Is this AMERICA? Part 1

By Mary Ann Collins

August 9, 2007


Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5



The old movie "A.D." features a Roman centurion who becomes a Christian. In one scene, he goes into the coliseum after some Christian children have been killed by dogs. He looks at the mangled bodies of the children and he says, "This is not Rome!" This centurion, who spent his entire adult life enduring danger and hardship for the sake of the Roman empire, suddenly realizes that this is no longer the country that he thought it was.

There have been times when something similar happens to me. I read something in the newspaper, or in a book, or on the Internet, or I see something happen when I am out in the world, and I say to myself, "This is not America!" This is not the country that I grew up in. It is not the country that I studied in civics classes. It is not the country that I learned about in my classes on American history. It is no longer a country that our Founding Fathers would recognize as being American.

Following are some of the reasons why this is no longer the America that I used to know -- why this is no longer the country that generations of soldiers have fought and died for.


Bureaucrats in the State Department are in the processing of giving eight Alaskan islands to Russia. This includes hundreds of thousands of square miles of sea beds that are rich in oil, gas, minerals, and fisheries, worth billions of dollars. In addition, because of their location, these islands are of strategic military importance.1

Since when do bureaucrats have the power to give away American territory, especially when it compromises our national security? We aren't talking about the President, and Congress, with advice from the military. We are talking about State Department bureaucrats.

These negotiations have been kept secret from the American public. Congress has been bypassed. The will of the people has been ignored.

An organization called State Department Watch has tried to make people aware of it. However, the Attorney General of Alaska issued a "Cease and Desist" Order that prohibits them from telling people about it.2

So whatever happened to the Constitutional guarantee of free speech?

This is precisely the kind of situation where free speech is most needed. A bunch of bureaucrats are giving part of America to Russia, along with much needed oil reserves. And they are gagging concerned citizens who want the American public to know what is going on.

The Alaska legislature asked the Governor and Attorney General of Alaska to fight the giveaway. The vote was nearly unanimous in both houses of the State Legislature. However, the Governor and Attorney General refused to do anything about it.3 Is this America?


In 2001, the Institute for International Economics published Robert A. Pastor's book "Toward a North American Community: Lessons from the Old World for the New." Taking the European Union as a model, it discusses ways of creating a union between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. Some people refer to this as being a North American Union, similar to the European Union. Basically, this means giving up America's national sovereignty.

The starting point is the NAFTA trade agreement. It is notable that the starting point of the European Union was also a trade agreement.

In 1957, six countries signed the Treaty of Rome, to pool their steel and coal resources. That began a series of events that resulted in today's European Union. In May 2007, the European Union celebrated its 50th anniversary. First it was called the European Economic Community.

Then it was called the European Community. Now it is called the European Union. Such things are accomplished one stage at a time.4

By pages 114-115 of the book, Pastor's vision of economic integration has expanded. It develops to the point that he discusses the possibility of developing a common currency, the "Amero" (similar to the Euro of the European Union).

Chapter 7 is titled, "Is a North American Community Feasible? Can Sovereignty Be Transcended?" Please stop for a moment and look at those words slowly and carefully.

Pastor is talking about whether or not it is feasible to develop a "community" that takes priority over our national sovereignty. He takes it for granted that it would be good to do this. His only question is whether or not it is feasible, at this time, to make it work in practical terms.

On pages 152-154, Pastor discusses "alternative approaches to sovereignty." He talks about the possibility of developing a "political entity that could transcend traditional conceptions of sovereignty."

To "transcend" national sovereignty means to abolish it, for all practical purposes. You might retain some of the trappings and some of the vocabulary, but in essence, there would be no more real national sovereignty.

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) strongly approves of Pastor's approach. The CFR was founded in 1921 in order to build a "network of globalist support groups."5 (Globalism is an approach to politics that sees individual countries as being "states" in a global government. One approach would be to have something comparable to the United Nations govern the world. Another approach would be to have every nation become part of something comparable to the European Union.)

The CFR is highly influential because its membership includes high- ranking politicians. Among them are Senators and Congressmen, some of whom are running for President in 2008. In addition, there are high- ranking politicians who have connections with the CFR (and are thereby influenced by it), even though they are not members of it.

