic Church is evil, and his followers burn pictures of the pope and hold protests outside churches.
And what about the children who grow up in his movement believing that Jesus is alive and well? He calls them the "super raza" or the super race, because they are being brought up pure and with no stain of false religion on them.
The de Jesus ministry is growing, with big followings in Venezuela, Columbia, even Cuba, and the man who believes he is the Second Coming of Christ is now turning his attention to America.
"Miami is the bridge for all nations," he said. "That's where Hispanics are, and then eventually I'm going to find a lot of beautiful English-speaking people who will want to believe in me and I'm going to have millions of them."
Associate Producer Caroline Borge contributed to this report.


Tuesday, March 06, 2007

INTERNET DATING-IRAQI STYLE

Internet Dating-Iraqi Style

March 5th, 2007
By: Nicole Belle @ 12:44 PM - PST


(guest blogged by Nonny Mouse)



I sometimes feel so frustrated with all the news from Iraq - Sunnis killing Shia, Shia killing Sunnis, everyone killing Americans, eighteen Iraqi policemen executed over what may or may not be a trumped up rape charge, then two more families who were trying to work for peace and negotiations all murdered, another bomb in a market place killing children, bodies found bound and shot in the head dumped on the roadside, more and more and more, never ending, just one giant mindless bloodbath that no one seems to be able to do anything about - and I can't help it; I start to think there must be something wrong with 'those people'. I know better, I really do - but an irrational part of me just growls inside to hand all these homicidal maniacs guns, lock the doors and not come back until they're done murdering each other.
Then I read this, and it shocks me back to reality -
Young Iraqis, trapped in their homes in the mean streets of this bloodstained capital, are increasingly turning to the Internet to chat with relatives, hang out with friends and search for love.
Such virtual relationships offer a refuge of sorts from numbing isolation and fear during a time of staggering violence. But all too often they are mirages - a seductive reminder of a life now tantalizingly out of reach for most.
There are so, so many ordinary, decent, kind people trapped by a well-armed and fanatical minority, as well as well-meaning American troops exacerbating the situation just by being there. Young men and women who just want what everyone wants - to meet someone nice, fall in love, maybe even get married, have kids, grow old together. They're normal people, in an abnormal world, and it makes my heart ache.
It also makes me realize something; we need more of these stories. We've had so much on the blood and the death and the violence that we're becoming desensitized to it, to the point where it's just become a blur of faceless, characterless crowds. We need to start seeing the individuals, people just like us, talking face to face, even if that means the same way these young men and women 'meet' each other - on the Internet.
Does anyone know if there's an Internet chat room where individual Americans could go and talk on-line to Iraqis? Maybe even… webcam to webcam?

'BLOODY SUNDAY' REVISITED

'
AP file photos
Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York descended on Selma, Ala., Sunday to help commemorate Bloody Sunday, a 1965 march that became a seminal moment in the civil rights movement.

'Bloody Sunday' draws 2 front-runners
Updated
document.write(niceDate('3/5/2007 12:43 AM'));
1d 16h ago

By Antoinette Konz, USA TODAY
SELMA, Ala. — Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, front-runners for the Democratic nomination, took their campaigns to Selma on Sunday to mark the 42nd anniversary of "Bloody Sunday" and to vie for the support of black voters.
Obama, who would be the first black president if elected, said the demonstrators who were bludgeoned by state troopers on March 7, 1965, during a voters' rights march paved the way for his run for the White House.
"Because of what they endured, they led a people out of bondage," Obama, who represents Illinois in the U.S. Senate, told a standing-room-only crowd at Brown Chapel AME Church. "It's because of them that the next generation has not been so bloody. It's because of them I stand before you today."
New York's Sen. Clinton voiced much the same theme in a speech three blocks away at First Baptist Church, which also was packed.
"The Voting Rights Act gave more Americans from every corner of this nation a chance to live out their dreams," Clinton said. "Today, it is giving Sen. Obama the chance to run for president, and by its logic and spirit, it is giving the same chance to Gov. Bill Richardson, a Hispanic, and, yes, it is giving me that chance, too."

Obama, Clinton, Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., former president Bill Clinton and hundreds of others participated in the ceremonial march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge, scene of Bloody Sunday, with the Clintons on one end of a row of dignitaries and Obama near the other end. It was the first time the former president has campaigned with Hillary Clinton since she launched her bid.
Andra Gillespie, political science professor at Emory University, said that while Clinton and Obama were in Selma to take part in anniversary events, they also were there to capture the black vote.
"Alabama has a very large black Democratic voting base," she said, "and for either candidate to ignore that would be dangerous."
Contributing: Advertiser reporters Jamie Kizzire and Alvin Benn. Konz reports daily for the Montgomery Advertiser.

NORTH AMERICAN UNION TO REPLACE USA?




North American Union to Replace USA?



by (more by this author)
Posted 05/19/2006 ETUpdated 06/30/2006 ET


President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy.Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.The blueprint President Bush is following was laid out in a 2005 report entitled "Building a North American Community" published by the left-of-center Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR report connects the dots between the Bush administration's actual policy on illegal immigration and the drive to create the North American Union:
At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action. We welcome this important development and offer this report to add urgency and specific recommendations to strengthen their efforts.
What is the plan? Simple, erase the borders. The plan is contained in a "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" little noticed when President Bush and President Fox created it in March 2005:
In March 2005, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopted a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), establishing ministerial-level working groups to address key security and economic issues facing North America and setting a short deadline for reporting progress back to their governments. President Bush described the significance of the SPP as putting forward a common commitment "to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security." The policy framework articulated by the three leaders is a significant commitment that will benefit from broad discussion and advice. The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized.To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary." Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America.
The perspective of the CFR report allows us to see President Bush's speech to the nation as nothing more than public relations posturing and window dressing. No wonder President Vincente Fox called President Bush in a panic after the speech. How could the President go back on his word to Mexico by actually securing our border? Not to worry, President Bush reassured President Fox. The National Guard on the border were only temporary, meant to last only as long until the public forgets about the issue, as has always been the case in the past.The North American Union plan, which Vincente Fox has every reason to presume President Bush is still following, calls for the only border to be around the North American Union -- not between any of these countries. Or, as the CFR report stated:
The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.
Discovering connections like this between the CFR recommendations and Bush administration policy gives credence to the argument that President Bush favors amnesty and open borders, as he originally said. Moreover, President Bush most likely continues to consider groups such as the Minuteman Project to be "vigilantes," as he has also said in response to a reporter's question during the March 2005 meeting with President Fox. Why doesn’t President Bush just tell the truth? His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union. The administration has no intent to secure the border, or to enforce rigorously existing immigration laws. Securing our border with Mexico is evidently one of the jobs President Bush just won't do. If a fence is going to be built on our border with Mexico, evidently the Minuteman Project is going to have to build the fence themselves. Will President Bush protect America's sovereignty, or is this too a job the Minuteman Project will have to do for him?

