Phyllis Schlafly Remembered by Her Loving Son

By Andy Schlafly

Phyllis Schlafly was with us a glorious 92 years, and active in politics for more than 70 of them. It is difficult to identify any issue that she was not on the right side of, typically years or decades before others rallied beside her.

She wrote or spoke out on nearly every controversial American political matter, and the conservative movement today is based largely on work that she did five, ten, twenty, and even sixty years ago. Though we grieve her passing, she leaves us with a legacy that will take us our own lifetimes to fully appreciate.

Donald Trump, in his remarkable eulogy to Phyllis last Saturday at the beginning of her funeral, observed that Phyllis has shaped American politics for one quarter of its entire existence. He commented that she always put America first, as he does, and the massive crowd of attendees gave a standing ovation to Trump in immense gratitude to him for so honoring Phyllis.

Pat Buchanan: Trump & the Hillarycons

By Patrick J. Buchanan

In 1964, Phyllis Schlafly of Alton, Illinois, mother of six, wrote and published a slim volume entitled “A Choice Not an Echo.”

Backing the candidacy of Sen. Barry Goldwater, the book was a polemic against the stranglehold the eastern liberal establishment had held on the Republican nomination for decades.

Schlafly went on to lead the campaign to derail the Equal Rights Amendment, which, with 35 states having ratified, was just three states short of being added to our Constitution.

Pro-ERA forces never added another state. Phyllis, who, at 20 was testing weapons at a munitions plant in World War II, shot it dead.

Phyllis Schlafly Makes the Case for President Trump: ‘Only Hope to Defeat the Kingmakers’

In an exclusive hour-long sit down interview with Breitbart News, 91-year-old conservative icon and living legend Phyllis Schlafly declared that Donald Trump “is the only hope to defeat the Kingmakers,” and detailed why she believes Trump alone will return the government to the people. She warned that if immigration is not stopped: “we’re not going to be America anymore.”

Schlafly, born in St. Louis, Missouri in 1924, has been active in politics for more than one-quarter of all American history. She helped launch the conservative movement, create the pro-family agenda, and has led the fight against open borders trade and immigration policies. Thus, Schlafly’s proclamation to Breitbart News that front-runner Trump “represents everything the grassroots want” is certain to reverberate across the 2016 electorate.

Schlafly is also a Daughter of the American Revolution, author or editor of 20 books, a writer of nearly 2,500 columns, a lawyer, a mother of six, and a grandmother of 14.

The in-depth interview comes more than fifty years after the publication of Schlafly’s seminal work, A Choice Not An Echo, which inspired a generation of conservatives and defined the battle lines between the Republican grassroots and the Party elites.

Today, Schlafly tells Breitbart that the defining and most important battle is immigration. She said that current visa rates will “destroy our country,” and called for a pause on all new immigration, just like the county had during the middle of the 20th century.

Read more at Breitbart >>

Phyllis Schlafly: Trump is 'Last Hope for America'

'I don't see anyone else who's eager to fight'

 

Phyllis Schlafly, an icon of the conservative movement who has been active for half a century, is warning the nation: Donald Trump is the last hope for America.

Schlafly unloaded on Republicans in Congress for passing the $1.1 trillion omnibus bill last week, a move she called a “betrayal.”

“This is a betrayal of the grassroots and of the Republican Party,” Schlafly said in an exclusive interview with WND. “We thought we were electing a different crowd to stand up for America, and they didn’t. We’re extremely outraged by what Congress has done. Nancy Pelosi couldn’t have engineered it any better. I think the people are going to react by electing Donald Trump.”

Read more at World  Net Daily >>

Phyllis Schlafly: No Wonder Obama Won't Let Us Read TPP

Deal would separate us from Constitution and national sovereignty

By Phyllis Schlafly

On Friday, Congress disrupted President Obama’s plan for a sweeping transfer of U.S. sovereignty to an unaccountable group of foreign busybodies. Hurray for the stalwart Americans who resisted the demands of Obama, the Republican leadership and the big-donor claque – but Speaker Boehner plans to give Congress another chance this week to make this dangerous mistake.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) would turn over to globalists the power to issue regulations about U.S. trade, immigration, the environment, labor and commerce. It’s called a “living agreement,” which means the globalists can amend and change the text of the so-called agreement after it has gone into effect.

Schlafly: Obama Could Launch Another Civil War

 “I think he lies about everything”

President Obama’s looming executive action on immigration reform represents a Fort Sumter-type moment, according to conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly.

Schlafly at first considered comparing the Obama amnesty to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor but decided that Obama’s plan is much more subtle.

“With Pearl Harbor, the American people knew what was happening,” she said.

But Fort Sumter, where the opening shots of the Civil War were fired, represented the beginning of a ruinous conflict, and Schlafly, like fellow conservative luminary Richard Viguerie, speculates that an executive amnesty might touch off a sort of modern-day conflagration.

Read more at WND >>

Phyllis Schlafly: Common Core a Threat to Catholic Schools

Editor's note:  We are perplexed by Catholic school administrators who eagerly align  their pedagogy, curricula and standards to those of the public school establishment - an establishment that is mediocre at its best and utterly fails in America's inner-cities, where Catholic schools offer the poor a lifeline and hope for a better life.  These Catholic school administrators insist that their compliance is necessary due to the many transfers that occur between the government and parochial systems; but why would so many parents eschew "free" education for tuition payments were they satisfied with government-issue schooling? We suspect the real answer is that some bishops and diocesan education officials are willing to accept shackles in return for government shekels.

The valiant Phyllis Schlafly, President of Eagle Forum, has written the following letter to key leaders of the Catholic hierarchy about a government-corporate alliance to implement Common Core standards in public and private schools, including Catholic schools. It is reprinted here with permission of the author.

Your Excellency,

I write today to share with you our significant concerns about a troubling development in our Catholic schools and to seek your prayerful guidance about this issue.

Under the guise of reforming the nation’s failing public schools, President Obama’s Department of Education offered states $4.35 billion in stimulus funds in a grant competition called Race to the Top in 2010.  In order to compete for the funds, let alone receive them, states had to agree to adhere to the only set of national academic standards then under development by a private organization funded largely by Bill Gates.

Governors of cash-strapped states were only too eager for the opportunity to supplement their budgets regardless of the quality of the standards.  In fact, the standards were not even completed until after the grant applications were due.  As a further inducement to apply for the funds, states were offered waivers of the Bush era No Child Left Behind law and were also warned that failure to adopt the new standards could cost poor districts their Title 1 funds.  One must wonder why allegedly superior academic standards necessitated such underhanded tactics.

