A North American Community Approach to Security

Chairmen Lugar and Coleman, Members of the Committee. I appreciate the invitation to testify before your Committee. You asked me to place the issue of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative within the context of North American cooperation and border control and to relate it to the recent report by an Independent Task Force on the Future of North America sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. The Chairs and Vice Chairs of the three nation, 31-person Task Force were John F. Manley and Tom d’Aquino of Canada, Pedro Aspe and Andres Rozental of Mexico, and William F. Weld and I from the United States. Entitled Building a North American Community, the report offered a blueprint of the goals that the three countries of North America should pursue and the steps needed to achieve those goals.

The focus today is on the new requirement for all citizens of the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Bermuda to have a passport to travel among our countries. It is intended to secure the homeland, but I question whether this approach will achieve the goal, and I fear that it will harm other U.S. interests and divert us from more effective paths toward securing our continent.

As we approach the fourth anniversary of 9/11, it is time for us to step back from our trauma and the border and examine the problem in a broader context. The best way to assure security is not at our borders with Canada and Mexico and not by defining “security” in conventional and narrow terms. We need to think about these issues in the context of a continent that is integrating economically and socially at a rapid rate. The problem is that the three governments have failed to understand this phenomenal transformation. Policy has not kept pace with the market, and our security is endangered as much by the limits of our vision as by the terrorists who threaten us.

Defensive about Europe’s example, we have failed to learn from their experience and succumbed to the opposite mistake. Whereas Europe built too many, intrusive, supra-national institutions, we have practically no credible institutions. Instead of trying to fashion a North American approach to continental problems, we continue to pursue problems on a dual-bilateral basis, taking one issue at a time. But incremental steps will no longer solve the security problem, or allow us to grasp economic opportunities. What we need to do now is forge a North American Community, based on the premise that each member benefits from its neighbor’s success and is diminished by its problems.

The subject of this hearing today— whether passports should be required to cross our two borders— is symptomatic of the problem. We are thinking too small. We need to find ways to making trade and travel easier while we define and defend a continental security perimeter. Instead of stopping North Americans on the borders, we ought to provide them with a secure, biometric Border Pass that would ease transit across the border like an E-Z pass permits our cars to speed through toll booths.

In my statement, I will comment first on the emergence of North America, the next decade’s agenda, and the response by the three governments. Next, I will describe some of the recommendations of the Council Task Force Report and focus on the travel initiative and the security and border issues.

As a word of introduction, I have been working on issues related to North America for nearly thirty years— in the government, in a non-governmental organization (the Carter Center) monitoring elections in Mexico, the United States, and Canada, and as a teacher and writer of five books and many articles on the subject of North America. Because I believe deeply that our security and prosperity depend on forging a new relationship with our neighbors, in September 2002, I established and now direct a Center for North American Studies at American University.

On January 1, 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect. If one judges a free-trade area by the size of its product and territory, North America became the largest in the world, larger than the European Union (EU). Yet that fact escaped all but a few analysts. It is widely known that the United States has the world’s largest economy, but North America also includes the eighth (Canada) and ninth (Mexico) largest economies as well. (The Economist, 2004)

In the eleven years since NAFTA came into effect, U.S. trade (exports and imports) more than doubled with its two neighbors— from $293 billion in 1993 to $713 billion in 2004. Annual flows of U.S. direct investment to Mexico went from $1.3 billion in 1992 to $15 billion in 2001, and the stock, from $14 billion to $57 billion. The annual flows of U.S. investment in Canada increased eight-fold, and the stock of FDI increased from $69 billion in 1993 to $153 billion in 2002. Canadian investment flows to the United States grew from a stock of $40 billion in 1993 to $102 billion in 2001.

Travel and immigration among the three countries also increased dramatically. In 2004, people crossed the two borders about 400 million times. The most profound impact came from those people who crossed and stayed. The 2000 census estimated that there were 21 million people of Mexican origin in the United States. Nearly two-thirds of all Mexican-born immigrants arrived in the last two decades.