Mr. Corsi is the author of several books, including "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (along with John O'Neill), "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" (along with Craig R. Smith), "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians," and most recently, "Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America's Borders." He will soon author a book on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America and the prospect of the forthcoming North American Union.

Monday, March 05, 2007

TORTURE AND CHILD ABUSE


Torture And Child Abuse Documented By Whistle Blower

In The Drug Free America Programs



According to Jeff Fisher: "Drug Free America employs absolutely horrific methods on its victims, it receives funding for its projects from AIPAC, and has criminal leaders and players extending to the very top of the Catholic Church of Rome." 20 Jan 2007
By Greg Szymanski

Jeff Fisher came forward Thursday on The Investigative Journal radio show on The Republic Broadcasting Network ( www.rbnlive.com), detailing widespread nationwide child abuse taking place under the cover of the Drug Free America program.

Fisher learned of the abuse while working as a part time teacher at the Baypoint School in Florida, the same school ousted Florida Republican Congressman Mark Foley worked as an administrator, according to Fisher.

"Drug Free America employs absolutely horrific methods on its victims, it receives funding for its projects from AIPAC, and has criminal leaders and players extending to the very top of the Catholic Church of Rome," said Fisher.
He added that Foley was aware of the abuse at Baypoint and did nothing to stop it, adding more headaches for the former Congressman who was embroiled in a scandal which broke in September 2006.

The Foley scandal centered on emails and sexually explicit instant messages sent by Foley to young men who had formally served as congressional aides. The scandal led to Foley's resignation from Congress on Sept. 29, 2006.

Besides Foley, Fisher implicated former Ambassador to Italy, Mel Sembler, with allowing the abuse to continue at Baypoint as well as other locations across the United States born and bred by "The Straights", which were controversial drug treatment centers run by Sembler, now known as Drug Free America.

For many years virtually nothing was known about Sembler in America, but behind the scenes many people have been seeking to put him behind bars for widespread child abuse documented by many families involved with "The Straights."

For 17 years, Sembler founded and ran "Straight, Inc." a network of group homes for drug addicts, whose severe methods have led to numerous legal and civil suits on the part of ex-patients.

However, according to an article appearing in The Peace Report in March of 2005 his drug-free program was steeped in controversy. The article had this to say:

"According to dozens of charges brought to court, in Sembler's centers the patients were beaten, deprived of food, and forced to sit in the same position all day. There are instances of some clients being made to sit in their own feces, urine, and vomit. Some girls were even forced to sit in their own menstrual blood. Older members were encouraged to spit in newer members' faces, and patients were compelled to recount their most humiliating sexual experiences. Superiors ordered senior patients to abuse the newcomers. "Straight does something very close to psychic homicide," says Marge Robertson, former head of the local section of the American Civil Liberties Union, speaking about the Cincinnati center. "We're talking about the same abuses and torture that provoked scandal at Abu Ghraib," Fager insists, "At the Straight centers, that conduct was the norm."

"Some of the charges of mistreatment lead to convictions and the paying out of large settlements. One after another, the Straight group homes finally closed in 1993. Some of the directors subsequently opened new centers with different names but similar methods, but it was the end of the largest drug rehabilitation program ever founded in the United States, a business that generated almost 100 million dollars. Although its ending was inglorious, Sembler - already nominated ambassador to Australia by Bush père - escaped virtually untouched. Shopping centers built by the Mel Sembler Company continued to sprout up across the United States, especially in Florida. One of them, in Saint Petersburg, was accused of racism by the local Afroamerican community because of the methods used by security guards to target black youths and because, out of 450 employees, only one was black.

"For the most part, Sembler is known only to those who have come into contact with his group homes and shopping centers. Except for a brief appearance during the Sgrena affair, he makes little news, just another one of the many US ambassadors throughout the world. But recently he achieved a distinction which earned him an article in the Washington Post, when he bought a stupendous Roman building for the embassy for the expansion of diplomatic offices. The ambassador chose to name the newly-acquired building after himself: the Mel Sembler Building. For the first time in American history, a diplomatic building has been named after a sitting ambassador."

According to Fisher's comments on Greg Szymanski's radio show Thursday, he said the abuse is still going on under the Drug Free America program, being covered up by high level Washington politicians, high level Vatican priests and law enforcement.

"My life has been threatened just for trying to get at the bottom of the child abuse and for trying to expose the true perpetrators," said Fisher. " I have presented solid evidence to every Congressman and Senator on Capitol Hill but nobody wants to touch Sembler with a 10 foot pole. While the politicians, including Vatican priests continue to cover everything up, children are being tortured and abused, some even killed."

In Fischer's radio interview, he illustrated the following main points:

--Baypoint School and Growing Together were drug programs, born and bred by "The Straights", a controversial drug-treatment center that later became Drug Free America.
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Greg/0701/20070118_Thu_Greg1.mp3

Drug Free America employs absolutely horrific methods on its victims, it receives funding for its projects from AIPAC, and has criminal leaders and players extending to the very top of the Catholic Church of Rome.

--The Jesuit order, especially their Zionist operatives, control and operate Drug Rehab Programs which are used for crimes so horrific that only seeing the evidence makes you know they exist.
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Greg/0701/20070118_Thu_Greg1.mp3

--For over 50 years and counting, the Jesuit order and Catholic Guardians have covered up Mel Sembler's knight-hood in the Knights of Malta as well as his vicious and terrible crimes against innocent children and victims all over the schools.

--When justice is served, they will all be put behind bars. Taking down the DEA-sponsored Drug Free America Foundation would totally destroy the Jesuit order, it has all their worst witches and priests in Authority positions from the bottom on up.
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Greg07.html

--Joe Klock is just a taste of the horrible people that have taken over drug-rehabs, destroyed society and corrupted every part of the electorate. Dark students of the Synanon Church, Charlie Crist, Joseph Klock, Father Cassian and Father Sheridan are among the most evil people in America who are alive today and in positions of authority.