The new national standards for Mathematics and English Language Arts, called Common Core, were adopted by forty-five states giving an appearance of national unanimity.  This facade crumbles once you know the standards were approved not by the people of these 45 states or their elected representatives but by governors and state boards of education officials.  Neither the state legislatures nor the voters ever knew about this radical change in their children’s education until this spring (more than two years after they were adopted).

As the standards began to be implemented during the 2012-2013 school year parents noticed disturbing changes in homework, textbooks, and tests.  Suddenly, Euclidian geometry was displaced, children were instructed to add in columns from left to right, and “conceptual” math replaced fundamentals.  In language arts, “close reading” strategies forced students to read texts “in a vacuum” or without the encumbrance of what was deemed “privileged information.” Furthermore, classical literature was dramatically reduced in favor of reading “informational texts” like computer manuals.  The stated goal of the new standards, in both Math and English, is to make students “college and career ready” by focusing on “21st century skills.”

Although Common Core was designed specifically to address public school failings, the standards are impacting Catholic schools as well.  Many Catholic schools have decided to adopt the Common Core in a misguided attempt to remain “competitive.”  This rationale makes little sense as Catholic schools have long enjoyed a superior academic record to the public schools. This is due not only to a faith-filled learning environment and the dedication of good teachers but because they have had the freedom to employ time-honored teaching methods only sporadically seen in the public schools. With a tradition that includes Cardinal Newman, St. Anselm, and Thomas Aquinas why would we ever consider adopting the latest public school fad in education?

Catholic educators who propose to “adapt” the Common Core to the Catholic model forget the purpose of Catholic education.  The mission of the Catholic school is to prepare students for eternal life with God while its secondary goal is to prepare them for temporal work.  They accomplish this by pursuing Truth and by seeking to acquire Knowledge for its own sake.  In contrast, the goal of Common Core is the narrow training of students to become mere functionaries educated solely for earthly success.  Catholic educators should be leery of any standards that create automatons rather than humane individuals.

In the United States, Christians in general and the Catholic Church in particular have been under siege over the past five years.  In light of the HHS mandate, the IRS targeting of faith organizations, the active promotion of gay marriage, and other federal efforts designed to dismantle moral society we cannot remain complacent as this administration takes aim at our children.  Just a few weeks ago the president condemned Catholic education in Ireland calling it “divisive.”  Evil is dangerously palatable when hidden in the stew of “good intentions,” and the Church should be particularly cautious about accepting anything at face value from this federal government.  Clear Church teaching on the principle of subsidiarity demands that we guard jealously the local control of our children’s education.

Thus far, only math and language arts standards have been introduced.  We shudder to think of the challenges to the faith that will be posed when the standards for social studies, history, science, and health are released. Because it is impossible to totally remove personal bias and opinion from the development of any set of standards, and because we understand that standards drive curriculum, we must be especially vigilant in examining new standards before they are implemented by our schools.

In addition to a long list of academic worries with Common Core we have additional privacy concerns related to the onerous data collection requirements that are part of the system. The idea behind the federal data collection mandate is to track students from pre-school through their careers so as to determine whether the standards are succeeding in making students “career ready.” While the initial goal may be laudable, there are serious concerns about maintaining the privacy of minors. The federal government has proposed gathering over 400 personally identifiable data points on each student, and whereas that information could have previously been considered “safe,” the federal government’s changes to FERPA in January, 2012 now make it possible for school officials to share private data without parental consent. Once unscrupulous school officials realize they can sell private data to the highest bidder all privacy will be in jeopardy.

The threat posed by Common Core to the Catholic schools comes as they struggle to compete against public charter schools, home schooling, and other innovative models of education. Sadly, Catholic Schools can no longer count on welcoming the children of the parish as many parishioners no longer feel obligated to send their children to parochial schools. As our Catholic schools search for ways to attract new students, they would do well to reject the servile training model of the public schools rather than seeking to imitate it.

My humble request is that you investigate the dangers of Common Core to Catholic education.  Please consider the concerns of a growing number of parents around the country.  More than a dozen state legislatures have now taken some action to review, defund, or repeal Common Core now that parents and legislators have learned the details of this program.  In April, Indiana became the first state to suspend Common Core led by the efforts of two Catholic school mothers.  Your sheep ask for the protection of their shepherd. Your sheep are asking to be fed. The laity needs to hear from the bishops on this very important issue.

Schlafly: Health Care Vote Exposes the Myth of the 'Pro-Life Democrat'

Phyllis Schlafly, president and founder of the conservative grassroots public policy organization Eagle Forum, made the following remarks after the public announcement that formerly pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak (D-MI) will cast a "yes" vote for the Senate health care bill today in the House:

"It is naive for any elected official, especially one who describes himself as 'pro-life,' to expect that a promise to issue an Executive Order that reasserts the intentions of the Hyde Amendment will be fulfilled by the most pro-abortion president to ever sit in the White House. Perhaps Mr. Stupak and his fellow pro-life Democrats forget that President Obama's first Executive Order was the repeal of the Mexico City Policy to allow for international funding of abortion."

"Not only would an Executive Order be rendered meaningless in the face of Congress passing legislation which actively provides for the massive expansion and funding of abortion services, but anyone who doubts the abortion tsunami which awaits this bill becoming law lives in a fantasy world."

"Barack Obama has lined every existing federal agency with the most dedicated pro-abortion ideologues, and we know that he will continue this pattern of pro-abortion appointments when it comes time for him to fill the over-100 bureaucracies created to administer his socialized health care program."

"Any formerly pro-life Democrat who casts a 'Yes' vote for this Senate health care bill tonight will be forever remembered as being among the deciding votes which facilitated the largest expansion of abortion services since Roe v. Wade."

"Mr. Stupak and his Democrat followers have now clarified that you cannot be pro-life and be a Democrat. If abortion was truly their biggest issue, they wouldn't willfully align themselves with the Party of Death."

"This vote will expose the myth of the 'pro-life Democrat.' With this single vote, the Democratic Party will divide our nation into the Party of Death and the Party of Life, and future elections will never be the same."

SCHLAFLY: Fumbling Jobs Issue Will Lose Reagan Democrats

From The Washington Times
Commentary By Phyllis Schlafly

Conservatives bounced back strong after the elections of Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, and we'll do likewise again in 2010. The Gallup Poll just reported that self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals in all 50 states, and the trend is up. President Obama is aiding our task of reinvigorating conservatives.

A speech Ronald Reagan gave in 1975 to the Conservative Political Action Conference contains a message worth repeating:

"I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, 'We must broaden the base of our party' - when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents ...," he said.