North America is larger than Europe in population and territory, and its gross product not only eclipses that of the EU but also represents one-third of the world’s economic output. Intraregional exports as a percentage of total exports climbed from around 30 percent in 1982 to 58 percent in 2002 (compared to 61 percent for the EU). Our two neighbors export more energy to us than any other country, and U.S. exports to them were nearly twice those to all of Europe and nearly four times those to Japan and China in 2004. North America is no longer just a geographical expression. It has become a formidable and integrated region.

With a few notable exceptions— such as trucking, softwood lumber, and sugar— where U.S. economic interests have prevented compliance, NAFTA largely succeeded in what it was intended to do: barriers were eliminated, and trade and investment soared. A decade later, however, North America faces new challenges that require new policies.

--First, NAFTA was silent on the development gap between Mexico and its two northern neighbors, and that gap has widened.

--Second, NAFTA did not plan for its own success: it failed to invest in new roads and infrastructure to cope with more trade and traffic. The resulting delays raised the transaction costs of regional trade more than the elimination of tariffs lowered them.

--Third, NAFTA did not address immigration, and the number of undocumented workers in the United States jumped in the 1990s from 3 million to 11 million (55 percent or 6 million came from Mexico).

--Fourth, NAFTA did not address energy issues, a failure highlighted by the catastrophic blackout that Canada and the north-eastern United States suffered in August 2003, and the dramatic growth in imports of natural gas by Mexico from the United States.

--Fifth, NAFTA created few credible institutions to coordinate policy, leaving the region vulnerable to market catastrophes like the Mexican peso crisis.

--Finally, NAFTA did nothing to address security, and as a result, the long-term effects of September 11 threaten to cripple North American integration.

This is the agenda for North America in the next decade. On March 23, 2005, President George Bush, President Vicente Fox, and Prime Minister Paul Martin met in Texas. This was not their first meeting, but the others had been little more than photo-opportunities. The three leaders announced a “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” based on the premise that both security and prosperity are “mutually dependent and complementary.” They declared that the partnership is “trilateral in concept,” but the framework was incremental and dual-bilateral in fact.

leaders tasked their Ministers to chair working groups with “stakeholders” and produce a report in 90 days— by June 23rd— with concrete steps to achieve measurable goals. The first question, of course, is why these security and competitiveness goals have not already been implemented since most of them have been declared often, and the security goals are, by and large, a part of the “smart borders” agreement. The answer is that our governments are not organized to address these questions on a trilateral basis, and so it should come as little surprise if the results are meager.

More importantly, compared to the agenda above, these steps are quite timid. The truth is that traffic has slowed at the border because of additional inspections, but it is not at all clear that the borders are more secure today than they were four years ago. The flow of unauthorized migrants is as high or higher. The Communique lacks a clear uplifting goal like a Customs Union. One cannot eliminate “rules-of-origin” provisions without a common external tariff, which the WTO equates with a “customs union.” Most important, there is no allusion to the paramount challenge of North America— the development gap that separates Mexico from its northern neighbors, and therefore, there is no proposal for dealing with that. There are no plans for dealing with education, energy, transportation, or establishing institutions that could prepare North American options or monitor progress. To move this agenda requires an organizing vision and political will.

There was a moment early in the Fox and Bush administrations when North American leaders appeared to grasp the essence of such a vision. In February 2001, Fox and Bush jointly endorsed the Guanajuato Proposal, which read, “After consultation with our Canadian partners, we will strive to consolidate a North American economic community whose benefits reach the lesser-developed areas of the region and extend to the most vulnerable social groups in our countries.” Unfortunately, they never translated that sentiment into policy (with the exception of the symbolic but substantively trivial $40 million Partnership for Prosperity).