--Cardinal Egan of New York continues to help them cover it up. Further research and study will leave you left with no doubt in your mind, that this is the Anti-Christ. And the Pope leads the Anti-Christ church of the damned. For even bringing these terrible crimes up, Jeff Fisher, David Sanders and other witnesses were arrested and beaten.
Greg Szymanski

THE DISAPPEARING DOCTRINE


The Disappearing Doctrine
Ray Gano - February 25 2007





Home
Articles
Growing daily is the cancerous attack on doctrine. In fact THE fundamental mark of liberalism is its constant attack against solid biblical teaching. A growing number of people such as Rick Warren, Joel Olsteen, Benny Hinn, and the many, many others in the worldly ecumenical movement are saying, "Doctrine is not important. God is important. Let's lay aside our petty doctrinal differences and get back to God."My first question is ‘Which God are you preaching?” But more than that, where is Jesus Christ in all of this and which Jesus are you following?The number one top and most important doctrine of the church is none other than "Jesus Christ."
"Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed: For he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds." 2 John 1:9-11 (KJV)
You see, in attacking doctrine, the ultimate goal is to attack Jesus Christ himself. How many of you have noticed that everywhere you look you hear about “God is Love” and “God is everywhere” and “God is in all of us.” This is all find and dandy, but where is our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ? Well, Ray, “Doctrine is Divisive”. So if doctrine is divisive then what parts of doctrine should we get rid of or change?Can we do away with the doctrine of the virgin birth?How about the deity of Christ? Better yet let’s muck with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ Jesus.What about the inerrant word of God? Shoot, it is taking place already. We have over 200 modern versions, why not write another? In fact there is even one for sodomites. What is next; the pedophile or bestiality version of the bible? Why not? Doctrine divides!In fact let’s just go all the way and discount the entire plan of salvation and invalidate all that Christ did for us by dying on the cross for our sins. But you know what; even the blood of Christ is being attacked by calling it a “slaughterhouse religion.”Folks if you have not guessed it by now, we are focusing in this issue on Doctrine and the lack of in today’s modern church.
Ray & Tracye Gano are the Executive Directors of Prophezine. Prophezine deals with Bible Prophecy and World Events from a Pre-trib, pre-millennial, dispensationalist stand point. They currently serve close to 20,000+ (and growing) people world wide with a weekly newsletter, daily news updates, community based website and internet radio show.


Sunday, March 04, 2007

AIR STRIKE COULD BACKFIRE


Air strikes on Iran could backfire - report


05 Mar 2007 00:00:04 GMT05 Mar 2007 00:00:04 GMT Source: Reuters

By Kate Kelland



LONDON, March 5 (Reuters) - Military strikes to destroy Iran's nuclear ambitions could backfire, increasing Tehran's determination to obtain atomic weapons and bolstering hostility towards the West, a report said on Monday.
The report "Would air strikes work?", written by a leading British weapons scientist, said strikes would probably be unable to hit enough targets to cause serious damage to Iran's nuclear facilities.
"With inadequate intelligence, it is unlikely it would be possible to identify and subsequently destroy the number of targets needed to set back Iran's nuclear programme for a significant period," said the report.
"In the aftermath of a military strike, if Iran devoted maximum effort and resources to building one nuclear bomb, it could achieve this in a relatively short amount of time."
Such a weapon would then be wielded in "an environment of incalculably greater hostility," said the report, which was published by the Oxford Research Group and written by Dr Frank Barnaby, a nuclear physicist and weapons expert.
Barnaby, one of the few remaining people in the world to have witnessed an above ground nuclear test, urged greater diplomatic efforts to end a standoff with Tehran.
Iran refused to meet a United Nations deadline last week for halting uranium enrichment -- a process that can produce nuclear fuel for use in power plants or weapons.
Iran's defiance prompted Washington to say all options are on the table for dealing with what it sees as a potential nuclear threat from Iran, and an Iranian deputy foreign minister responded by saying Tehran was prepared even for war.
BLIX BACKS REPORT
Iran is likely to have built secret facilities underground as well as "false targets" designed to look like nuclear sites and act as decoys, Barnaby's report said.
An attack on those facilities would boost support for the country's authorities, the author told Reuters in an interview ahead of the report's release.
"If Iran is bombed the whole community is going to be totally united behind the government to speedily produce a nuclear weapon," he said. "It would be an absolutely idiotic thing to do."
Strikes would also interrupt oil supplies and impact the global economy, he said.
Hans Blix, former U.N. chief weapons inspector, backed the conclusions and warned Washington and its allies to learn from Iraq, where a decision to invade was based partly on a false belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
"In the case of Iran, armed action would be aimed at intentions -- that may or may not exist. However, the same result -- tragedy and regional turmoil -- would inevitably follow," Blix wrote in a foreword to the report.
Barnaby said bombing targets such as the Bushehr nuclear power reactor in southwest Iran once they were operational could cause potentially catastrophic contamination.
"To bomb that would be absolutely criminal -- you'd have another Chernobyl on your hands," he said.
Barnaby, 79, witnessed an atomic weapons test and saw the awful power of the explosion in 1953 in the Australian desert.
"You can't avoid being profoundly affected by that kind of experience. Seeing these things explode in the atmosphere, it makes you imagine what would happen if it exploded over a city. It's absolutely horrifying -- and it convinces you quite rapidly that these weapons have to be negotiated away."


PEDDLING TWADDLE ABOUT JESUS


These film-makers are peddling twaddle about Jesus


New claims about Christ's resurrection fail on both scientific and theological grounds, says Justin Thacker