"Our people look for a cause to believe in ... raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people. ... Let us explore ways to ward off socialism. ... A political party ... must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency," Mr. Reagan said.

Here is our banner of bold colors:

1. Restore fiscal responsibility. Conservatives must call a halt to Mr. Obama's reckless borrowing and spending. This means defeating the wildly extravagant health care bill and the cap-and-trade bill, which should be called cap-and-tax.

2. Stand tall for American sovereignty. This means rejecting all United Nations treaties including the U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty, the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the U.N. Treaty on Women. They all invade our sovereignty by creating committees of hostile foreign bureaucrats to monitor our compliance.

Standing for American sovereignty also means repudiating all devious ways of erasing our borders by deceitful code words such as "economic integration," "labor mobility," "North American Union," or "Free Trade Area of the Americas."

3. Make foreign and military policies serve the national security of the United States. George Washington's advice to be "at all times ready for war" means, at long last, deploying an anti-missile defense that can protect our people from attack by rogue nations. As Margaret Thatcher reminded us, Mr. Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot.

4. We must recapture the three important voting blocs that abandoned conservative candidates in 2008: Reagan Democrats, unmarried women, and young people.

We lost the Reagan Democrats by fumbling the jobs issue. Millions of well-paying blue-collar jobs have gone overseas where workers are paid only 30 cents an hour. We must make clear that conservatives stand for maintaining middle-class jobs that support a family. We must rewrite the unfair trade agreements that allow foreign countries to pretend to reduce their barriers against our products but substitute an equivalent border tax called the VAT (Value Added Tax) that discriminates against U.S. products. Conservatives must reject the trade agreements that allow foreign countries to subsidize their exports by rebating their domestic taxes, while U.S. companies pay very high corporate taxes.

We lost 70 percent of unmarried women because the Democrats are the party of generous handouts to unmarried mothers. Conservatives must stand up for marriage as the basic institution of society and must not allow the liberals to undermine marriage by using taxpayer-financed incentives in the multibillion-dollar welfare, child-support, and domestic-violence agencies to promote divorce, fatherless children, and the matriarchy sought by the feminists. Mothers should look to husbands for financial support, not depend on Big Brother Government to be the provider. The liberals will always be the party of bigger taxpayer handouts.

We lost the majority of young people largely because of what they are taught in the public schools, which 89 percent of kids attend. We must demand that public schools teach respect for patriotism, the Constitution, moral standards, Western civilization instead of multiculturalism (all cultures are equal), diversity (all behaviors are OK), and "social justice" (the false notion that students are victims of an unjust, oppressive and racist America, which makes them ripe targets for community organizers to mobilize them to vote for socialist candidates). The National Association of Scholars defines "social justice" as "the advocacy of more egalitarian access to income through state-sponsored redistribution." That is academic verbiage for Mr. Obama's pledge to "spread the wealth around," which sums up his current policies.

If conservatives deal with these challenges, they can be the Comeback Kids in 2010.

Phyllis Schlafly is a founder of the modern conservative movement in the United States and has been a national leader on a panoply of national and foreign-policy issues.

Obama's Plan to Rejoin the World Community

By Phyllis Schlafly

When Candidate Barack Obama declared himself a "citizen of the world" before thousands of cheering German socialists, and later pledged to "rejoin the World Community," those weren't just his usual platitudes about "change." Those words sounded the trumpet for his specific and far-reaching globalist agenda.

Obama plans to use his presidential power to get the Democratic-majority Senate to ratify a series of treaties that would take us a long way toward global rule over our money, our laws, our military, our courts, our customs, our trade, and even our use of energy. Here are the treaties he says he wants.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Do Party Platforms Really Matter?

A good friend of mine who is a Republican county chairman in a border state, and an incorrigible McCainiac, sees the presumptive Republican nominee as a transformational political figure who will remake the Republican Party in his own image. In his view, McCain can win without conservatives, and freed from their demands the party will rebuild itself with millions of independents, Latinos and Hillary backers who feel alienated from the Democrat Party.

In the following column, Phyllis Schlafly reminds us that we have been there before, many times in fact. As one of the culture wars' greatest generals, Phyllis Schlafly has been battling liberals for the heart and soul of the Republican Party and for principled conservative policy positions in its platforms for a half century. She knows that when the Republican Party has represented its conservative base and provided a clear alternative to the Democrats, it has been successful. However, when it has run on a platform dictated by liberals like Nelson Rockefeller, as in 1960, or when the nominee has repudiated a conservative platform, as Bob Dole did in 1996, it has lost.

The Republican Convention of 2008 may seem to many to be boring television. But a fierce battle will soon rage over such issues as the kind of judiciary we will have, whether or not we will secure our border and adopt English as our official language, whether we will preserve US sovereignty or subject ourselves to the dictates of the UN, and move toward a North American Union, whether we will continue to submit to trade agreements that export American manufacturing and jobs overseas, and whether the Republican Party will continue to stand up in defense of life, the institution of marriage, and traditional morality.

In this excellent article, Mrs. Schlafly calls on grass roots Americans to once again seize control of the Republican Party from the liberal elites and rebuild the conservative movement. Conservatives should take heart. Our General in that struggle is Phyllis Schlafly, while the other side is saddled with the likes of Christie Whitman. Bring it on!

Do Party Platforms Really Matter

By Phyllis Schlafly

One of the main features of any political convention is adoption of the platform, a statement of Party principles and goals. Some people take party platforms very seriously; others think they are a waste of time. Of course, they are often very wordy, not like the Phyllis Schlafly Report, which gives you more facts in fewer words than anything in print.

A party platform is like a creed. Most Christians recite their creed over and over again to strengthen their faith in what they believe. A party platform is also like the flag soldiers carry into battle. It's the symbol of what we think is worth our work and sacrifice. A party platform is published in the hope that like-minded Americans will join our cause. A party platform is the standard to which public officials may be held accountable.

Munich in Manhattan

At the 1960 Republican National Convention in Chicago, then-Vice President Richard Nixon was expected to be the presidential nominee. New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller nursed a lifetime ambition to be President, but when he finally realized he could not beat Nixon for the nomination, he decided instead to make a fight to put his liberal planks in the Platform.

Rockefeller was the head of the New York, liberal, Big-Government, internationalist wing of the Republican Party that supported foreign and domestic policies similar to those of the Democrats, and whose me-too candidates had led Republicans down to defeat again and again.

If Rockefeller were alive today, he would be called a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Conservatives' animosity toward Rockefeller was a matter of geography, ideology, policy, and even morality. He walked out on his longtime wife and mother of his five children and stole another man's wife. As New York Governor, he signed one of the first laws legalizing abortion, before Roe v. Wade.

