Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trinational Elites Map North American Future in "NAFTA Plus"
IRC Americas ^ | August 24, 2005 | By Miguel Pickard

Posted on 08/24/2005 6:16:31 PM PDT by Conservative Firster

“I would like you [of the press] to understand the magnitude of what this means. It is transcendent, it’s something that goes well beyond the relationship we have had up to now.” —President Vicente Fox, regarding NAFTA Plus, onboard the presidential plane returning to Mexico from George W. Bush’s Crawford ranch, March 2005.

NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) has been in effect almost 12 years and a new stage, NAFTA Plus, is in the works, referred to as “deep integration,” particularly in Canada. The elites of the three NAFTA countries (Canada, the United States, and Mexico) have been aggressively moving forward to build a new political and economic entity. A “trinational merger” is underway that leaps beyond the single market that NAFTA envisioned and, in many ways, would constitute a single state, called simply, “North America.”

Note: long article

(Excerpt) Read more at americas.irc-online.org ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Canada; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; Mexico; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: border; borders; canada; conspiritorist; doomgloom; garbage; getarope; immigration; mexico; nafta; naftaplus; northamerica; obl; theskyaintfalling; tinfoil; treason; weredoomedr2d2
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-128 next last

1 posted on 08/24/2005 6:16:32 PM PDT by Conservative Firster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Conservative Firster
Looks like I need to be investing in aluminum and head wear companies.
2 posted on 08/24/2005 6:18:56 PM PDT by Moral Hazard ("Now therefore kill every male among the little ones" - Numbers 31:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moral Hazard
Looks like I need to be investing in aluminum and head wear companies.

Maybe you should just take a little NoDoze?

3 posted on 08/24/2005 6:29:34 PM PDT by itsahoot (Any country that does not control its borders, is not a country. RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Firster

And the specific benefits of NAFTA have been...


4 posted on 08/24/2005 6:31:01 PM PDT by henderson field
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: henderson field

ping for later


5 posted on 08/24/2005 6:43:23 PM PDT by vrwc0915
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: henderson field
"And the specific benefits of NAFTA have been..."
Providing the corpitists (Socialists that like making profits off of near slave labor) with an endless pool of unskilled illegal labor
6 posted on 08/24/2005 6:47:12 PM PDT by vrwc0915
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Firster

To think that all this time I thought of myself as a globalist, only to find out that I am a member of the Trinational Elite. Bummer.


7 posted on 08/24/2005 6:47:33 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
I am a member of the Trinational Elite.

I doubt it.

8 posted on 08/24/2005 7:32:27 PM PDT by A. Pole (" There is no other god but Free Market, and Adam Smith is his prophet ! ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Firster

Thanks for posting this. I started reading this earlier today, but haven't had the time to finish it yet. It explains a lot about what is going on with regards to the border.


9 posted on 08/24/2005 7:51:15 PM PDT by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster

ping


10 posted on 08/24/2005 7:54:22 PM PDT by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JesseJane; Justanobody; B4Ranch; Nowhere Man; Coleus; neutrino; endthematrix; investigateworld; ...

You all might find this one interesting....


11 posted on 08/24/2005 7:56:16 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Firster
Yet the successful integration of an impoverished Mexico into a North American space depends—according to Pastor—on the transfer of exorbitant amounts of cash, principally from the United States, similar to the transfers that Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Ireland received from the European Union when they joined.

"Free trade" is an enormous wealth redistribution system that transfers money out of the United States to the third world.
12 posted on 08/24/2005 7:59:19 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
This part is interesting:

In Mexico, another call for more porous borders was unfolding, which tended to converge with Canada's. Within months of his inauguration in December 2000, President Vicente Fox launched the idea of going beyond NAFTA's economic integration. Counseled by his foreign relations secretary Jorge G. Castañeda (in turn, in constant dialogue with Pastor), Fox proposed Mexico's version of NAFTA Plus, with a limited but important objective for Mexico. NAFTA had boosted the flow of goods, services, and capital in the trinational area but, from Mexico's perspective, it had omitted a key factor: its abundant, poorly-paid, and unemployed labor force. Fox proposed labor mobility for Mexicans within a greater "North America," in exchange for certain concessions to the United States.