All three governments share the blame for this failure. President Bush’s primary goal seemed at first to open the Mexican oil sector to U.S. investors, while then-Canadian Prime Minister Chrétien showed no interest in working with Mexico. President Fox, for his part, put forth too ambitious an agenda with too much emphasis on radical reform of U.S. immigration policy. Bush’s initial response was polite, but he soon realized he could not deliver and postponed consideration. The illegal immigration issue remains thorny and unsolved. Ultimately, however, it is more symptom than cause: the way to reduce illegal immigration is to make Mexico’s economy grow faster than that of the U.S.

The Council on Foreign Relations Task Force Report spells out such a vision. Let me summarize and amplify some of its recommendations.

NAFTA has failed to create a partnership because North American governments have not changed the way they deal with one another. Dual bilateralism, driven by U.S. power, continue to govern and irritate. Adding a third party to bilateral disputes vastly increases the chance that rules, not power, will resolve problems.

This trilateral approach should be institutionalized in a new North American Advisory Council. Unlike the sprawling and intrusive European Commission, the Commission or Council should be lean, independent, and advisory, composed of 15 distinguished individuals, 5 from each nation. Its principal purpose should be to prepare a North American agenda for leaders to consider at biannual summits and to monitor the implementation of the resulting agreements. It should be an advisor to the three leaders but also a public voice and symbol of North America. It should evaluate ways to facilitate economic integration, producing specific proposals on continental issues such as harmonizing environmental and labor standards and forging a competition policy.

The U.S. Congress should also merge the U.S.-Mexican and U.S.-Canadian interparliamentary groups into a single “North American Parliamentary Group.” A third institution should be a “Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment.” NAFTA established ad hoc dispute panels, but it has become difficult to find experts who do not have a conflict of interest to arbitrate conflicts. A permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law.

Canada and Mexico have long organized their governments to give priority to their bilateral relationships with the United States. Washington alone is poorly organized to address North American issues. To balance U.S. domestic interests with those in the continent, President Bush should appoint a White House adviser for North American affairs. Such a figure would chair a cabinet-level interagency task force on North America. No president can forge a coherent U.S. policy toward North America without such a wholesale reorganization.

For North America’s second decade, there is no higher priority than reducing the economic divide between Mexico and the rest of NAFTA. A true community or even a partnership is simply not possible when the people of one nation earn, on average, one-sixth as much as do people across the border. Mexico’s underdevelopment is a threat to its stability, to its neighbors, and to the future of integration.

Europe demonstrated that the gap could be narrowed significantly in a relatively short period with good policies and significant aid. The Council Task Force proposed serious reforms by Mexico coupled with a North American Investment Fund, which was also proposed by Senator John Cornyn. This is a far-sighted initiative that deserves the support of this Committee and Congress. I have written a report explaining the need for such a Fund and the way it could work. (See www.american.edu/cnas/publications)

North American governments can learn from the EU’s efforts to establish EU Educational and Research Centers in the United States. Centers for North American Studies in the United States, Canada, and Mexico would help people in all three countries to understand the problems and the potential of an integrated North America— and to think of themselves as North Americans. Scholarships should encourage North American students to study in each other’s country. Until a new consciousness of North America’s promise takes root, many of these proposals will remain impractical.

September 11 and the subsequent U.S. response highlighted a basic dilemma of integration: how to facilitate legitimate flows of people and goods while stopping terrorists and smugglers. When Washington virtually sealed its borders after the attacks, trucks on the Canadian side backed up 22 miles. Companies that relied on “just- in-time” production began to close their plants. The new strategy— exemplified by the “smart” border agreements concentrates inspections on high-risk traffic while using better technology to expedite the transit of low-risk goods and people. The decision to require passports to re-enter the United States after brief visits to Canada and Mexico is another example of an approach that is too narrow to solve so fundamental a problem.

Overcoming the tension between security and trade requires a bolder and more innovative approach. The three governments should negotiate and complete within five years a North American customs union with a common external tariff (CET). This would have a dual purpose. It would enhance the security on the border because guards could concentrate on terrorism rather than inspection of all the goods, and by eliminating cumbersome rules-of-origin provisions (which deny non-NAFTA products the same easy access), it would enhance efficiency and reduce the costs of trade.