The week before the 1960 Convention, while the Platform Committee was hammering out its document in Chicago, Richard Nixon made a pilgrimage to New York City where he met for eight hours with Rockefeller in his Fifth Avenue apartment.

At the end of the day, Nixon agreed to support all the changes in the Platform dictated by Rockefeller. Nixon returned to Chicago and handed the Platform Committee its orders: throw out your week's work of hearing witnesses and drafting a document and accept all 14 Rockefeller demands.

There wasn't much substance in Rockefeller's changes, but in politics perception is reality. Nixon's acceptance of Rockefeller's language meant much more than mere changes in words. It meant that Nixon had purged himself of his independence and made himself acceptable to the Rockefeller wing of the Party.

The Chicago Tribune headlined its editorial "Grant Surrenders to Lee." Senator Barry Goldwater, who was very popular at the 1960 Convention, promptly labeled the new Nixon alliance a "surrender to Rockefeller" and "a bid to appease the Republican left." Goldwater said, "I believe this to be immoral politics." He said the Rockefeller-Nixon agreement will "live in history as the Munich of the Republican Party" and predicted it will guarantee "a Republican defeat in November."

Unfortunately, Goldwater's prediction was accurate. Richard Nixon lost to John F. Kennedy in 1960. Goldwater sadly said, we lost "not because we were Republican, but because we were not Republican enough."

Americans then endured the presidential terms of John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, which gave us major disasters from the Bay of Pigs to the Vietnam War.

When Richard Nixon was finally elected President in 1968, he turned out to be a RINO on almost every issue. He appointed Nelson Rockefeller's protege Henry Kissinger to direct all our foreign policy and national defense issues, which meant cuddling up to Soviet Russia and Red China. Nixon signed the infamous ABM treaty from which, 30 years later, the United States finally withdrew. Domestically, Nixon raised taxes and even imposed wage and price controls.

The Watergate debacle was followed by the accidental presidency of Gerald Ford, who also proved to be a RINO by choosing Nelson Rockefeller as his Vice President.

Turning the Party Right

By 1976, conservatives were so dissatisfied and angry with those RINO administrations that California Governor Ronald Reagan was inspired to challenge incumbent President Gerald Ford. That was a daring move because it's seldom that an incumbent is defeated in his own party primary. The Republican National Convention in Kansas City in 1976 was very close; Reagan narrowly lost the presidential nomination to Ford by only 117 Delegate votes.

With hindsight we can see that the real importance of the 1976 Convention was the Platform. A first-term Senator from a southern state named Jesse Helms decided that the 1976 Republican Platform was the forum on which to rebuild the conservative movement that had eroded under Nixon, Ford, and their chief adviser, Henry Kissinger.

Jesse Helms wanted the Convention to adopt a strong Republican Platform that really stood for principles we could be proud of, such as military superiority "second to none," instead of Kissinger-style appeasement and retreat.

Helms also called for an approach that was unthinkable to establishment Republicans: a direct attack on the policies of the incumbent Republican President.

So, at the 1976 Republican National Convention in Kansas City, Jesse Helms led the battle to adopt a Platform based on what he called "morality in foreign policy." It promised "a realistic assessment of the Communist challenge" and bluntly criticized any giveaway of the U.S. Canal in Panama or unilateral concessions to the Soviet Union.

In an upset victory, the 1976 Convention adopted the Helms Platform repudiating the Nixon-Ford-Kissinger foreign policy of d‚tente, and promising that we would "never tolerate a shift against us in the strategic balance."

That was the moment when the Republican Party turned toward victory over the Evil Empire and laid the basis for Ronald Reagan's principled campaign four years later. It set the stage for Reagan's determination that our attitude toward the Soviet Union should be "we win and they lose."

The 1976 Platform was not just about foreign policy; 1976 was the first Republican National Convention when the emerging pro-family movement raised its voice in politics. The 1976 Platform opposed "intrusion by the federal government" in education and called for constitutional amendments to restore prayer to schools and "to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children."

The 1976 Platform showed the country that the majority of Republicans disavowed the so-called moderates and RINOs and were determined to rebuild the Republican Party based on conservative principles — even if this required criticizing the Republican Executive Branch and the U.S. Supreme Court.

Correcting a Platform Mistake

In 1980 when Delegates gathered in Detroit for the Republican National Convention, the fact that Ronald Reagan was going to be nominated wasn't big news any more, so the media focused on the Equal Rights Amendment as the hottest Platform issue, giving ERA enormous publicity.

Regrettably, previous Republican platforms had endorsed ERA, and the feminists were determined to keep it that way. I was just as determined to take it out. Reagan had already announced his opposition to ERA, and we did not intend to let him be embarrassed by the feminists on this issue.

The radical feminists enjoyed the full support of the media for their street demonstrations and news conferences featuring the wife of the Michigan Governor, a Congresswoman, and the co-chair of the Republican Party.

Nevertheless, StopERAers and pro-lifers won big, both in the Platform Committee and the full Convention. ERA was permanently removed from the Republican Platform, and the Platform again affirmed "support of a constitutional amendment to restore protection of the right to life for unborn children."

After the Platform vote was taken, RNC Co-Chairman Mary Dent Crisp, another RINO, shed real tears for the benefit of television cameras — and then she walked out of the Republican Party to support John Anderson, who ran as a Third Party candidate trying to defeat Ronald Reagan. You may have lost track of John Anderson; he later showed his true colors by becoming the head of the United World Federalists, which keeps trying to put the United States under world government.

Defining Conservatism in Dallas

At the 1984 Convention in Dallas where we renominated Ronald Reagan, the Platform did not duck any controversial issues. It took a strong stand against taxes, ERA, gay rights, quotas, government daycare, federal control of education, activist judges, pornography, gun control, the United Nations, and UNESCO, and a strong stand in favor of an anti-missile defense, parents' rights in public schools, and the protection of human life.

1984 was the year when Henry Hyde and I were the Illinois delegates on the Platform Committee, and the Party adopted this beautiful statement: "The unborn child has a fundamental, individual right to life which cannot be infringed."

Ronald Reagan offered us a vision of morning in America, reminding us: "Don't give up your ideals, don't compromise. Don't turn to expedience. . . . We can have that shining city on the hill — but we can have it only through God's grace, our own courage, and our own will to abide by the faith of our fathers." Republicans standing tall for conservative principles were rewarded by Reagan's 1984 landslide victory, which doubled the votes received by Barry Goldwater in 1964.