Dr Justin Thacker Thursday March 1, 2007The Guardian


The recent announcement of the supposed discovery of the ossuaries (bone boxes) of Jesus' family is void of scientific and archaeological merit (Is this really the last resting place of Jesus, Mary Magdalene - and their son?, February 27).
I am both a medical doctor and a doctor of theology, and it is unusual for both of my disciplines to be irked at once. Yet the documentary film-makers behind these claims - to be broadcast on the Discovery Channel - have managed to fail on both scientific and theological grounds simultaneously. As the Guardian report rightly notes: "Even as the felt was being pulled back yesterday, holes in the theory were becoming glaringly evident."
So, for instance, there is a huge leap of logic in moving from the purported DNA evidence that "Jesus" and "Mary" were not maternally related, to the conclusion that they were a couple. A whole range of other familial relationships are possible, even apart from the issue of whether this is in fact the Jesus, and the Mary Magdalene.
The film-makers also fail in their theology. They suggest that their finding does not negate the New Testament claim to the bodily resurrection of Jesus, only that it denies his bodily ascension. In other words, according to Discovery Channel theology, Jesus died, rose again, died again and then rose "spiritually" to be with his Father.
This is theological twaddle that neither the New Testament nor any mainstream Christian denomination affirms. The article labels as "predictable" the response of Christians who have been outraged by this, so let me try a different approach and draw attention to the one useful comment made by the film-makers.
James Cameron, the director of the film Titanic, said in support of the project: "It doesn't get bigger than this." He's right, and this is the real significance of the story, why it made the Guardian's front page, and why the current attempt by some on the left to put religion back in its quaint middle England box can only fail. A story that challenges the resurrection narratives, even if devoid of merit, will always create headlines.
This is not a story that casts doubt on the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ - there are simply too many problems with the evidence presented - but it is a story about the nature of theological truth claims.
These truths are self-involving narratives. In contrast to most archaeological or historical discoveries, whether Jesus actually rose from the dead or not is an event that one cannot take a dispassionate view on. If he did not rise bodily then, to paraphrase St Paul, the Christian faith is utterly pointless. If he did rise bodily, then this vindicates all that he said, and demands that we acknowledge his Lordship over us.
A neutral stance over the bodily resurrection of Christ is not a fair-minded, rational approach; it is a mark of intellectual and personal cowardice. It is for precisely this reason that Richard Dawkins gets so irate. Even he realises that orthodox Christianity is not something one can be anodyne about.
· Dr Justin Thacker is head of theology of the Evangelical Alliance j.thacker@eauk.org

Saturday, March 03, 2007

NORTH AMERICAN UNION?

Toward a North American Union


By: Patrick Wood
Editor, The August Review



Good evening, everybody. Tonight, an astonishing proposal to expand our borders to incorporate Mexico and Canada and simultaneously further diminish U.S. sovereignty. Have our political elites gone mad?
Lou Dobbs on Lou Dobbs Tonight, June 9, 2005