During NAFTA negotiations in the early 90s, the United States had flatly refused to consider the idea of greater integration of the labor markets. Such a scenario would have been violently rejected by certain influential (and racist) sectors of public opinion, and NAFTA would have been a nonstarter.

In 2001, seven years into NAFTA, Fox took bold proposals to his initial meetings with George W. Bush and laid them out with an aplomb that left Washington observers stunned. The New York Times commented, after one visit by Fox to Washington, "rarely has a foreign leader shown up on the South Lawn of the White House and declared that he and the president of the United States must remake the fundamental rules that have governed his country's uneasy relationship with the United States -- and get it done in the next four months."

Theoretically, at least, Fox was right. In totally open markets, labor should enjoy the same freedom of movement that NAFTA had given capital. Mexico's "competitive advantage" is precisely its abundant labor force, but it was facing increasingly formidable barriers to reaching job vacancies in the United States. Perhaps not by accident, NAFTA's start in 1994 coincided with the first U.S. Border Patrol militarized "operations" to seal the border with Mexico. The blatant discrimination of Mexico's "competitive advantage" had to be eliminated, Fox insisted. The New York Times article insinuates that Bush understood and accepted Fox's daring proposals ("endorsing his principles," the Times says), although dissenting with him over the timeframe and the political feasibility of pushing them forward.

Few U.S. policymakers perceived a contradiction between "operations" on the U.S. side to seal the border and an acceptance by Bush to review migratory policy options. On the one hand, the status quo was not working. Border Patrol "operations" had not detained Mexican migration -- in fact it had tripled during the NAFTA years. Still, border crossings had become more dangerous, leading to the tragic death of 4,000 migrants in 10 years. In addition, there were American companies that were begging for cheap, non-unionized workers to fill the "4-D" jobs (dangerous, dirty, dull, domestic) that Americans eschew. And finally both leaders, new to their posts at the time, were disposed to break with policies from previous administrations.

It is quite likely that Fox arrived in Washington ready for tradeoffs. In exchange for U.S. acceptance of more Mexican workers, Mexico would "seal" its own southern border, to detain and deport migrants from other regions, especially Central Americans, whose presence in the United States had skyrocketed since Hurricane Mitch devastated the region in 1998.

In fact, this measure was implemented in July 2001 by Plan Sur (South Plan), whereby Mexico militarized its border with Guatemala and Belize, and the narrow Isthmus of Tehuantepec through which all Central American migrants had to traverse. Fox had asked for a special and privileged treatment for Mexicans, in exchange for hunting down migrants from third countries before they could make their way to the U.S. border. The measure had the effect of "displacing" tasks of the U.S. southern border to southern Mexico.

Fox's government formalized the idea of creating an exclusive and excluding "North America space," to which Mexico would gain entry, in essence by turning its back on Latin America. Mexico's northward-looking bias became explicit with Fox, but it merely culminated a policy that began during the administration of Mexico's first president of unquestionable neoliberal extraction, Miguel de la Madrid (1982-1988).

Fox likely called on Bush with more than Plan Sur to offer -- possibly the privatization of PEMEX (the state oil company) or the Federal Electricity Commission. Although efforts to privatize these two state-run companies have stalled in the legislature, Fox has not flinched from putting Mexico's oil at the service of American interests, notably by upping exports to the United States in the weeks previous to the invasion of Iraq.

In any event, the Fox-Bush summit took place in a radically different historic moment. The presidents met in Washington on September 5, 2001, six days before 9/11. Since then the Fox government has retreated to Mexico's traditional role vis-à-vis its neighbor, i.e., with few exceptions, letting the United States establish the agenda, conditions, and timeframes.

In the new post-9/11 environment, Fox's bold migratory and integrationist proposals were abruptly shelved by the Bush administration. The ensuing retreat towards a passive role for Mexican foreign policy, particularly regarding the only important foreign interlocutor for Mexico, contributed to Castañeda's resignation in January 2003.

snip

13 posted on 08/24/2005 8:07:50 PM PDT by DumpsterDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Firster
This broadcast is happenging right now, if you can listen on the internet...