Defending the Pro-Life Plank

At the 1992 Republican National Convention in Houston, the renomination of the first George Bush was not controversial. The hottest issue became the attempt by some RINOs (they usually call themselves Moderates) to remove the pro-life plank from the Republican Platform. This effort was started by Mary Dent Crisp, the former RNC co-chair who had walked out of the Republican Party 12 years earlier to support a Third Party. Republicans had gotten along jolly well without her during the Reagan years but, in Houston, Crisp threatened to leave the Party again if we didn't remove the pro-life plank from the Platform.

That's when Colleen Parro and I founded Republican National Coalition for Life, a new organization with the specific mission of preserving the pro-life plank in the Republican Party Platform. Despite much hammering against us by the media, and equivocation by Republican Party officials, we were successful in Houston.

In 1996, two prominent RINO Republicans ran for nomination for President: California Governor Pete Wilson and Senator Arlen Specter. Both made removal of the pro-life plank from the Republican Platform the centerpiece of their campaigns. You've probably forgotten that they ran for President — their campaigns fizzled out so early.

At the 1996 National Convention in San Diego, the Platform Committee, which usually includes some members of Eagle Forum, stood like the Rock of Gibraltar in writing a splendid Platform of conservative Republican principles on political, economic, cultural, life, and national sovereignty issues.

Our presidential nominee Bob Dole then insulted the Delegates by announcing to the press, "I haven't read the Platform and I'm not bound by it anyway." His managers censored out of Dole's campaign the moral, cultural and sovereignty issues, which had been emphasized in the Platform, and Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton.

The Platform W. Ran On

By 2000, when the Delegates gathered in Philadelphia for the Republican National Convention, it had become very clear that the Republican nominee for President must be pro-life. Not a single pro-abortion candidate entered the race for President in 2000, and the pro-life plank in the Platform was adopted again by the Convention with little opposition.

George W. Bush ran and was elected on the strong Republican Platform adopted in Philadelphia in 2000. Here are a few of its planks in addition to the traditional language that "the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life."

"We support the traditional definition of marriage as the legal union of one man and one woman. . . . We do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection. . . We stand with the Boy Scouts of America, and support their positions. . . . We defend the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. . . . We support the recognition of English as the nation's common language. . . . We affirm the right of public schools, courthouses, and other public buildings to post copies of the Ten Commandments. . . . [We support the appointment of] judges who have demonstrated that they share . . . conservative beliefs and respect the Constitution. . . . We believe the military must no longer be the object of social experiments. . . . We affirm that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. . . . We support legislation prohibiting gambling on the Internet. . . . America must deploy effective missile defenses. . . . American troops must never serve under UN command or be subject to the jurisdiction of an International Criminal Court."

The Non-Grassroots Platform

The Platform Committee (officially called the Resolutions Committee) at the Republican National Convention consists of one man and one woman from each state. You also must be elected a Delegate. The usual procedure is that Platform Committee members are elected by each state's Delegates at their first caucus. The procedure is rather democratic (with a small d), so that the Platform Committee is usually representative of grassroots Republicans.

Unfortunately the Platform Committee at the Republican National Convention in New York in 2004 was very different. President Bush and Karl Rove gave orders to Republican State Chairmen not to let anyone on the Platform Committee who was not a public official or a Party official who could be told how to vote; and so 90% of Platform Committee members fit those categories. Senator Bill Frist, chairman of the national Platform Committee, ran it with a tight hand to exclude any plank that Bush didn't want and to praise George W. Bush on 89 of the Platform's 98 pages. Except for the pro-life plank and an excellent plank urging Congress to use its Article III power to limit the rule of supremacist judges, conservatives were unable to add strong planks on other issues they cared about, such as immigration.

Looking to the Future

We cannot allow the 2008 Platform Committee to be controlled by Party bosses or by the presidential nominee, first, because they support positions that are contrary to what the majority of Republicans want, and second because the Platform Committee should be a genuine grassroots voice.

The history of the battles over Republican Platforms teaches us that standing on principles of authentic conservatism and traditional values is the road to victory. Strong principled platforms are worth all the agony we put into writing and getting them adopted. They show that conservative Republicans do not have to settle for a liberal or a moderate or a RINO masquerading as a conservative because conservatives have the majority to demand candidates with the right stuff.

The voters will back a party that offers a pro-American foreign policy and trade policy, real tax cuts, and support for the Creator-endowed right to life and liberty of every individual. The voters will back opposition to United Nations treaties, federal control over classroom curricula, federal health care, and Open Borders policies that admit terrorists.

It's our job to get the Republican Party back on track after eight years of George W. Bush deviationism. We must establish conservative grassroots Republicanism as different from a Bush party. We made a great start in doing this by killing his deal to turn over our seaports to a Middle East government, Dubai Ports. We scored again by defeating his nomination of feminist Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court. We had a smashing third victory by defeating his cooperation with Ted Kennedy to pass an amnesty bill in the Senate. The 2008 Platform must maintain our conservative momentum.

Key Issues for Grassroots Conservatives

1. American Self-Government vs. Rule by Supremacist Judges. We must reject all rule by judges who believe the U.S. Constitution is a "living" document that they can re-interpret according to their own biases about "emerging standards." We cannot allow judges to declare unconstitutional the Pledge of Allegiance, the Ten Commandments, the Boy Scout oath, the traditional definition of marriage, or parents' rights in public schools.
2. Immigration/Border Security. We must not allow amnesty to be passed incrementally under dishonest labels like "comprehensive." We must demand border security, a double fence, increased border guards, employee verification, the tracking of visas for visitors, cooperation with local police, and an end to granting citizenship to "anchor babies." We must adopt English as our official language. We must recognize that the billions of dollars we've spent on the so-called war against drugs is a sham so long as we allow illegal drugs to come over our southern border.
   
3. American Sovereignty. We must defeat all UN treaties such as the Law of the Sea Treaty, which was rejected by Ronald Reagan so long ago. This treaty would give control of all the oceans and the riches at the bottom of the sea to a UN organization, set up a world court to decide disputes, and have the power to impose taxes on us. We cannot allow the elites to push the United States into a North American Union modeled on the European Union because that is a terrible threat to the continued independence of the U.S.A. The globalists are running away from the term North American Union, but they are frank in calling their goal "economic integration" and "labor mobility" — and that means open borders for cheap labor. "Economic integration" is already taking place in allowing Mexican trucks access to all our highways, in the TransTexas Highway that is planned to grow into a NAFTA Superhighway, and in Bush's Totalization plan to put illegal aliens in Social Security. Our schools must not teach our youngsters to become "citizens of the world."
4. Protection of American Workers. We must stop the changes in our Patent law that benefit foreign countries at the expense of American inventors, the trade agreements that pretend to promote free trade but actually are a cover for the outsourcing of good American jobs, the insourcing of foreigners to take jobs away from Americans, the foreign countries' discrimination against U.S. products with their Value Added Tax, and foreign countries' shipments to us of foods and prescription drugs that contain poisons.
5. Life, Marriage, and Traditional Morality. The pro-life plank in the Republican Platform is essential both to the pro-life movement and to Republican victories. The Republican Party cannot win without the support of its pro-life constituency. Marriage amendments will be on the ballot in California and Florida this year, and Americans must make sure they win. The overwhelming majority of Americans support the retention of marriage in its traditional definition of the union of one man and one woman.
   