Introduction
The global elite, through the direct operations of President George Bush and his Administration, are creating a North American Union that will combine Canada, Mexico and the U.S. into a superstate called the North American Union (NAU). The NAU is roughly patterned after the European Union (EU). There is no political or economic mandate for creating the NAU, and unofficial polls of a cross-section of Americans indicate that they are overwhelmingly against this end-run around national sovereignty.
To answer Lou Dobbs, "No, the political elites have not gone mad", they just want you to think that they have.
The reality over appearance is easily cleared up with a proper historical perspective of the last 35 years of political and economic manipulation by the same elite who now bring us the NAU.
This paper will explore this history in order to give the reader a complete picture of the NAU, how it is made possible, who are the instigators of it, and where it is headed.
It is important to first understand that the impending birth of the NAU is a gestation of the Executive Branch of the U.S. government, not the Congress. This is the topic of the first discussion below.
The next topic will examine the global elite's strategy of subverting the power to negotiate trade treaties and international law with foreign countries from the Congress to the President. Without this power, NAFTA and the NAU would never have been possible.
After this, we will show that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is the immediate genetic and necessary ancestor of the NAU.
Lastly, throughout this report the NAU perpetrators and their tactics will be brought into the limelight so as to affix blame where it properly belongs. The reader will be struck with the fact that the same people are at the center of each of these subjects.
The Best Government that Money Can Buy
Modern day globalization was launched with the creation of the Trilateral Commission in 1973 by David Rockefeller and Zbigniew Brzezinski. Its membership consisted of just over 300 powerful elitists from North America, Europe and Japan. The clearly stated goal of the Trilateral Commission was to foster a "New International Economic Order" that would supplant the historical economic order.
In spite of its non-political rhetoric, The Trilateral Commission nonetheless established a headlock on the Executive Branch of the U.S. government with the election of James Earl Carter in 1976. Hand-picked as a presidential candidate by Brzezinski, Carter was personally tutored in globalist philosophy and foreign policy by Brzezinski himself. Subsequently, when Carter was sworn in as President, he appointed no less than one-third of the U.S. members of the Commission to his Cabinet and other high-level posts in his Administration. Such was the genesis of the Trilateral Commission's domination of the Executive Branch that continues to the present day.
With the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, Trilateral Commission member George H.W. Bush was introduced to the White House as vice-president. Through Bush's influence, Reagan continued to select key appointments from the ranks of the Trilateral Commission.
In 1988, George H.W. Bush began his four-year term as President. He was followed by fellow Trilateral Commission member William Jefferson Clinton, who served for 8 years as President and appointed fourteen fellow Trilateral members to his Administration.
The election of George W. Bush in 2000 should be no surprise. Although Bush was not a member of the Trilateral Commission, his vice-president Dick Cheney is. In addition, Dick Cheney's wife, Lynne, is also a member of the Commission in her own right.
The Hegemony of the Trilateral Commission over the Executive Branch of the U.S. government is unmistakable. Critics argue that this scenario is merely circumstantial, that the most qualified political "talent" quite naturally tends to belong to groups like the Trilateral Commission in the first place. Under examination, such explanations are quite hollow.
Why would the Trilateral Commission seek to dominate the Executive Branch? Quite simply - Power! That is, power to get things done directly which would have been impossible to accomplish through the only moderately successful lobbying efforts of the past; power to use the government as a bully platform to modify political behavior throughout the world.
Of course, the obvious corollary to this hegemony is that the influence and impact of the citizenry is virtually eliminated.
Modern Day "World Order" Strategy
After its founding in 1973, Trilateral Commission members wasted no time in launching their globalist strategy. But, what was that strategy?
Richard Gardner was an original member of the Trilateral Commission, and one of the prominent architects of the New International Economic Order. In 1974, his article "The Hard Road to World Order" appeared in Foreign Affairs magazine, published by the Council on Foreign Relations. With obvious disdain for anyone holding nationalistic political views, Gardner proclaimed,
"In short, the 'house of world order' would have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great 'booming, buzzing confusion,' to use William James' famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault."1 [emphasis added]
In Gardner's view, using treaties and trade agreements (such as General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs or GATT) would bind and supercede constitutional law piece by piece, which is exactly what has happened. In addition, Gardner highly esteemed the role of the United Nations as a third-party legal body that could be used to erode the national sovereignty of individual nations.
Gardner concluded that "the case-by-case approach can produce some remarkable concessions of 'sovereignty' that could not be achieved on an across-the-board basis"2
Thus, the end result of such a process is that the U.S. would eventually capitulate its sovereignty to the newly proposed world order. It is not specifically mentioned who would control this new order, but it is quite obvious that the only 'players' around are Gardner and his Trilateral cronies.
It should again be noted that the formation of the Trilateral Commission by Rockefeller and Brzezinski was a response to the general frustration that globalism was going nowhere with the status quo prior to 1973. The "frontal assault " had failed, and a new approach was needed. It is a typical mindset of the global elite to view any roadblock as an opportunity to stage an "end-run" to get around it. Gardner confirms this frustration:
"Certainly the gap has never loomed larger between the objectives and the capacities of the international organizations that were supposed to get mankind on the road to world order. We are witnessing an outbreak of shortsighted nationalism that seems oblivious to the economic, political and moral implications of interdependence. Yet never has there been such widespread recognition by the world's intellectual leadership of the necessity for cooperation and planning on a truly global basis, beyond country, beyond region, especially beyond social system."3
The "world's intellectual leadership" apparently refers to academics such as Gardner and Brzezinski. Outside of the Trilateral Commission and the CFR, the vast majority of academic thought at the time was opposed to such notions as mentioned above.