At the same time, our Task Force recommends that all three governments define and defend a continental perimeter. This means that all three governments have to have confidence that a terrorist has no more chance of entering their own country as their neighbors. A common exclusion list, better intelligence-sharing, and combined training are needed. The three governments should establish a “North American Customs and Immigration Force,” composed of officials trained together in a single professional school, and they should fashion procedures to streamline border-crossing documentation. The Department of Homeland Security should expand its mission to include continental security— a shift best achieved by incorporating Mexican and Canadian perspectives and personnel into its design and operation.

Instead of creating new obstacles at the border, we should find ways to ease traffic and harmonize safety and transportation regulations. As a May 2000 report by a member of Canada’s Parliament concluded, “Crossing the border has actually gotten more difficult ... While continental trade has skyrocketed, the physical infrastructure enabling the movement of these goods has not.” The bureaucratic barriers to cross-border business impede as much as the infrastructural problems. There are 64 different sets of safety regulations in North America, 51 in the United States.

The North American Council should develop an integrated continental plan for transportation and infrastructure that includes new North American highways and high-speed rail corridors. The United States and Canada should each develop national standards on weight, safety, and configuration of trucking and then negotiate with Mexico to establish a single set of standards.

In addition, the United States and Canada should begin to merge immigration and refugee policies. It will be impossible to include Mexico in this process until the development gap is narrowed. In the meantime, the three governments should work to develop a North American Border Pass with biometric identifiers. This would permit expedited passage through customs, immigration, and airport security throughout the region. The program should build upon and unify the existing NEXUS (US-Canadian) and SENTRI (US-Mexican) programs. Only those who voluntarily seek, receive, and pay the costs for a security clearance would obtain a Border Pass, which would be accepted at all border points within North America as a complement to passports.

These are alternatives to the Western Hemisphere Initiative. It is true that we have not done a good job of keeping track of people crossing the border, and the passage of the Real ID Act shows that there is a growing and grudging recognition that some form of National Identification Card may be needed. Congress really ought to address this issue head-on. We should not use the driver’s license, the social security card, the medicare card, or our credit cards for anything other than the purpose for which they are intended. These cards are not intended to judge immigration status or citizenship. We will not only fail if we use them for that purpose; we will also undermine their real purpose. We don’t want to discourage people from getting tested to drive because they fear that their status will be questioned.

Similarly, compelling Minnesotans to get passports to cross the border into Canada for a Sunday afternoon picnic is not the best way to approach the border security issue. What we need is a new approach to jointly police the perimeter, a North American border pass to facilitate travel, and a Customs Union to allow inspectors to concentrate on terrorists rather than tariffs on goods.

North Americans are ready for a new relationship. Studies over the past 20 years have shown a convergence of values, on personal and family issues as well as on public policy. An October 2003 poll taken in all three countries by Ekos, a Canadian firm, found that a clear majority believes that a North American economic union will be established in the next ten years. The same survey found an overwhelming majority in favor of more integrated North American policies on the environment, transportation, and defense and a more modest majority in favor of common energy and banking policies. And 75 percent of people in the United States and Canada, and two-thirds of Mexicans, support the development of a North American security perimeter. The U.S., Mexican, and Canadian governments remain zealous defenders of an outdated conception of sovereignty even though their citizens are ready for a new approach. Each nation’s leadership has stressed differences rather than common interests. North America needs leaders who can articulate and pursue a broader vision.

I hope this Committee will pursue the North American agenda beyond the travel initiative considered here. On June 23rd, the three leaders promised to publish a report with specific recommendations on how to deepen North American integration. These should be reviewed together with Senator Richard Lugar’s far-sighted bill for a “North American Cooperative Security Act” and Senator Cornyn’s “North American Investment Fund.” The time has come for us to define a true North American Community. Our security and prosperity depend on it.