In 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations (along with its Canadian and Mexican counterparts) produced a Task Force Report which was published as a book with the title "Building a North American Community." The Task Force has three "co-chairs" (one from each country) and three "vice chairs" (one from each country). Robert A. Pastor is the American Vice Chair of the Task Force. (You can get the book at Just search for the title.)

According to the Foreword, the CFR Task Force offers detailed proposals that are based on the "Texas summit of March 2005." This was a meeting that President Bush held at his ranch with President Vicente Fox of Mexico and Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada. After that meeting, the three heads of state issued a press release announcing that they had made an agreement to form the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).

The Foreword also says that the "central recommendation" of the report is the establishment of a "North American economic and security community" by the year 2010. The boundaries of this community would "be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter." In other words, going from Mexico to Canada via the United States would be similar to going from Virginia to Maryland, via Washington D.C. The identity would be trinational, rather than national. We would lose our national sovereignty.

On page 8, the report recommends the establishment of "a common security perimeter by 2010." This would effectively remove any security perimeters between the three countries. So our security would be at the mercy of Mexico and Canada. This would not be good, because a lot of terrorists are already getting into America across the Mexican border. (See Congressman Tom Tancredo's book "In Mortal Danger: The Battle for America's Border and Security.")

On page 10, the report recommends that by the year 2010, the groundwork should be laid for enabling a "freer flow of people within North America" (i.e., from Mexico to Canada). On page 25, it recommends "open skies and open roads." Judging by its failure to secure the Mexican border, the Bush administration appears to agree with these recommendations.

Phylis Schlafly's article "Pursuing the ‘North American' Agenda" gives a good overview of the situation.6 The Eagle Forum has a web page with links to numerous articles on the subject.7

We can expect the recommendations of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) to be taken seriously, because many of the Democrats and Republicans who are running for President in 2008 are either members of the Council on Foreign Relations, or else have ties with it. In addition, others are globalists, and the CFR is a globalist organization. (The following information comes from the "US Presidential Candidate Fact Sheet" of Hope for the World, Summer, 2007. The research was done by Gary Kah and Carl Teichrib.)

DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES -- Joe Biden is President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. Hillary Clinton was a guest speaker at the CFR. In addition, her husband founded the Clinton Global Initiative. Both Clintons are strongly globalist. Christopher Dodd is a member of the CFR. John Edwards is a member of the CFR. Al Gore has been a speaker at the CFR and appears to be generally supportive of the organization. There is no definitive CFR membership information, but many secondary sources present him as being a member. Mike Gravel doesn't appear to be a CFR member, but he is strongly globalist.

Dennis Kucinich is not a member of the CFR, but he is strongly globalist. Barack Obama's wife Michelle is the director of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. (This is the Chicago branch of the CFR, but under a different name.) Barack Obama has spoken at the CFR in Washington, DC and at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Bill Richardson is a member of the CFR.

REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES -- Sam Brownback doesn't have any connections with the CFR. Neither does Jim Gilmore. Newt Gingrich is a member of the CFR. He is also a 33rd degree Mason. Rudi Giuliani has given presentations to the CFR. The law firm that he works with (Bracewell & Giuliani) is directly involved with the NAFTA superhighway program.

Mike Huckabee doesn't have any substantial connections with the CFR or other globalist organizations. Duncan Hunter has consistently voted against globalist free trade programs. John McCain is a member of the CFR. Ron Paul is the founder of the Liberty Committee. He has consistently opposed globalism. Mitt Romney isn't connected with the CFR. Tom Tancredo isn't connected with the CFR. He has taken a strong stand on securing our borders. Fred Thompson is a member of the CFR. According to the US Presidential Candidate Fact Sheet, he may not be as conservative as he appears. Tommy Thompson isn't connected with the CFR.


Chuck McIlhenny is the pastor of a little church in San Francisco that has less than 50 members. He hired a church organist who turned out to be a practicing homosexual. He had a talk with the man and then fired him. It is not surprising that the organist was upset by this, or even that he filed a lawsuit against Pastor McIlhenny. What is surprising is that the incident escalated to the point where an angry mob beseiged the church, chanting "Bring back the lions!" (That's a reference to Christians being fed to the lions in ancient Rome.)