1st Hour- Guest: Dr. Steven Yates

Professor of Philosophy Steven Yates informs as to the real effect and purpose of global trade agreements including the recently enacted Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). Dr Yates will explain how these phony “free trade’ agreements are designed to undermine national sovereignty, establish regionalism, feed the global governance monster and destroy the vision of the American experience.

9pm - 10pm Pacific

2nd Hour – Dr. David Abbott



British citizen and part time US resident David Abbott, describes how England is losing control over its own governance. England is quickly becoming regionalized under European Union authority. In the process Britons are losing control over land use decisions and domestic law making. Learn the history of how the European Union has used trade policy to destroy national sovereignty. This interview will assist in understanding the real purpose behind CAFTA, FTAA and the American process of regionalization.

http://www.freedom21santacruz.net/site/radio/


14 posted on 08/24/2005 8:09:52 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: Conservative Firster

I would not say that the Iraq war was created as a distraction to the American public for the underhandedness that is taking place in Washington, but it has certainly turned out to be a distraction...

I assume opening our borders and creating a North American State falls outside the scope of limitations put in place by our Constitution...

The Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the Fed Gov are clearly united in this endeavor, including the muriad of alphabet police agencies and the numerous other appointed agencies...

And yet we have good, conservative Americans down in Texas at Bush's driveway hootin' and hollerin' in support for him...AND they know about this scheme...


16 posted on 08/24/2005 8:49:10 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moral Hazard

Here's a shorter article:

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/july05/05-07-13.html

No tin foil needed: they've already announced their plans.


17 posted on 08/24/2005 8:50:05 PM PDT by lonewacko_dot_com (http://lonewacko.com/blog)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Firster

Council Joins Leading Canadians and Mexicans to Launch Independent Task Force on the Future of North America
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=7454

Task Force calls for North American bloc by 2010
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050314-060907-1435r.htm


18 posted on 08/24/2005 8:51:09 PM PDT by endthematrix ("an ominous vacancy"...I mean, JOHN ROBERTS now fills this space!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Firster

The proof of this would be in a push for firearms restrictions on American citizens.


19 posted on 08/24/2005 8:53:55 PM PDT by Tench_Coxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
The expulsion of ardent nationalists (dictators) who are against global integration is part of the "plan."

"I would not say that the Iraq war was created as a distraction to the American public for the underhandedness that is taking place in Washington, but it has certainly turned out to be a distraction..."

Americans still don't understand the build-up to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, the US leadership that understood Saddam's intentions and why (if weren't against it) we "failed" to see troop formations on the border. Schools only teach post Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent Gulf War.

20 posted on 08/24/2005 9:00:52 PM PDT by endthematrix ("an ominous vacancy"...I mean, JOHN ROBERTS now fills this space!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tench_Coxe
It's that darn Bill of Rights...

Thank goodness for our Founders, who had vision to restrict abusive government.
21 posted on 08/24/2005 9:04:15 PM PDT by endthematrix ("an ominous vacancy"...I mean, JOHN ROBERTS now fills this space!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Iscool

That is, unless they actually sign the Constitution (and their own countries dissolve)...


22 posted on 08/24/2005 9:54:42 PM PDT by Heartofsong83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: gubamyster; HiJinx
It is quite likely that Fox arrived in Washington ready for tradeoffs. In exchange for U.S. acceptance of more Mexican workers, Mexico would "seal" its own southern border, to detain and deport migrants from other regions, especially Central Americans, whose presence in the United States had skyrocketed since Hurricane Mitch devastated the region in 1998.
23 posted on 08/25/2005 3:52:20 AM PDT by raybbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spann_Tillman

Those who support the North American Community should be dancing at the end of a rope.


24 posted on 08/25/2005 6:32:15 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com (Google CFR North American Community)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

Thanks for the ping, hope to have time to read all of this today.


25 posted on 08/25/2005 6:33:56 AM PDT by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Firster

To be renamed MexAmeriCan.