Strong words about the need for grassroots action came even from an establishment Republican, former Republican National Chairman and now Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour. He told the Republican National Committee at its January 2008 winter meeting, "We've become a top-down party. . . . We have to become a bottom-up party again. . . . This is the year we have to maximize grassroots participation."

Ronald Reagan said that God's hand is on America in a very preferential way. We have inherited a wonderful land of liberty and prosperity. It's our duty to safeguard our magnificent heritage. One way we do this is by adopting a Republican Party Platform that designs the plan to rebuild the conservative movement, sets the standard for public officials, and then tries to hold them to it. We must use the procedures in the U.S. Constitution, and the mechanisms of self-government and of party politics to preserve our heritage.

It's up to grassroots Americans to rebuild the conservative movement and take back the Republican Party from the RINOs (as we did in 1964 and 1980).

The Conservative Movement's Grandest Lady -- Congratulations, Dr. Schlafly!

From the Daily News-Record

Honoring Mrs. Schlafly

Boorish Students Ruin Ceremony

It's a funny thing about free speech. As Americans, we are obliged to honor the concept embedded in our Bill of Rights. And it's well that we should — and not only in the breach, or when the "speech" in question pleases our sensitivities. It is with this in mind that we dare to comment on a form of expression that dishonored longtime conservative advocate Phyllis Schlafly at a solemn ceremony last week in St. Louis. Much to its credit, Washington University decided to bestow an honorary doctorate in humane letters to Mrs. Schlafly, who already holds two degrees from the school. Segments of the faculty and student body urged university officials to rescind the degree. They declined, again much to their credit. As Margaret Bush Wilson, a retired civil rights attorney who volunteered to introduce Mrs. Schlafly, said, "It is Phyllis Schlafly's persona — not her politics or views — which is being recognized here today." Hear, hear. Still, when the time came to award the degree, a number of students, their families, and, disgracefully, faculty — already wearing white armbands in protest — turned their backs on Mrs. Schlafly. Three faculty members even walked off the stage. Here's our point: Given our tradition of free speech, these people were well within their rights to make such a demonstration. But, likewise, we are well within ours to describe it as rude, boorish, and totally lacking in class and good taste. We are similarly entitled to note the arrant hypocrisy of certain members of an academic community that spouts its commitment to "tolerance" and "diversity." Apparently such virtues are to be lavished only on folks who espouse the same opinions and world-view. Some "diversity." By the way, the 83-year-old Mrs. Schlafly refused to be flummoxed. Of her degree, she said, "It's the highest honor a university can give to anyone." And, in a barb aimed directly at her student detractors, she added, "I'm not sure they're mature enough to graduate." And, as we see it, that would go for those faculty members — adults acting sophomorically — as well.

Mike Huckabee, Phyllis Schlafly, and the Conservative Movement

I have been wanting to write a post on the conservatism of Mike Huckabee for some time. As should be obvious to readers of this blog, I truly believe he is a very important and articulate leader of the conservative movement in this country, and will be more so in years to come.

Unfortunately, he has been the victim of calumny by a rich, ambitious charlatan who, when preparing his business plan for capturing the White House, determined that espousing conservative positions contradicting everything he previously stood for, would be the surest route to capturing the Republican nomination for President. In this pursuit, he was backed by the White House and his friends at the Club for Growth, the very people that have done the most damage to working American families through international trade agreements, the export of American jobs, open borders, and the failure to enforce US immigration laws.

The following reflection from the Catholics for Huckabee blog affirms that Mike Huckabee is the authentic conservative, standing on the shoulders of conservative pillars like Russell Kirk, Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Buchanan and Ronald Reagan.

When the debacle of the 2008 presidential election is over, authetic conservatives will begin the task of rebuilding the party and the conservative movement that this President and the internationalists at the Club for Growth have done so much to destroy.

The Schlafly Connection

Huckabee's CPAC speech last Saturday was clearly a watershed moment, revealing Huckabee as an authentic, old-school conservative. It was a crucial speech which managed to hit all the right buttons with his conservative audience, and finally connected the rest of the dots around this most intriguing candidate.

In a brief summary of the various factors forming his political conservatism, the former Arkansas governor mentioned his humble working-class background, his staunch Republican employer as a teen (a rare commodity in Arkansas), his desire for order amidst the growing mayhem of the '60's, and his struggle to implement conservative policies in his gubernatorial career.

Along with his personal experiences, Huckabee included some serious discussions of political issues, displaying a wide-ranging and well-developed political philosophy in the process.

Particularly comforting and a personal highlight of his speech for me, was Huckabee's reference to Phyllis Schlafly's 1964 book, A Choice, Not An Echo, which he read as a teenager. A bestseller at the time, this groundbreaking book called for the unification of the conservative movement under the leadership of Barry Goldwater, against the liberal Eastern Establishment wing of the Republican Party, whose wealth and media influence had controlled the presidential elections for years.

Phyllis Schlafly has always been a heroine of mine. A lawyer with a Master's in Political Science from Harvard, this Catholic mother of six became famous for her articulate and impassioned opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment and the feminist movement in the '70's.

It was truly heartwarming to hear Mike mention the name of this gracious and eloquent defender of traditional values, still writing columns and speaking on the radio today, at the age of 81. Her name brought back memories of all the conservative Catholic giants of two decades ago: James Likoudis, Frank Morriss, Jean Kirkpatrick, Russell Kirk, and a young Joe Sobran and Pat Buchanan. It also reminded me of pro-life Marches to our Denver capital building on windy January days, of the Eagle Forum, Gloria Steinem, Pat Schroeder, Richard Nixon and ERA bumper stickers.

Recalling the name of Phyllis Schlafly and her example of courage and resistance against the popular liberal tide was no accident. Curiously enough, Huckabee did not mention the other conservative hero whose name has been on everyone's lips these past few weeks. Instead he chose a leader whose legacy is very close to Reagan's, and who is really his feminine counterpart. A significant choice in more ways than one, perhaps.