Laying the Groundwork: Fast Track Authority
In Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, authority is granted to Congress "To regulate commerce with foreign nations." An end-run around this insurmountable obstacle would be to convince Congress to voluntarily turn over this power to the President. With such authority in hand, the President could freely negotiate treaties and other trade agreements with foreign nations, and then simply present them to Congress for a straight up or down vote, with no amendments possible. This again points out elite disdain for a Congress that is elected to be representative "of the people, by the people and for the people."
So, the first "Fast Track" legislation was passed by Congress in 1974, just one year after the founding of the Trilateral Commission. It was the same year that Nelson Rockefeller was confirmed as Vice President under President Gerald Ford, neither of whom were elected by the U.S. public. As Vice-President, Rockefeller was seated as the president of the U.S. Senate.
According to Public Citizen, the bottom line of Fast Track is that...
"...the White House signs and enters into trade deals before Congress ever votes on them. Fast Track also sets the parameters for congressional debate on any trade measure the President submits, requiring a vote within a certain time with no amendments and only 20 hours of debate."4
When an agreement is about to be given to Congress, high-powered lobbyists and political hammer-heads are called in to manipulate congressional hold-outs into voting for the legislation. (*See CAFTA Lobbying Efforts) With only 20 hours of debate allowed, there is little opportunity for public involvement.
Congress clearly understood the risk of giving up this power to the President, as evidenced by the fact that they put an automatic expiration date on it. Since the expiration of the original Fast Track, there been a very contentious trail of Fast Track renewal efforts. In 1996, President Clinton utterly failed to re-secure Fast Track after a bitter debate in Congress. After another contentious struggle in 2001/2002, President Bush was able to renew Fast Track for himself in the Trade Act of 2002, just in time to negotiate the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) and insure its passage in 2005.
It is startling to realize that since 1974, Fast Track has not been used in the majority of trade agreements. Under the Clinton presidency, for instance, some 300 separate trade agreements were negotiated and passed normally by Congress, but only two of them were submitted under Fast Track: NAFTA and the GATT Uruguay Round. In fact, from 1974 to 1992, there were only three instances of Fast Track in action: GATT Tokyo Round, U.S.-Israel Free Trade Agreement and the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Thus, NAFTA was only the fourth invocation of Fast Track.
Why the selectivity? Does it suggest a very narrow agenda? Most certainly. These trade and legal bamboozles didn't stand a ghost of a chance to be passed without it, and the global elite knew it. Fast Track was created as a very specific legislative tool to accomplish a very specific executive task -- namely, to "fast track" the creation of the "New International Economic Order" envisioned by the Trilateral Commission in 1973!
Article Six of the U.S. Constitution states that "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." Because international treaties supersede national law, Fast Track has allowed an enormous restructuring of U.S. law without resorting to a Constitutional convention (Ed. note: Both Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski called for a constitutional convention as early as 1972, which could clearly be viewed as a failed "frontal assault"). As a result, national sovereignty of the United States has been severely compromised - even if some Congressmen and Senators are aware of this, the general public is still generally ignorant.
North American Free Trade Agreement
NAFTA was negotiated under the executive leadership of Republican President George H.W. Bush. Carla Hills is widely credited as being the primary architect and negotiator of NAFTA. Both Bush and Hills were members of the Trilateral Commission!

NAFTA "Initialing" Ceremony: From left to right (standing)President Salinas, President Bush, Prime Minister Mulroney(Seated) Jaime Serra Puche, Carla Hills, Michael Wilson.
With Bush's first presidential term drawing to a close and Bush desiring political credit for NAFTA, an "initialing" ceremony of NAFTA was staged (so Bush could take credit for NAFTA) in October, 1992. Although very official looking, most Americans did not understand the difference between initialing and signing; at the time, Fast Track was not implemented and Bush did not have the authority to actually sign such a trade agreement.
Bush subsequently lost a publicly contentious presidential race to democrat William Jefferson Clinton, but they were hardly polar opposites on the issue of Free Trade and NAFTA: The reason? Clinton was also a seasoned member of the Trilateral Commission.
Immediately after inauguration, Clinton became the champion of NAFTA and orchestrated its passage with a massive Executive Branch effort.
Some Unexpected Resistance to NAFTA
Prior to the 1992 election, there was a fly in the elite's ointment -- namely, presidential candidate and billionaire Ross Perot, founder and chairman of Electronic Data Systems (EDS). Perot was politically independent, vehemently anti-NAFTA and chose to make it a major campaign issue in 1991. In the end, the global elite would have to spend huge sums of money to overcome the negative publicity that Perot gave to NAFTA.
At the time, some political analysts believed that Perot, being a billionaire, was somehow put up to this task by the same elitists who were pushing NAFTA. Presumably, it would accumulate all the anti-globalists in one tidy group, thus allowing the elitists to determine who their true enemies really were. It's moot today whether he was sincere or not, but it did have that outcome, and Perot became a lightning rod for the whole issue of free trade.
Perot hit the nail squarely on the head in one of his nationally televised campaign speeches:
"If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory south of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor, hire young -- let's assume you've been in business for a long time and you've got a mature workforce - pay a dollar an hour for your labor, have no health care - that's the most expensive single element in making a car - have no environmental controls, no pollution controls, and no retirement, and you didn't care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south..."5 [emphasis added]
Perot's message struck a nerve with millions of Americans, but it was unfortunately cut short when he entered into public campaign debates with fellow candidate Al Gore. Simply put, Gore ate Perot's lunch, not so much on the issues themselves, but on having superior debating skills. As organized as Perot was, he was no match for a politically and globally seasoned politician like Al Gore.
The Spin Machine gears up
To counter the public relations damage done by Perot, all the stops were pulled out as the NAFTA vote drew near. As proxy for the global elite, the President unleashed the biggest and most expensive spin machine the country had ever seen.

NAFTA/NAU Emblem
Former Chrysler chairman Lee Iacocca was enlisted for a multi-million dollar nationwide ad campaign that praised the benefits of NAFTA. The mantra, carried consistently throughout the many spin events: "Exports. Better Jobs. Better Wages", all of which have turned out to be empty promises
Bill Clinton invited three former presidents to the White House to stand with him in praise and affirmation NAFTA. This was the first time in U.S. history that four presidents had ever appeared together. Of the four, three were members of the Trilateral Commission: Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. Gerald Ford was not a Commissioner, but was nevertheless a confirmed globalist insider. After Ford's accession to the presidency in 1974, he promptly nominated Nelson Rockefeller (David Rockefeller's oldest brother) to fill the Vice Presidency that Ford had just vacated.
The academic community was enlisted when, according to Harper's Magazine publisher John MacArthur,
...there was a pro-NAFTA petition, organized and written my MIT's Rudiger Dornbusch, addressed to President Clinton and signed by all twelve living Nobel laureates in economics, and exercise in academic logrolling that was expertly converted by Bill Daley and the A-Team into PR gold on the front page of The New York Times on September 14. 'Dear Mr. President,' wrote the 283 signatories..."6
Lastly, prominent Trilateral Commission members themselves took to the press to promote NAFTA. For instance, on May 13, 1993, Commissioners Henry Kissinger and Cyrus Vance wrote a joint op-ed that stated:
"[NAFTA] would be the most constructive measure the United States would have undertaken in our hemisphere in this century."7
Two months later, Kissinger went further,
"It will represent the most creative step toward a new world order taken by any group of countries since the end of the Cold War, and the first step toward an even larger vision of a free-trade zone for the entire Western Hemisphere." [NAFTA] is not a conventional trade agreement, but the architecture of a new international system."8 [emphasis added]
It is hardly fanciful to think that Kissinger's hype sounds quite similar to the Trilateral Commission's original goal of creating a New International Economic Order.

President Clinton signing NAFTA On January 1, 1994, NAFTA became law: Under Fast Track procedures, the house had passed it by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor) and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38.
That Giant Sucking Sound Going South
To understand the potential impact of the North American Union, one must understand the impact of NAFTA.
NAFTA promised greater exports, better jobs and better wages. Since 1994, just the opposite has occurred. The U.S. trade deficit soared and now approaches $1 trillion dollars per year; the U.S. has lost some 1.5 million jobs and real wages in both the U.S. and Mexico have fallen significantly.
Patrick Buchanan offered a simple example of NAFTA's deleterious effect on the U.S. economy:
"When NAFTA passed in 1993, we imported some 225,000 cars and trucks from Mexico, but exported about 500,000 vehicles to the world. In 2005, our exports to the world were still a shade under 500,000 vehicles, but our auto and truck imports from Mexico had tripled to 700,000 vehicles.
"As McMillion writes, Mexico now exports more cars and trucks to the United States than the United States exports to the whole world. A fine end, is it not, to the United States as "Auto Capital of the World"?
"What happened? Post-NAFTA, the Big Three just picked up a huge slice of our auto industry and moved it, and the jobs, to Mexico."9
Of course, this only represents the auto industry, but the same effect has been seen in many other industries as well. Buchanan correctly noted that NAFTA was never just a trade deal: Rather, it was an "enabling act - to enable U.S. corporations to dump their American workers and move their factories to Mexico." Indeed, this is the very spirit of all outsourcing of U.S. jobs and manufacturing facilities to overseas locations.
Respected economist Alan Tonelson, author of The Race to the Bottom, notes the smoke and mirrors that cloud what has really happened with exports:
"Most U.S. exports to Mexico before, during and since the (1994) peso crisis have been producer goods - in particular, parts and components sent by U.S. multinationals to their Mexican factories for assembly or for further processing. The vast majority of these, moreover, are reexported, and most get shipped right back to the United States for final sale. In fact, by most estimates, the United States buys 80 to 90 percent of all of Mexico's exports."10
Tonelson concludes that "the vast majority of American workers have experienced declining living standards, not just a handful of losers."
Mexican economist and scholar Miguel Pickard sums up Mexico's supposed benefits from NAFTA:
"Much praise has been heard for the few 'winners' that NAFTA has created, but little mention is made of the fact that the Mexican people are the deal's big 'losers.' Mexicans now face greater unemployment, poverty, and inequality than before the agreement began in 1994."11
In short, NAFTA has not been a friend to the citizenry of the United States or Mexico. Still, this is the backdrop against which the North American Union is being acted out. The globalization players and their promises have remained pretty much the same, both just as disingenuous as ever.
Prelude to the North American Union
Soon after NAFTA was passed in 1994, Dr. Robert A. Pastor began to push for a "deep integration" which NAFTA could not provide by itself. His dream was summed up in his book, Toward a North American Union, published in 2001. Unfortunately for Pastor, the book was released just a few days prior to the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and thus received little attention from any sector.
However, Pastor had the right connections. He was invited to appear before the plenary session (held in Ontario, Canada) of the Trilateral Commission on November 1-2, 2002, to deliver a paper drawing directly on his book. His paper, "A Modest Proposal To the Trilateral Commission", made several recommendations:
"... the three governments should establish a North American Commission (NAC) to define an agenda for Summit meetings by the three leaders and to monitor the implementation of the decisions and plans.
A second institution should emerge from combining two bilateral legislative groups into a North American Parliamentary Group.
"The third institution should be a Permanent Court on Trade and Investment
"The three leaders should establish a North American Development Fund, whose priority would be to connect the U.S.-Mexican border region to central and southern Mexico.
The North American Commission should develop an integrated continental plan for transportation and infrastructure.
"...negotiate a Customs Union and a Common External Tariff
"Our three governments should sponsor Centers for North American Studies in each of our countries to help the people of all three understand the problems and the potential of North America and begin to think of themselves as North Americans"12 [emphasis added]
Pastor's choice of the words "Modest Proposal" are almost comical considering that he intends to reorganize the entire North American continent.
Nevertheless, the Trilateral Commission bought Pastor's proposals hook, line and sinker. Subsequently, it was Pastor who emerged as the U.S. vice-chairman of the CFR task force that was announced on October 15, 2004:
"The Council has launched an independent task force on the future of North America to examine regional integration since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement ten years ago... The task force will review five spheres of policy in which greater cooperation may be needed. They are: deepening economic integration; reducing the development gap; harmonizing regulatory policy; enhancing security; and devising better institutions to manage conflicts that inevitably arise from integration and exploit opportunities for collaboration."13
Independent task force, indeed! A total of twenty-three members were chosen from the three countries. Each country was represented by a member of the Trilateral Commission: Carla A. Hills (U.S.), Luis Rubio (Mexico) and Wendy K. Dobson (Canada). Robert Pastor served as the U.S. vice-chairman.
This CFR task force was unique in that it focused on economic and political policies for all three countries, not just the U.S. The Task Force stated purpose was to
"... identify inadequacies in the current arrangements and suggest opportunities for deeper cooperation on areas of common interest. Unlike other Council-sponsored task forces, which focus primarily on U.S. policy, this initiative includes participants from Canada and Mexico, as well as the United States, and will make policy recommendations for all three countries."14 [Emphasis added]
Richard Haass, chairman of the CFR and long-time member of the Trilateral Commission, pointedly made the link between NAFTA and integration of Mexico, Canada and the U.S.:
"Ten years after NAFTA, it is obvious that the security and economic futures of Canada, Mexico, and the United States are intimately bound. But there is precious little thinking available as to where the three countries need to be in another ten years and how to get there. I am excited about the potential of this task force to help fill this void,"15
Haass' statement "there is precious little thinking available" underscores a repeatedly used elitist technique. That is, first decide what you want to do, and secondly, assign a flock of academics to justify your intended actions. (This is the crux of academic funding by NGO's such as Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, Carnegie-Mellon, etc.) After the justification process is complete, the same elites that suggested it in the first place allow themselves to be drawn in as if they had no other logical choice but to play along with the "sound thinking" of the experts.
The task force met three times, once in each country. When the process was completed, it issued its results in May, 2005, in a paper titled "Building a North American Community" and subtitled "Report of the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America." Even the sub-title suggests that the "future of North America" is a fait accompli decided behind closed doors.
Some of the recommendations of the task force are:
"Adopt a common external tariff."
"Adopt a North American Approach to Regulation"
"Establish a common security perimeter by 2010."
"Establish a North American investment fund for infrastructure and human capital."
"Establish a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution."
"An annual North American Summit meeting" that would bring the heads-of-state together for the sake of public display of confidence.
"Establish minister-led working groups that will be required to report back within 90 days, and to meet regularly."
Create a "North American Advisory Council"
Create a "North American Inter-Parliamentary Group."16
Sound familiar? It should: Many of the recommendations are verbatim from Pastor's "modest" presentation to the Trilateral Commission mentioned above, or from his earlier book, Toward a North American Union.