The pastor's wife was grabbed by some men in the mob, and was being pulled into the mob. Some policemen were present, but they did nothing to help her. Some men from the congregation were able to grab her and pull her back to safety. I thought that American policemen were supposed to protect people. If policemen refuse to protect a woman from a mob of angry men -- is this America?

For years, Pastor McIlhenny received threatening phone calls at all hours of the day and night. There were death threats, and threats of raping his children. Then his church was set on fire. And his home was fire bombed in the middle of the night, when the family was asleep. They barely escaped with their lives.

I never read about it in the newspapers. Did you? But you can read about it in the book "When the Wicked Seize a City" by Chuck and Donna McIlhenny. (It's available at

If we didn't read about Pastor McIlhenny's situation in the newspapers, then what else is the press failing to tell us? Our watch dogs seem to be sleeping.


We have gotten used to the idea of "political correctness," but that is not what America used to be like. In the past, people had debates about controversial subjects. Such disagreements were expected.

Sometimes they were heated, with colorful language. That was accepted as being a normal part of life. People didn't have to walk on eggshells, for fear of offending somebody. They didn't have to worry about being politically correct. They had their opinions, and they made them known, and they expected other people to do the same.

Historically, when people have to worry about being "politically correct," sooner or later they wind up having to endure oppression and abuses of power. That happened in Germany under Hitler, and in Russia under Lenin and Stalin. It is happening right now in Communist China and North Korea, where "dissidents" are put into prisons.

America has barbed wire camps for detaining American citizens. It also has official rules for making prisoners on Army installations do work.8  Barbed wire camps combined with forced labor sounds like concentration camps. That sounds more like Nazi Germany or Communist Russia than America.

Who are those camps for? Political dissidents? People who aren't politically correct? What are camps like these doing in the United States of America?

During his 1997 White House Conference on Hate-Crimes, former President Clinton expressed concern that "A lot of hate crimes still go unreported.... If a crime is unreported, that gives people an excuse to ignore it." Then he announced a Justice Department website which invites children to tell "trusted adults" about "hateful" or exclusive attitudes they see in their relatives at home or in friends in school.9 In other words, he wanted children to report what their family members say and do to the Justice Department. This is similar to what happened in Communist countries, where everybody was afraid to say anything for fear that somebody would report them.

Under the Bush administration, the State Department no longer has that special website for children to report "hate crimes." But a precedent has been set, and the policy could be reinstated in the future.

The U.S.A. that I learned about in high school and college wouldn't have "political correctness" or labor camps. And it wouldn't tell children to tell the Federal Government what their parents and other family members are saying and doing.

Is this country still America?


Senator Zell Miller said that his party (the Democrats) left him. Congressmen Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo might want to say something similar about much of the Republican party.

To our sorrow, America, as we have known it, is being dismantled. However, America is not our source of security.

As Christians, we are, first and foremost, citizens of Heaven. And our source of security is the Lord Jesus Christ, and His love, and His faithfulness. As the old hymn says, "On Christ the solid Rock I stand, all other ground is sinking sand."

"God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble. Therefore, we will not fear..." (Psalm 46:1-2a)

"The LORD is on my side; I will not fear: what can man do unto me?" (Psalm 118:6)

See also IS THIS AMERICA? Part 2Part 3 | Part 4

 The emerging New World Order | The UN Plan for Global Migration

Barbed Wire Camps for American Citizens  | Real Conspiracies -- Past and Present


1. Summary of Giveaway of 8 American Alaskan Islands to the Russian Government

2. Free Political Speech Imperiled by Alaska Attorney General: "Cease and Desist" Order Issued to Stop Publicity About Giveaway of 8 Alaskan Islands and Vast Oil-Rich Seabeds to Russia

3. Gov. Frank Murkowski and Atty. General Gregg Renkes Admit Failure to Fight Giveaway of 8 Alaskan Islands and Vast Oil-Rich Seabeds to the Russians -- Legislature Urges Officials to Fight the Giveaway

4. The EU and the North American Union

5. The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

6. Pursuing the "North American" Agenda

7. North American Union (This web page has links to numerous articles.)

8. Barbed Wire Camps for American Citizens

9. Why "Hate Crime" Laws Would Ban Biblical Christianity

Home | Articles | UN Chronology | The transformation of America | The Enemy of the People