26 posted on 08/25/2005 6:35:18 AM PDT by JarheadFromFlorida
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Firster
The trinational elites of the private sector will accrue greater benefits in this new space, but the American government and private sector will reap the greatest gains. The three countries will not be equal partners. As in the early 90s when NAFTA was negotiated, no pretense will be made now of taking into account the huge asymmetries between the United States and its smaller partners, likely leading to an erosion of sovereignty for Mexico and Canada.

This is a bunch of bull. Our politicians have been working hard to redistribute America's wealth to Mexico for years. Also, by taking half of Mexico into America and forcing the American workers to pay for the illegal's care, plus allowing illegals to take jobs away from Americans at half the wages and no benefits, has brought riches to the business class and helped the economic crisis in Mexico. This has all been done on the backs of the American workers, who are bearing the burden of establishing the North American Community for the elites.

By the time our politicians are finished with us, we will be as poor as the poorest Mexican before he came to America. It just amazes me that Fox has known all this for years, and has tried to tell the American public what is going on, and we still have the tin foil hat society going strong.

27 posted on 08/25/2005 7:12:28 AM PDT by swampfox98 (How American became a nation of traitors: Greed, corrupt politicians and religious leaders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Firster
Thanks for the post. This coming change, as much as I HATE to say this, appears irreversible. Frankly, I am not completely against it AS LONG AS the USA maintains its status as the leader and dictates most of the terms of the combination. Holding the entire continent (and kicking that little SOB out of Venezuela) against communism is not a bad idea...


Of course, the major problems about all of this are the free-for-all socialism policies of the US government(and socialism-lite that is part and parcel of the current Exec/Legi branches) coupled to similar policies already in place in these other governments. We cannot support the continent in the same way we are presently supporting our own culture (which is still likely to implode from the weight of these programs). Something will have to give to make this work; my hope is that it would be 'feel good' policies that benefit no one.
I may get flamed for this, fine...I just do not see there being any stop-gap for it, so let's do it on our terms. Statehood for Canada and Mexico, with representative government for all? Not as bad an idea as it sounds...
28 posted on 08/25/2005 7:21:40 AM PDT by Amalie (FREEDOM had NEVER been another word for nothing left to lose...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Firster

bump


29 posted on 08/25/2005 7:24:40 AM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amalie

The problem is, the fundamental goal of the "elites" is to destroy the Constitution and the American middle class.

We'll end up with a continent wide Mexico, and not the other way around. Go look up more of this plan. The (former)U.S. taxpayers will foot the bill for the rest of the continent, with free college for all mexicans and welfare for some sixty million more mexicans and twenty million canadians, plus we'll pay for all the new infrastructure to be built in mexico. We'll get nothing out of this but the shaft.

That will finish us off.


30 posted on 08/25/2005 7:56:48 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com (Google CFR North American Community)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Amalie
Frankly, I am not completely against it AS LONG AS the USA maintains its status as the leader and dictates most of the terms of the combination. Holding the entire continent (and kicking that little SOB out of Venezuela) against communism is not a bad idea...

Just what makes you think the idea is to hold the place AGAINST communism? It is intended to CEMENT the control they already surreptitiously have under false colors.

31 posted on 08/25/2005 8:00:39 AM PDT by Paul Ross (Definition of strict constructionist: someone who DOESN'T hallucinate when reading the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Amalie
"..AS LONG AS the USA maintains its status.."

Aye, there's the rub, now isn't it? Aarrggh! Now what if I was to say to ye; the U.S., she won't be hav'n her own sovreignty for much longer, due to congress ceding their responsibilities to the likes of the WTO. We're in it good now, I tell ye. And only a miracle can get us out.

32 posted on 08/25/2005 8:02:11 AM PDT by Designer (Just a nit-pick'n and chagrin'n)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Firster

... The building of a new North American space is rapidly progressing, yet lacking civil society consultation and legislative oversight. By doing away with treaties or accords, the three chief executives are achieving deeper integration through NAFTA Plus by signing ?regulations,? thus foregoing the bother of seeing their plans bogged down in one of the legislatures....