2006 SPP Summit in Cancun Shortly after the task force report was issued, the heads of all three countries did indeed meet together for a summit in Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The specific result of the summit was the creation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPPNA). The joint press release stated
"We, the elected leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, have met in Texas to announce the establishment of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.
"We will establish working parties led by our ministers and secretaries that will consult with stakeholders in our respective countries. These working parties will respond to the priorities of our people and our businesses, and will set specific, measurable, and achievable goals. They will outline concrete steps that our governments can take to meet these goals, and set dates that will ensure the continuous achievement of results."Within 90 days, ministers will present their initial report after which, the working parties will submit six-monthly reports. Because the Partnership will be an ongoing process of cooperation, new items will be added to the work agenda by mutual agreement as circumstances warrant."17
Once again, we see Pastor's North American Union ideology being continued, but this time as an outcome of a summit meeting of three heads-of-states. The question must be raised, "Who is really in charge of this process?"
Indeed, the three premiers returned to their respective countries and started their "working parties" to "consult with stakeholders." In the U.S., the "specific, measurable, and achievable goals" were only seen indirectly by the creation of a government website billed as "Security and Prosperity Partnetship of North America." (www.spp.gov) The stakeholders are not mentioned by name, but it is clear that they are not the public of either of the three countries; most likely, they are the corporate interests represented by the members of the Trilateral Commission!
The second annual summit meeting took place on March 30-31, 2006, in Cancun, Mexico between Bush, Fox and Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper. The Security and Prosperity Partnership agenda was summed up in a statement from Mexican president Vicente Fox:
"We touched upon fundamental items in that meeting. First of all, we carried out an evaluation meeting. Then we got information about the development of programs. And then we gave the necessary instructions for the works that should be carried out in the next period of work... We are not renegotiating what has been successful or open the Free Trade Agreement. It's going beyond the agreement, both for prosperity and security."18 [emphasis added]
Regulations instead of Treaties
It may not have occurred to the reader that the two SPP summits resulted in no signed agreements. This is not accidental nor a failure of the summit process. The so-called "deeper integration" of the three countries is being accomplished through a series of regulations and executive decrees that avoid citizen watchdogs and legislative oversight.19
In the U.S., the 2005 Cancun summit spawned some 20 different working groups that would deal with issues from immigration to security to harmonization of regulations, all under the auspices of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (www.spp.gov). The SPP in the U.S. is officially placed under the Department of Commerce, headed by Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez, but other Executive Branch agencies also have SPP components that report to Commerce.
After two years of massive effort, the names of the SPP working group members have not been released. The result of their work have also not been released. There is no congressional legislation or oversight of the SPP process.
The director of SPP, Geri Word, was contacted to ask why a cloud of secrecy is hanging over SPP. According to investigative journalist Jerome Corsi, Word replied
"We did not want to get the contact people of the working groups distracted by calls from the public." 20
This paternalistic attitude is a typical elitist mentality Their work (whatever they have dreamed up on their own) is too important to be distracted by the likes of pesky citizens or their elected legislators.
This elite change of tactics must not be understated: Regulations and Executive Orders have replaced Congressional legislation and public debate. There is no pretense of either. This is another Gardner-style "end-run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece."
Apparently, the Trilateral-dominated Bush administration believes that it has accumulated sufficient power to ram the NAU down the throat of the American People, whether they protest or not.
Robert A. Pastor: A Trilateral Commission Operative
As mentioned earlier, Pastor is hailed as the father of the North American Union, having written more papers about it, delivered more testimonies before Congress, and headed up task forces to study it, than any other single U.S. academic figure. He would seem a tireless architect and advocate of the NAU.
Although he might seem to be a fresh, new name to in the globalization business, Pastor has a long history with Trilateral Commission members and the global elite.
He is the same Robert Pastor who was the executive director of the 1974 CFR task force ( funded by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations) called the Commission on US-Latin American Relations - aka the Linowitz Commission. The Linowitz Commission, chaired by an original Trilateral Commissioner Sol Linowitz, was singularly credited with the giveaway of the Panama Canal in 1976 under the Carter presidency. ALL of the Linowitz Commission members were members of the Trilateral Commission save one, Albert Fishlow; other members were W. Michael Blumenthal, Samuel Huntington, Peter G. Peterson, Elliot Richardson and David Rockefeller.
One of Carter's first actions as President in 1977 was to appoint Zbigniew Brzezinski to the post of National Security Advisor. In turn, one of Brzezinski's first acts was to appoint his protege, Dr. Robert A. Pastor, as director of the Office of Latin American and Caribbean Affairs. Pastor then became the Trilateral Commission's point-man to lobby for the Canal giveaway.
To actually negotiate the Carter-Torrijos Treaty, Carter sent none other than Sol Linowitz to Panama as temporary ambassador. The 6-month temporary appointment avoided the requirement for Senate confirmation. Thus, the very same people who created the policy became responsible for executing it.
The Trilateral Commission's role in the Carter Administration is confirmed by Pastor himself in his 1992 paper The Carter Administration and Latin America: A Test of Principle:
"In converting its predisposition into a policy, the new administration had the benefit of the research done by two private commissions. Carter, Vance, and Brzezinski were members of the Trilateral Commission, which provided a conceptual framework for collaboration among the industrialized countries in approaching the full gamut of international issues. With regard to setting an agenda and an approach to Latin America, the most important source of influence on the Carter administration was the Commission on U.S.-Latin American Relations, chaired by Sol M. Linowitz."21
As to the final Linowitz Commission reports on Latin America, most of which were authored by Pastor himself, he states:
"The reports helped the administration define a new relationship with Latin America, and 27 of the 28 specific recommendations in the second report became U.S. policy."22
Pastor's deep involvement with Trilateral Commission members and policies is irrefutable, and it continues into the present.
In 1996, when Trilateral Commissioner Bill Clinton nominated Pastor as Ambassador to Panama, his confirmation was forcefully knocked down by Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), who held a deep grudge against Pastor for his central role in the giveaway of the Panama Canal in 1976.
The setback obviously did not phase Pastor in the slightest.
Where from here?
The stated target for full implementation of the North American Union is 2010.
"The Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that 'our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary.' Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America." 23
Don't underestimate the global elite's ability to meet their own deadlines!
Conclusion
This paper does not pretend to give thorough or even complete coverage to such important and wide-ranging topics as discussed above. We have shown that the restructuring of the United States has been accomplished by a very small group of powerful global elitists as represented by members of the Trilateral Commission.
The Trilateral Commission plainly stated that it intended to create a New International Economic Order. We have followed their members from 1973 to the present, only to find that they are at the dead center of every critical policy and action that seeks to restructure the U.S.
Some critics will undoubtedly argue that involvement by members of the Trilateral Commission is merely incidental. However, the odds for their involvement at random is too large to be even remotely understandable; it would be like winning the lottery jackpot five times in a row, with the same numbers!
The credo of The August Review is "Follow the money, follow the power." In this view, the United States has literally been hijacked by less than 300 greedy and self-serving global elitists who have little more than contempt for the citizens of the countries they would seek to dominate. According to Trilateralist Richard Gardner's viewpoint, this incremental takeover (rather than a frontal approach) has been wildly successful.
To again answer Lou Dobbs question, "Have our political elites gone mad?" -- No Lou, they are not "mad", nor are they ignorant. To look into the face of these global elites is to look into the face of unmitigated greed, avarice and treachery.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes:
Gardner, Richard, The Hard Road to World Order, (Foreign Affairs, 1974) p. 558
ibid, p. 563
ibid. p. 556
Fast Track Talking Points, Global Trade Watch, Public Citizen
Excerpts From Presidential Debates, Ross Perot, 1992
MacArthur, The Selling of Free Trade, (Univ. of Cal. Press, 2001) p. 228
Washington Post, op-ed, Kissinger & Vance, May 13, 1993
Los Angeles Times, op-ed, Kissinger, July 18, 1993
The Fruits of NAFTA, Patrick Buchanan, The Conservative Voice, March 10, 2006
Tonelson, The Race to the Bottom (Westview Press, 2002) p. 89
Trinational Elites Map North American Future in "NAFTA Plus", Miguel Pickard, IRC Americas website
A Modest Proposal To the Trilateral Commission, Presentation by Dr. Robert A. Pastor, 2002
Council Joins Leading Canadians and Mexicans to Launch Independent Task Force on the Future of America, Press Release, CFR Website
ibid.
ibid.
Building a North American Community, Council on Foreign Relations, 2005
North American Leaders Unveil Security and Prosperity Partnership, International Information Programs, U.S. Govt. Website
Concluding Press Conference at Cancun Summit, Vicente Fox, March 31, 2006
Traditional Elites Map North American Future in "NAFTA Plus", Miguel Pickard, p. 1, IRC Website
Bush sneaking North American super-state without oversight?, Jerome Corsi,WorldNetDaily, June 12, 2006.
The Carter Administration and Latin America: A Test of Principle, Robert A. Pastor, The Carter Center, July 1992, p. 9
ibid. p. 10
Building a North American Community, Council on Foreign Relations, 2005, p. 2
Further Reading
Meet Robert Pastor: Father of the North American Union, Human Events, Jerome R. Corsi, July 25, 2006Robert A. Pastor Resume, American University, 2005North America's Super Corridor Coalition, Inc. Website