In this momentous speech, Mike boldly planted his own conservative banner on the hilltop, an invitation for traditional conservatives to rally around. His speech is a declaration of war against the secular liberalism of McCain and a call for true conservatives to unite.

The classic conservative positions Huckabee outlined in his speech, as well as the name of Phyllis Schlafly, signalled his personal connection to the same well-grounded, consistent conservatism which has been tested and proven over the last few decades and which lives on in many corners of this nation. This kind of conservatism may not be exactly thriving in country clubs, corporate offices and the halls of Congress, but it is alive and well in the middle and working classes, in labor unions, volunteer fire departments, middle-class neighborhoods, farms, small businesses, churches and in homeschooling families and small private colleges and schools.

In other words, the conservatism of Phyllis Schlafly et al., has been kept alive by all of us who have been busy making hard choices, going against the grain, and not merely echoing the lies and empty promises that have been thrust upon us from almost every side for all these years.

What Republicans Want In A Presidential Candidate

Editor's Note: Amen to the following! And if the Republican nominee is not comfortable with the platform outlined by Mrs. Schlafly, let's draft her to run on it!

By Phyllis Schlafly

The media have designated the frontrunners for Republican and Democratic nominations for President and seem to expect American voters to line up behind one of them right now even though the national nominating conventions won't take place until next summer. Most Republicans are still shopping, and here are some of the statements they would like hear from a presidential candidate.

Republicans want a President to appoint only judges who will enforce the Constitution as it was written. They want our President to appoint only judges who publicly reject the liberal notion that our Constitution is "evolving," or that decisions can be based on "emerging awareness" about morals.

Republicans want the U.S. President to be a leader in protecting American sovereignty and independence from foreign control over our lives and laws. Republicans want him to reject all United Nations treaties such as the UN Law of the Sea Treaty, which would make all use of the oceans subject to the International Seabed Authority, the UN Treaty on the Rights of the Child, and the UN Treaty on Women (known as CEDAW).

Republicans want their candidate for President to announce that he considers it a presidential duty to prevent illegal entry into our country. He should praise the American people for successfully getting the U.S. Senate to defeat the Bush-Kennedy Amnesty bill earlier this year.

Republicans want their presidential candidate to promise that he will never try to bamboozle us with a similar so-called "comprehensive" immigration bill or a so-called "DREAM Act," which includes amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens now in our country.

Republicans want their candidate to tell us now exactly what he will do to prevent the entry of the illegal drugs over our southern border. They want a presidential candidate to say he will pardon Border Guards Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean who are unjustly imprisoned for intercepting a professional Mexican drug smuggler.

Republicans want their candidate to build the fence on our southern border which the Secure Fence Law legislated. They want our candidate to promise to enforce the law against employers hiring illegal aliens.

Republicans want their candidate to explain how he will lift the tax burden that Americans suffer today in providing a net value of $20,000 a year to every illegal alien household.

Republicans want their candidate to stop the entry of Mexican trucks on our highways and roads. They want their candidate to deep-six the plan called "totalization" which would put illegal aliens into our Social Security system.

Republicans want their presidential candidate to protect parents' rights in public schools by repudiating the offensive and impudent Ninth Circuit Court decision which ruled that parents' fundamental right to control the upbringing of their children "does not extend beyond the threshold of the school door."

Since the federal government gives about $60 billion a year to public schools, Republicans want their candidate to promise to sign school appropriation bills only if they contain language to protect parents' rights to protect their children against such things as mental health screening; forcing schoolchildren to be put on psychotropic drugs; courses that promote Islam or homosexuality; nosy questionnaires about sex, drugs and suicide; and giving birth control to 6th grade girls without parents' knowledge or consent.

Smart Republicans want their presidential candidate to reach out to Reagan Democrats by rejecting trade deals that are unfair to American workers and allow foreign countries to discriminate against U.S. producers and products by subsidies and tax-rebates. We want to hear a presidential candidate's plan to get us out from under the hostility of the World Trade Organization which has ruled against us in 40 out of 47 cases.

Americans want to hear whether or not their presidential candidate supports the "global economy," which forces Americans to compete against pitifully low wages, slave labor, and discriminatory practices imposed by foreign countries and foreign tribunals. Americans don't want to be patronized by being told that we must be more competitive with Chinese factory workers who are paid 30 cents an hour with no benefits.

Grassroots Americans want their candidate for President to promise that the Security and Prosperity Partnership will not be a stepping-stone to a North American Union modeled on the European Union. They expect their candidate to announce that he will never allow the United States to be economically integrated with Mexico and Canada, and will never allow the free movement of labor across open borders.

Most Americans want national leadership so that our economy produces good jobs that enable guys to buy a home and a car, support their families, live the American dream, and confidently expect their children to have an even better life. We're listening to the candidates and waiting to hear them address these important issues.

Phyllis Schlafly Shining A Light On Treason

When President Bush was sent by his transnationalist bosses to Montebello, Canada last month to advance the interests of a North American Union, there was much joking about how the Security and Prosperity Partnership was nothing more than standardizing the production, distribution and sale of jelly beans. One might ask why the American leader, with two wars on his hands, an invasion underway on his southern border, the threat of terror and chaos looming, a devalued dollar and a stagnant economy is concerning himself with the manufacture of jelly beans.

Principled conservatives don't buy it and will fight for the Constitution as long as the Clinton-Bushies push that traitorous agenda. There is no patriot in the fight more valiant than Phyllis Schlafly. Here she is again shining a light on treason:

Self-Government Is In Peril From The SPP

by Phyllis Schlafly

It's now leaking out that there was more going on than met the eye at the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) Summit in Montebello, Canada in August. The three amigos, Bush, Harper and Calderon, finalized and released the "North American Plan for Avian & Pandemic Influenza."

The "Plan" (that's what they call it, with a capital P) is to use the excuse of a major flu epidemic to shift powers from U.S. legislatures to unelected, unaccountable "North American" bureaucrats.

This idea was launched on September 14, 2005 when Bush announced the "International Partnership on Avian and Pandemic Influenza." He was then speaking to the United Nations General Assembly in New York.

We might have thought that idea had some merit because the Influenza Partnership called for "transparency in reporting of influenza cases in humans and in animals" and the "sharing of epidemiological data and samples." That's very different from the SPP, where transparency has always been conspicuously avoided like the plague.

This year's SPP summit in Canada morphed the Influenza Partnership into the North American Plan. Now we discover that the Plan is not only about combating a flu epidemic but is far-reaching in seeking control over U.S. citizens and public policy during an epidemic.

The Plan repeatedly features the favorite Bush word "comprehensive"; it calls for a "comprehensive, coordinated North American approach." The Plan would give authority to international bureaucrats "beyond the health sector to include a coordinated approach to critical infrastructure protection," including "border and transportation issues."

The Plan is a wordy 44-page document, much of which sounds innocuous. It is helpful to exchange information about disease and take precautions against letting foreign diseases enter the United States.

However, self-government and sovereignty are at risk when control over these matters is turned over to a newly created North American body headed by the representative of another country. It's an additional problem when the entire Plan is a spin-off of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, an arrangement created in secret solely by White House press releases, without Congressional approval or even oversight.

The 2007 Plan acknowledges that it is based not only on the Influenza Partnership, but also on the guidelines, standards and rules of the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

The Plan sets up a "senior level Coordinating Body to facilitate the effective planning and preparedness within North America for a possible outbreak of avian and/or human pandemic influenza under the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP)." The Plan identifies this SPP Coordinating Body as "decision-makers."

The Plan then (ungrammatically) states: "The chair of the SPP Coordinating Body will rotate between each national authority on a yearly basis." Thus, a foreigner will be the "decision-maker" for Americans in two out of every three years.

What powers will this foreign-headed Coordinating Body exercise? The Plan suggests that these include "the use of antivirals and vaccines; ... social distancing measures, including school closures and the prohibition of community gatherings; ... isolation and quarantine."

Will this foreign-headed Coordinating Body respect the First Amendment "right of the people peaceably to assemble"? Or will the rules of the Plan, SPP, WHO, OIE, WTO, and NAFTA take precedence?

In evaluating the Plan, it is instructive to recall the Model State Emergency Health Powers Act (EHPA), an anti-epidemic plan launched by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on October 23, 2001. Designed to be passed by all state legislatures, the model bill was primarily written by Lawrence O. Gostin, a former member of Hillary Clinton's discredited Task Force on Health Care Reform, and was promoted by the Bush Administration during its first year.

The proposed EHPA would have given each governor sole discretion to declare a public health emergency and grant himself extraordinary powers. He would have been able to restrict or prohibit firearms, seize private property and destroy it in many circumstances, and impose price controls and rationing.

Governors would have been given the power to order people out of their homes and into dangerous quarantines. Children could have been taken from their parents and put into public quarantines.

Governors could even have demanded that physicians administer certain drugs despite individuals' religious or other objections. EHPA was based on the undemocratic concept that decision-making by authoritarian bosses and unelected bureaucrats is the way to go in time of crisis.

EHPA roused a nationwide storm of protest because it was an unprecedented assault on the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens, as well as on our principles of limited government, and so it never passed anywhere in its original text. Will similar totalitarian notions now bypass legislatures and be forced upon us by SPP press releases?

Further reading:
North American Union

Plans For Economic Integration

by Phyllis Schlafly

August 8, 2007

Canada in the summer and Mexico in the spring offer good weather for planning international policies. Nervousness about the political weather, however, is putting the third Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) summit on August 20-21 at a site where the uninvited can be easily excluded: the Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello resort about 50 miles outside of Quebec.

The cheering gallery for SPP is hysterically chanting that its goal is NOT a North American "union" modeled on the European Union (and that anyone who thinks otherwise must be peddling conspiracy fears). But the SPPers candidly admit they want North American "integration," which may be a distinction without a difference.

President Bush started down this trail back on April 22, 2001 when he signed the Declaration of Quebec City in which he made a "commitment to hemispheric integration." After Communist Hugo Chavez took over Venezuela, "hemispheric" was quietly scaled down to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of just NORTH America.

The lobbyists for integration are bringing heavy-artillery reinforcements to their cause: a pro-integration report written by a prestigious think tank, the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS). The report is now being translated into Spanish and French so it can be presented to all three governments in September.

The importance of CSIS comes from the political influence of its Trustees. They are longtime internationalists and architects of some of the worst foreign and defense policies of the last 50 years.

A 25-page advance peek at the report has been released under the caption "North American Future 2025 Project." The core of the plan for America's future is North American "economic integration" and "labor mobility," key words that are repeated again and again in this report.

The threat to good American jobs is obvious from the redundancy of demands to import cheap labor without limits: "international migration of labor," "international movement not only of goods and capital, but also of people," "mobile labor supply," "North American labor mobility," "flows of labor migration," and "free flow of people across national borders."

The CSIS report explains that "border infrastructure" means the "efficient flow of labor across North American borders" so we can "pool the human capital necessary to source a competitive North American workforce." It's unlikely that U.S. workers want to "pool" their jobs with Mexico where the median minimum wage is $5 a day.

Slyly revealing the plan to integrate governments as well as economies, the report states: "to remain competitive in the global economy, policymakers must devise forward-looking, collaborative policies that integrate governments."

In an attack on the unique American patent system and fountainhead of our innovation superiority, the report calls for "harmonizing legislation" with other countries in the area of intellectual property rights. The report also calls on us to "harmonize" our regulations of all kinds by adopting "unified North American regulatory standards."

No wonder the CSIS admits that its report was developed in "seven closed-door roundtable sessions." Let's call the roll of the trustees of this influential think tank.

Henry Kissinger, the architect of the Nixon-Ford policies repudiated by Ronald Reagan. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense for Nixon and Ford. Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Trilateralist who was Jimmy Carter's chief foreign policy adviser. William Cohen, Bill Clinton's Secretary of Defense. Harold Brown, who was Secretary of the Air Force carrying out Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara's disarmament policies in the 1960s. Brent Scowcroft, former vice chairman of Kissinger Associates and national security adviser to the first President Bush.

The front man for this galaxy of globalists is former Senator Sam Nunn. One more household name is Richard Armitage, the man who leaked Valerie Plame's name to the press.

The favorite business authority Peter F. Drucker wrote in his 1993 book Post-Capitalist Society that the European Union "triggered the attempt to create a North American economic community, built around the United States but integrating both Canada and Mexico into a common market."

He gleefully added, "So far this attempt is purely economic in its goal, but it can hardly remain so in the long run. ... The economic integration of the three countries into one region is proceeding so fast that it will make little difference whether the marriage is sanctified legally or not."

Now that the game plan is laid out, we can connect the dots: NAFTA, the admission of Mexican trucks onto our highways, the contract to build the TransTexas Corridor and the plans to extend it into a NAFTA Super Highway, making Kansas City an international "port," the "totalization" of illegal aliens into our Social Security system, and the recently defeated Senate amnesty bill. That bill would have integrated 20 million illegal aliens into our labor force, locked us (by Section 413) into the SPP, and spent massive foreign aid to "improve the standard of living in Mexico."

Further reading:
North American Union