The Council on Foreign Relations

And the Trilateral Commission

________________________

The two organizations that run the United States

by Melvin Sickler

_________

____

there are two groups of elite men and women in particular that most American people do not know about, but which are a clear threat and danger to the freedom of the American people. These are the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission.

Right now the United States is completely under the control of those who run these two organizations (David Rockefeller in particular). It is therefore important to understand these organizations if we wish to understand what has been taking place in the United States since the early 1900’s.

Edward Mandell House

The Council on Foreign Relations was founded in 1921 by Edward Mandell House, who had been the chief advisor of President Woodrow Wilson. Actually, he was more than just a prominent aide of the President; he dominated the President. He was referred to as Wilson’s "alter ego" (other self), and was credited for being the most powerful individual in the United States during the Wilson Administration from 1913 until 1921.

House was a Marxist whose goal was to socialize the United States. In 1912, House wrote the book "Philip Dru: Administrator" in which he stated that he was working for "Socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx." In this book, House laid out a plan for the conquest of America, telling how both the Democratic and Republican Parties would be controlled, and be used as instruments in the creation of a socialistic government. And he asked for the establishment of a state-controlled central bank, which were both proposed in "The Communist Manifesto". And it was in 1913, during the very first year of the House-dominated Wilson Administration, that both of these proposals became law. The Federal Reserve Act was passed, which brought into power a private central bank to create the money of the United States, taking this power away from the united States Congress. And the 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution, the graduated income tax as proposed by Karl Marx, was also ratified.

The Council on Foreign Relations

In 1921, House and his friends formed the Council on Foreign Relations whose purpose right from its conception was to destroy the freedom and independence of the United States, and to lead the country into a one-world government.

Right from its beginning, in 1921, the CFR began to attract men of power and influence. In the late 1920’s, important financing for the CFR came from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Carnegie Foundation. In 1940, at the invitation of President Roosevelt, members of the CFR gained domination over the State Department, and they have maintained this domination ever since.

Its intentions

The late Carroll Quigley (Bill Clinton’s mentor), Professor of History at Georgetown University, member of the CFR, stated in his book, "Tragedy & Hope":

"The CFR is the American Branch of a society which originated in England, and which believes that national boundaries should be obliterated, and a one-world rule established."

Rear Admiral Chester Ward, a former member of the Cfr for 16 years, warned the American people of the organization’s intentions:

"The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common — they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereingty of the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government."

And Dan Smoot, a former member of the FBI Headquarters staff in Washington, D.C., summarized the organization’s purpose as follows:

"The ultimate aim of the CFR is to create a one-world socialist system, and to make the U.S. an official part of it."

In other words, the CFR’s activities are treasonous to the U.S. Constitution. Their goal is to put an end to the United States of America, and to make the country a part of their global government scheme.

Its influence

In 1944 and in 1948, the Republican candidate for President, Thomas Dewey, was a CFR member. In later years, Republicans Eisenhower and Nixon were members of the CFR, as were Democrats Stevenson, Kennedy, Humphrey, and McGovern. (Note: We believe Kennedy became disloyal to the CFR prior to his assassination.") The American people think that they have a choice when they vote for a President, but the truth of the matter is , with few exceptions: Presidential candidates for decades have been CFR members.

In one of the CFR’s annual reports, published in 1978, it listed a membership of 1878 members. Eleven of its members at this time were United States Senators, with even more Congressmen belonging to the organization. 284 of its members listed in this report were United States Government officials. And the Chairman of the Board of this immensely powerful pyramid was stated as being none other than David Rockefeller himself.

The CFR not only has its members in the United States Government, but its influence has also spead to other vital areas of American life. According to Newell: "Its members have run, or are running, NBC and CBS, ‘The New York Times’, ‘The Washington Post’, ‘The Des Moines Register’, and many other important newspapers. The leaders of ‘Time’, ‘Newsweek’, ‘Fortune’, ‘Business Week’, and numerous other publications are CFR members. The organization’s members also dominate the academic world, top corporations, the huge tax-exempt foundations, labor unions, the military, and just about every segment of American life."

Barry Goldwater states in his book, "With No Apologies", on page 231:

"Does it not seem strange to you that these men just happened to be CFR and just happened to be on the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, that absolutely controls the money and interest rates of this great country without benefit of Congress? A privately owned organization, the Federal Reserve, which has absolutely nothing to do with the United States of America!"

and Newell continues to write: "Not every member of the CFR is fully committed to carrying out Edward Mandell House’s conspiratorial plan. Many have been flattered by an invitation to join a study group, which is what the CFR calls itself. Others go along because of personal benefits, such as a nice job and a new importance. But all are used to promote the destruction of U.S. sovereignty."

All aspects of American life are dominated

The members of the CFR dominate almost every aspect of American life, yet most Americans have never even heard of the Council on Foreign Relations. One reason for this is probably because there are over 170 journalists, correspondents, and communications executives who are members of the CFR, and who do not write about the organization. Also, it is an express condition of membership that no one is to disclose what goes on at CFR meetings.

Congressmen John R. Rarick had warned:

"The CFR, dedicated to one-world government, financed by a number of the largest tax-exempt foundations, and wielding such power and influence over our lives in the areas of finance, business, labor, military, education, and mass communication-media, should be familiar to every American concerned with good government, and with preserving and defending the U.S. Constitution and our free-enterprise system. Yet, the nation’s right-to-know machinery, the news media, usually so aggressive in exposures to inform our people, remain conspicuously silent when it comes to the CFR, its members and their activities.

"The CFR is the establishment. Not only does it have influence and power in key decision-making positions at the highest levels of government to apply pressure from above, but it also finances and uses individuals and groups to bring pressure from below, to justify the high level decisions for converting the U.S. from a sovereign Constitution Republic into a servile member of a one-world dictatorship."

The CFR now has its main headquarters at the corner of park Avenue and 68th Street in New York City, in a building given to the organization by the Rockefeller family in 1929. Its main goal is still to create a one-world government by destroying the freedom and independence of all nations, especially the United States. And David Rockefeller continues to be its Chairman of the Board.

The Trilateral Commission

Unfortunately, the Council on Foreign Relations is not the only group proposing an end to the sovereignty of the United States. In 1973, The Trilateral Commission was founded to work for the same goal: a one-world government.

The Trilateral Commission's roots stem from the book, "Between Two Ages", written by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1970. In this book, Brzezinski praised Marxism, thought of the United States as obsolete, and praised the formation of a one-world government. His thinking closely parallels that of CFR founder Edward Mandell house.

Marxism

On page 72, Brzezinski writes: "Marxism is simultaneously a victory of the external, active man over the inner, passive man and a victory of reason over belief."

On page 83, he states: "Marxism disseminated on the popular level in the form of Communism, represented a major advance in man's ability to conceptualize his relationship to his world."

On page 123, we find: "Marxism supplied the best available insight into contemporary reality."

What Mr. Brzezinski fails to tell his readers is that approximately 100 million human beings have been murdered under Marxism "in the form of Communism" just in this Twentieth Century. It has enslaved a billion more, and has been responsible for those who live in Communist-dominated countries. There is nothing like being brainwashed!

For world government

Zbigniew Brzezinski's "Between Two Ages" was published in 1970 while he was a professor in New York City. David Rockefeller read the book and, in 1973, launched the new Trilateral Commission, whose purposes include linking North America, Western Europe, and Japan "in their economic relations, their political and defense relations, their relations with developing countries, and their relations with Communist countries."

As Newell writes: "The original literature of The Trilateral Commission also states, exactly as Brzezinski's book had proposed, that the more advanced Communist States could become partners in the alliance leading to world government. In short, David Rockefeller implemented Brzezinski's proposal."

Rockefeller appointed Zbigniew Brzezinski to be the Director of The Trilateral Commission.

Jimmy Carter

In 1973, Jimmy Carter became a student of Brzezinski, and a founding member of the Trilateral Commission.

On March 21, 1978, "The New York Times" featured an article about Zbigniew Brzezinski's close relationship with the President. In part, it reads: "The two men met for the first time four years ago when mr. Brzezinski was executive director of The Trilateral Commission… and had the foresight to ask the then obscure former Governor of Georgia to join its distinguished ranks. Their initial teacher-student relationship blossomed during the campaign, and appears to have grown closer still."

To think that the teacher in this relationship praised Marxism, and wanted to form a one-world government. And the student was to become ghe President of the united States.

During the 1976 political campaign, Carter repeatedly told the nation that he was going to get rid of the Establishment Insiders if he became president. But when he took office, he promptly filled his Administration with members of the Council on Foreign Relations (284 to be exact) and The Trilateral Commission, the two most prominent insider organizations in America. Included in this list of members of The Trilateral Commission were Walter Mondale and Dr. Henry Kissinger.

Beginning with Jimmy Carter, all the recent presidents, including president Clinton, have promptly filled their administrations with members of the Council on Foreign relations and The Trilateral Commission.

The effects

The common everyday American citizen does not need to be told that there is a controlled government running the United States. But when we understand exactly what the Council on Foreign Relations and The Trilateral Commission are, and how its members hold key positions in the Government, it becomes all the more clear.

As Newell writes: "The effects of the Council on Foreign Relation and The Trilateral Commission on the affaires of our nation is easy to see. Our own Government no longer acts in its own interest, we no longer win any wars we fight, and we constantly tie ourselves to international agreements, pacts, and conventions. And, our leaders have developed blatant preferences for Communist U.S.S.R., Communist Cuba, and Communist China, while they continue to work for world government, which has always been the goal of Communism…

"The real goal of our own Government’s leaders is to make the United States into a carbon copy of a Communist state, and then to merge all nations into a one-world system run by a powerful few."

Barry Goldwater once stated on this subject:

"The Trilateral Commission is international, and it is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power – political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical."

As with the CFR, not all the members of The Trilateral Commission are fully committed to the destruction of the United States. Some just go along for the ride, to obtain fame, comfortabel living, and constatn flattery. But some, of course, really do run things and some, of course, really do run things and work against the independence of the united States.

Old but still an eye opener

br>

UNITED STATES CONGRESS -- SENATORS:

David L. Boren (D-OK) -- CFR
William Bradley (D-NJ) -- CFR
John H. Chafee (R-RI) -- CFR, TC
William S. Cohen (R-ME) -- CFR, TC
Christopher J. Dodd (D-CT) -- CFR
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) -- TC
Bob Graham (D-FL) -- CFR
Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) -- CFR
George J. MiTChell (D-ME) -- CFR
Claiborne Pell (D-RI) -- CFR
Larry Pressler (R-SD) -- CFR
Charles S. Robb (D-VA) -- CFR, TC
John D. Rockefeller, IV (D-WV) -- CFR, TC
William Roth, Jr. (R-DE) -- CFR, TC

UNITED STATES CONGRESS -- REPRESENTATIVES:

Howard L. Berman (D-CA) -- CFR
Thomas S. Foley (D-WA) -- CFR
Sam Gejdenson (D-CT) -- CFR
Richard A. Gephardt (D-MO) -- CFR
Newton L. Gingrich (R-GA) -- CFR
Lee H. Hamilton (D-IN) -- TC
Amory Houghton, Jr. (R-NY) -- CFR
Nancy Lee Johnson (R-CT) -- CFR
Jim Leach (R-IA) -- TC
John Lewis (D-GA) -- CFR
Robert T. Matsui (D-CA) -- CFR
Dave K. Mccurdy (D-OK) -- CFR
Eleanor Homes Norton (D-DC) -- CFR
Thomas El Petri (R-WI) -- CFR
Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) -- TC
Carlos A. Romero-Barcelo (D-PR) -- CFR
Patricia Schroeder (D-CO) -- CFR
Peter Smith (R-VT) -- CFR
Olympia J. Snow (R-ME) -- CFR
John M. Spratt (D-SC) -- CFR
Louis Stokes (D-OH) -- CFR

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

(PAST & PRESENT - PARTIAL LIST):
Alan Greenspan, ChairmaN -- CFR, TC
E. Gerald Corrigan, V. Chmn./Pres. NY Fed. Res. Bank -- CFR
Richard N. Cooper, Chmn. Boston Fed. Res. Bank -- CFR
Sam Y. Cross, Manager, Foreign Open Market Acct. -- CFR
Robert F. Erburu, Chmn. San Francisco Fed. Res. Bank -- CFR
Robert P. Forrestal, Pres. Atlanta Fed. Res. Bank -- CFR
Bobby R. Inman, Chmn., Dallas Fed. Res. Bank -- CFR, TC
Robert H. Knight, Esq. -- CFR
Steven Muller -- CFR
John R. Opel -- CFR
Anthony M. Solomon -- CFR, TC
Edwin M. Truman, Staff Dir. International Finance -- CFR
Cyrus R. Vance -- CFR
Paul Volcker -- CFR, TC

BANKING INSTITUTIONS:

Chase Manhattan Corp.:
Thomas G. Labrecque, Chairman & CEO -- CFR, TC
Robert R. Douglass, Vice Chairman -- CFR
Willard C. BuTCher, Dir. -- CFR
Richard W. Lyman, Dir. -- CFR
Joan Ganz Cooney, Dir. -- CFR
David T. Mclaughlin, Dir. -- CFR
Edmund T. Pratt, Jr., Dir. -- CFR
Henry B. Schacht, Dir. -- CFR
Chemical Bank:
Walter V. Shipley, Chairman -- CFR
Robert J. Callander, President -- CFR
William C. Pierce, Executive Officer -- CFR
Randolph W. Bromery, Dir. -- CFR
Charles W. Duncan, Jr., Dir. -- CFR
George V. Grune, Dir. -- CFR
Helen L. Kaplan, Dir. -- CFR
Lawrence G. Rawl, Dir. -- CFR
Michael I. Sovern, Dir. -- CFR
Richard D. Wood, Dir. -- CFR
Citicorp:
John S. Reed. Chairman -- CFR
William R. Rhodes, Vice Chairman -- CFR
Richard S. Braddock, President -- CFR
John M. DeuTCh, Dir. -- CFR
Clifton C. Garvin, Jr., Dir -- CFR
C. Peter Mccolough, Dir. -- CFR
Rozanne L. Ridgeway, Dir. -- CFR
Franklin A. Thomas, Dir. -- CFR
First City Bancorp, Texas:
A. Robert Abboud, CEO -- CFR
Morgan Guaranty:
Lewis T. Preston, Chairman -- CFR
Bankers Trust New York Corporation:
Charles S. Stanford, Jr., Chairman -- CFR
Alfred Brittain III, Dir. -- CFR
Vernon E. Jordan, Jr., Dir -- CFR
Richard L. Gelb, Dir. -- CFR
Patricia Carry Stewart, Dir. -- CFR
First National Bank of Chicago:
Barry F. Sullivan -- TC
Manufacturers Hanover Directors:
Cyrus Vance -- CFR
G. Robert Durham -- CFR
George B. Munroe -- CFR
Marina V. N. Whitman -- CFR, TC
Charles J. Pilliod, Jr. -- CFR
Bank America:
Andrew F. Brimmer, Dir. -- CFR
Ignazio E. Lozano, Jr., Dir. -- CFR
Ruben F. Mettler, Dir. -- CFR
Securities & Exchange Commission:
Michael D. Mann, Dir. International Affairs -- CFR

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.