This is treason.


33 posted on 08/25/2005 8:08:36 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com (Google CFR North American Community)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
This is treason.

Agreed. It is time for Jeffersonian principles and some of his sage remarks to be bruited about...in GWB's earshot. "The Tree of Liberty, ..."

34 posted on 08/25/2005 8:40:19 AM PDT by Paul Ross (Definition of strict constructionist: someone who DOESN'T hallucinate when reading the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: henderson field
And the specific benefits of NAFTA have been...

Trade between the US and Mexico rose from $100 billion in 1994 to $266 billion in 2004.

Trade between the US and Canada rose from $243 billion in 1994 to $446 billion in 2004.

35 posted on 08/25/2005 8:43:45 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (If you agree with Marx, the AFL-CIO and E.P.I. please stop calling yourself a conservative!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot; henderson field
Yes we traded away our schools, our hospitals, and our welfare system. They managed to put a lock on trade in low income housing-- we supply the housing they live in it. We also traded away at least $19billion a year that would have gone to pay for our infrastructure, but now goes to pay for Mexico's infrastructure. They traded us high crime, gangs, and persons who promote socialism and communism in our communities. They traded us our national language English, for border spanish and spanglish. They traded us equal rights for protected class. They traded us their poorest,most illiterate and desperate people so Goldman Sachs, Citibank, Wells Fargo and Bank of America could benefit.
36 posted on 08/25/2005 9:13:15 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: henderson field
And the negatives have been?

Yeah, I've hated that low unemployment, strong stock market and housing boom that has happened since NAFTA went into effect.

Truth, be told, NAFTA has had neither a wholly negative, nor positive effect on the economy.

On a related note:

1985: The Japanese are TAKIN' ER JAHBS! 1995: The Mexicans are TAKIN' ER JAHBS! 2005: The Chinese are TAKIN' ER JAHBS!

37 posted on 08/25/2005 9:16:38 AM PDT by Clemenza (Proud "Free Traitor" & Capitalist Pig)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
TAKIN' ER JAHBS!

Who particularly are you slurring here?
38 posted on 08/25/2005 9:24:24 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Tavern-sitting populist yokels of all stripes, even if they sit behind a key board. ;-)

I guess you never saw a certain episode of South Park.

39 posted on 08/25/2005 9:28:42 AM PDT by Clemenza (Proud "Free Traitor" & Capitalist Pig)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

Since when is China part of NAFTA?


40 posted on 08/25/2005 9:29:12 AM PDT by Heartofsong83
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Heartofsong83

Neither is Japan. Just mocking those who are obsessed with such things.


41 posted on 08/25/2005 9:30:10 AM PDT by Clemenza (Proud "Free Traitor" & Capitalist Pig)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

42 posted on 08/25/2005 9:31:00 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Which one is you?


43 posted on 08/25/2005 9:37:13 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza

44 posted on 08/25/2005 9:41:34 AM PDT by 1rudeboy (globalist@nwo.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Clemenza
I guess you never saw a certain episode of South Park.

No I didn't. Only tavern-sitting populist yokels of all stripes watch that show.
45 posted on 08/25/2005 9:44:00 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

I'm not in the photo, but that's my vehicle on the left.


46 posted on 08/25/2005 9:44:31 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


47 posted on 08/25/2005 9:46:31 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Paul Ross; the gillman@blacklagoon.com
It is time for Jeffersonian principles and some of his sage remarks to be bruited about...in GWB's earshot. "The Tree of Liberty, ..."

Homeland security would never allow such a thing. The Patriot Act was put in place to protect the elite from patriots.

48 posted on 08/25/2005 9:50:14 AM PDT by Freebird Forever (AMERICA FIRST !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Yes we traded away our schools, our hospitals, and our welfare system.

And yet our economy thrives. Our unemployment rate is 5% and we still allow you whiners to whine.

49 posted on 08/25/2005 9:57:43 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (If you agree with Marx, the AFL-CIO and E.P.I. please stop calling yourself a conservative!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-128 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson