The Death of U.S. Sovereignty


“President Bush signed a formal agreement that will end the United States as we know it, and he took the step without approval from either the U.S. Congress or the people of the United States. It is an absolute contravention of our law, of our Constitution, every national value.” — Lou Dobbs on CNN, June 21, 2006

 “The global elite, through the direct operations of President George Bush and his Administration, are creating a North American Union that will combine Canada, Mexico and the U.S. into a superstate called the North American Union (NAU). The NAU is roughly patterned after the European Union (EU). There is no political or economic mandate for creating the NAU, and unofficial polls of a cross-section of Americans indicate that they are overwhelmingly against this end-run around national sovereignty.” — The August Review, November 11, 2006 

“Government is too big and too important to be left to the politicians.” — Chester Bowles (U.S. Diplomat in FDR and JFK Administrations)

“The real rulers in Washington are invisible, and exercise power from behind the scenes.” — Felix Frankfurter, U.S. Supreme Court Justice


In 1770, Sir William Pitt said to Britain’s House of Lords: “There is something behind the throne greater than the king himself,” giving rise to the expression “power behind the throne.” Two hundred and thirty-seven years later, these words were never truer, as unseen powers behind the scenes pull the strings of many world governments. This is especially noteworthy since these governments are—on the surface—representative governments controlled by the people. In reality, a self-anointed elite manipulates and guides the direction of governments today, operating beneath the public radar, constantly reinventing themselves, and craftily doing end-runs around any legislative and judicial regulations blocking their self-serving goals.


The present-day European Union (EU) is a classic case in point. Socialists Jean Monnet and French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman founded the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951, with the express purpose of bettering trade relations. It was officially adopted at the Treaty of Paris in 1952. But all power for the ECSC was placed, not in the hands of governments (i.e., the people), but in an elite, supranational group called the “High Authority.” Carol Quigley, Georgetown University historian said: “This was a truly revolutionary organization since it had sovereign powers, including the authority to raise funds outside any existing state’s power. This ‘supranational’ body had the right to control prices, channel investment, raise funds, allocate coal and steel during times of surplus. The ECSC was a rudimentary government.

1.  EXPANSION: EVOLUTION, BROADENING, DEEPENING – In 1957, under the umbrella of the Treaty of Rome, they added two more pan-European organizations: EURATOM (European Atomic Energy Community) and the EEC (European Economic Community). The stated purpose of all these organizations was to create a common market for trade purposes.

From these original worthy economic goals—to drop market barriers and facilitate harmonious trade—these three organizations in 1967 merged into the single EEC (European Economic Community), which reinvented itself and took on a political structure controlled by the European Commission, a Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. In 1992, the Treaty of Maastricht further transformed the EEC into a complete economic, monetary and political union (the EU), with a common constitution, defense structure and currency… something profoundly exceeding the original mandate. Although the euro currency came into existence in 2002, ratification of the EU constitution has been repeatedly blocked by voters who belatedly realize the whole EU construct was misrepresented to them by unelected administrators willing to sacrifice their national sovereignties on the altar of globalism.

2. DECEPTION REVEALED – Proof of the EU’s scheming origins appeared in the publication Europe—A Fresh Start in 1990, in which the European Commission stated: “We see, then, that the institutions set up since 1950 on the initiative of Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet are  responding well to the aim of their founders.” After 40 years of denial, it was finally admitted that complete financial, economic and political union had been the intent right from the start. In 1991, columnist Sir Peregrine Worsthorne said in the London Sunday Telegraph: “Twenty years ago, when the process began, there was noquestion of losing sovereignty. That was a lie, or at any rate, a dishonest obfuscation.”

3. THE EU TODAY, A BUREAUCRATIC  NIGHTMARE – Today the EU is an out-of-control bureaucratic monster that continues gobbling up ex-Soviet bloc members from Eastern Europe. It has fully functioning executive, legislative and judicial institutions that are neutralizing all national sovereignties. It should alarm everyone when former USSR President Mikhail Gorbachev says the EU is “constructing a European Soviet.”Bottom line: the EU was conceived in deception and is a gigantic, unproved, experimental gamble, a super-socialist boondoggle, whose massive edifice increasingly resembles a house of cards.


Why recap EU history? Because, spreading like the bird flu, EU clones—NAFTA and CAFTA—are incubating in the western hemisphere, with the same socialist DNA as the embryonic EU. Promoters of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) and CAFTA (Caribbean Free Trade Agreement) intend for these simple “trade” organizations to evolve, broaden, deepen, and eventually emerge as the FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas)—a full-fledged western  hemispheric economic, monetary and political union. The FTAA would in turn be part of the WTO (World Trade Organization), which amounts to an economic UN.

1. THE EU MODEL IS BEING FOLLOWED – The EU was built piecemeal, adding new elements as it evolved, and morphing into today’s European superstate. Further evidence that an EU-like model is being followed, Robert Pastor, a Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) director

and key architect in creation of the NAU (North American Union), said in the January/February 2004 issue ofForeign Affairs magazine: “NAFTA was merely the first draft of an economic constitution for North America.”He further called on the North American Community to:

  • Merge “immigration and refugee policies”;
  • Establish a continental [NAU] “security perimeter”;
  • Transfer $100 billion to Mexico in 10 years for “infrastructure development”;
  • Create SPP institutions to execute executive, legislative and judicial powers;
  • Create a North American passport.

Pastor also called the current concept of “sovereignty” obsolete and said U.S., Canadian and Mexican citizens need to be “reeducated” to view themselves as “North Americans.” We should be very concerned when an unelected functionary of an all-powerful elitist organization purports to set the agenda for our future.

As in Europe, we see a piecemeal process underway in the Americas, in which various elements—North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), Organization of American

States (OAS), the Inter-American Development Bank, Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), North American Union (NAU), etc.—will be forged into a governmental colossus. Like Europe, a major casualty will be national sovereignties. U.S. citizens must ask if they want this “globalist-socialist” plan created by unelected elites to erase the legacy of the Founding Fathers, and negate the sacrifices of millions of dedicated U.S. citizens who fought and died protecting U.S. sovereignty, freedom and independence. In fact, the citizens of all nations in the western hemisphere are faced with this same question.

2. NAFTA – NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) came into existence on January 1, 1994, establishing the world’s largest free trade area including Canada, the USA and Mexico. Canada was already the largest U.S. trading partner with Mexico second. NAFTA’s promoters (including many of the world’s largest corporations) maintained NAFTA would create hundreds of thousands of new jobs, raise the standard of living in all three nations, and improve the environment. Corporations and other promoters chose to ignore the immense complexities of trying to impose a one-size-fits-all trade policy onto nations with radically different stages of development. The USA and Canada were at similar “first world” stages of development, but Mexico was distinctly “third world,” and attempting to harmonize it with the U.S. and Canada was/is fraught with problems.

It appears over-zealous corporations fixated on their bottom lines, ignored the impediments, and saw a rare opportunity to significantly increase their profits under NAFTA. Once NAFTA became official, they promptly relocated many operations to Mexico to avail themselves of cheap labor costs, and U.S. workers who previously filled those jobs were shown the door. While some Mexicans got jobs as a result of NAFTA, one must ask—if NAFTA is as successful as some maintain—why have record millions of Latin Americans migrated illegally to the U.S. to seek employment since NAFTA’s creation? It appears the jobs hype was merely a smokescreen and an outright lie to rush through NAFTA to benefit corporations at the expense of U.S. workers.

3. NAFTA’S DANGEROUS LEGAL PRECEDENTS – Another downside of NAFTA (like the WTO or World Trade Organization) is that its core provisions provide foreign investors unprecedented rights and privileges to demand that companies and corporations take actions not allowed under U.S. law—the proverbial tail wagging the dog. Like the WTO and EU, NAFTA has created supranational “trade” regulations, which amount to a camel’s nose in the tent of national sovereignty to affect changes that would be illegal under U.S. law.

NAFTA tribunals have already handed down shocking rulings similar to the judicial bodies of the EU that have been overriding the sovereignty of EU member states. For example, in 2004, the U.S. Supreme court rejected an appeal by a Canadian company, which then took the matter to the NAFTA court. NAFTA judges asserted their power under Chapter 11 of the NAFTA agreement and overturned rulings by both the Massachusetts Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court.

After this ruling, John D. Echeverria, a Georgetown University law professor, told the New York Times: “This is the biggest threat to United States judicial independence that [few people have] heard of and even fewer people understand.” Peter Spiro, a Hofstra University law professor, said, “It points to a fundamental reorientation of our constitutional system. You have an international tribunal essentially reviewing American court judgments.”  It’s downright scary to realize that in the future, unelected “trade” officials may be dictating rule of law in the U.S. The power embodied (or assumed?) in these supranational trade regulations further enables the elites and their corporate partners to affect legal and administrative changes in areas other than trade, with the ultimate goal of bringing about full monetary, economic and political union without ever having to put the matter to a vote by the people.

4. CAFTA – CAFTA is NAFTA extended to Central America and the Dominican Republic, and includes six nations: Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. The CAFTA agreement was signed in May 2004, and stealthily passed by the U.S. Congress, by one vote, in the middle of the night on July 27, 2005. Costa Rica has not yet approved CAFTA, but parliaments of the other five nations have voted their approval. CAFTA was scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2006, but was delayed when Central American nations realized the alarming ramifications of their decisions to join CAFTA and balked at implementing changes required under the agreement.


On March 23, 2005, President Bush met in Waco, Texas with Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin and Mexican President Vicente Fox. The result of their meeting was a radical proposal to establish a so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). It said that the U.S., Canada and Mexico would do away with separate borders and “implement common border security,” they will have a “common approach to emergency response”; and that north and south U.S. borders would be eliminated. [ED NOTE: Reread that last sentence. They plan to eliminate Mexican and Canadian borders.]

1. SPP AND NAU – Prior to the March 23rd meeting, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and its Canadian and Mexican counterparts (Canadian Council of Chief Executives and Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales) had met and laid the groundwork for the Waco meeting. They (CFR, et al.) produced a document titled “Creating a North American Community:   Chairmen’s Statement Independent Task Force on the Future of North America.” It was the blueprint for the SPP that emerged from the Waco meeting.

2. REMOVE U.S. BORDERS – Shortly after the Waco meeting, the CFR released another report which said:“The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America.” Finally, the negligence and reticence on the part of the Bush Administration to secure the US-Mexico border becomes clear …the CFR (the power behind the throne) is pulling White House strings to further its own agenda of a North American Union with no borders— illegal immigration be damned.

The devil lies in the details and the spin, but SPP documents clearly state its aim is to protect North American borders (i.e., the northern border of Canada and the southern border of Mexico), not current U.S.national borders. Dr. Jerome Corsi, one of the most informed people on the NAU subject, said: “The Bush Administration has no intention of securing the border. Instead, its leaders are planning to erase it.”

3. SPP GETS TOP PRIORITY – Showing the importance attached to SPP, it is now headed by three toplevel cabinet officials from each country. From the U.S. are Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Mexico representatives are Secretario de Economía Fernando Canales, Secretario de Gobernación Carlos Abascal, and Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores Luis Ernesto Derbéz. Canada’s representatives are Minister of Industry David L. Emerson, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Mining Safety Anne McLellan, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Stewart Pettigrew.


The drive to create the NAU is moving into high gear in 2007. Construction is beginning on a NAFTA superhighway that will parallel the current I-25 and extend from Laredo, Texas to north of Duluth, Minnesota, where it will tie into the Canadian highway system. Make no mistake—the NAFTA superhighway is a vital cog in the NAU wheel. It must be noted that a major provision in the EU’s Maastricht Treaty was creation of TEN (Trans European Network) a network of roads and highways similar to the proposed NAFTA highway system.

1. TRANS TEXAS CORRIDOR (TTC) – The initial leg of the NAFTA superhighway will be the Trans Texas Corridor (TTC) and it will be a toll road named I 69. To build the TTC, 150 square miles (1.5 million acres) of private Texas land is being confiscated by invoking the government’s right of “eminent domain.” The TTC, the largest and most expensive engineering project in Texas history, will be 12 lanes wide (6 each direction with separate lanes for passenger vehicles and large trucks); and will also include freight railways; high-speed commuter railways; utility lines for water, oil and natural gas; and transmission lines for electricity, broadband and other telecommunications.

2. MEXICAN LEG OF NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY— THE RED CHINA CONNECTION – The southernmost end of the NAFTA highway will be the Mexican port of Lázaro Cárdenas located in the southern part of the Mexican state of Michoacán. Lázaro Cárdenas is run by Hutchison Whampoa, the same Chinese firm already running port facilities at both ends of the Panama Canal and operating the majority of port facilities at Long Beach. It must be noted that Hutchison Whampoa and its Chairman, billionaire Li Ka-Shing, Asia’s richest man, are closely allied to the Chinese leadership in Beijing, and in particular, the Chinese Red Army (People’s Liberation Army).

Long Beach is the second busiest U.S. port and a leading gateway for trade between the U.S. and Asia. But periodic strikes by longshoremen in Long Beach and Los Angeles caused frustrated importers to seek alternate port facilities. NAU-related documents indicate that Lázaro Cárdenas will become a major port of entry for Chinese trade, and goods will be inserted directly into the NAFTA super highway corridor and speed north to the U.S. and Canada. Although Lázaro Cárdenas can currently handle only 100,000 containers annually, Hutchison Whampoa has partnered with Wal-Mart in a $300 million port improvement project to increase cargo handling to 2 million containers per year by 2010, a 2000% increase in capacity. Perhaps it’s symbolic that the port of Lázaro Cárdenas is named after the Mexican president who nationalized all U.S. oil companies operating in Mexico in 1938.

3. MEXICAN CUSTOMS AT KANSAS CITY SMARTPORT– The port of entry for goods going to or arriving from Mexico will no longer be the Rio Grande on the U.S.-Mexico border. K.C. SmartPort, Inc. is constructing an inland customs facility at Kansas City (on the new NAFTA superhighway) to alleviate congestion at Laredo. The SmartPort will be built and operated by the Spanish company Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte S.A., which is also directly involved in building and operating the TTC. Cintra will have a 50-year operating lease on both the SmartPort and the TTC.

The Mexican customs facility at the Kansas City SmartPort will be designated as sovereign Mexican territory. Trucks and trains speeding along the NAFTA superhighway often will not even need to stop for customs at Kansas City, as they will be checked by “SENTRI,” a state-of-the-art electronic inspection system. One can only shudder at some of the security implications in this age of WMDs and terrorism, not to mention the burgeoning drug problem.

There is little doubt that streamlined transportation, customs and trade import processes would be beneficial. But again, the NAFTA superhighway would be just one in a succession of irreversible steps that would lead toward a NAU and common currency. Cross-border trade and imports means there will always be legal, currency exchange, logistical, and customs problems that cry for resolution and simplification. Importers (mostly megacorporations) would pressure for harmonization of laws and customs and currency. Governments (at the behest of the “powers behind the thrones”) would be only too willing to accommodate them by running political interference, removing borders, overriding national laws, and sacrificing sovereignty. So you see, the NAFTA superhighway is not just another highway; it’s also a fast lane to the NAU.



As noted, the NAFTA superhighway and the whole specter of a NAU are almost entirely beneath the public radar. But the NAU has a highly attentive and nurturing incubator already working feverishly within the Federal Government in Washington D.C.: the Department of Commerce. Numerous working groups within the Department of Commerce are grinding out bureaucratic details and regulations for the SPP, one of the precursor organizations for the NAU. They have created a website with basic information (wrapped in government spin):

Jerome Corsi sums it up chillingly: “The Bush Administration is pushing to create a North American Union out of the work on-going in the Department of Commerce under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in the NAFTA office headed by Geri Word. A key part of the plan is to expand the NAFTA tribunals into a North American Union court system that would have supremacy over all U.S. law, even over the U.S. Supreme Court, in any matter related to the trilateral political and economic integration of the United States, Canada and Mexico.”

1. NAU ALLIES IN U.S. CONGRESS – NAU advocates are also not without allies in Congress. In June 2006, Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) submitted Senate Bill 3622 (S. 3622), a North American Investment Fund Act, which is still in committee. It authorizes the president to negotiate creation of an investment fund using U.S. and Canadian tax dollars for public works projects in Mexico in an attempt to elevate it from its third world status.

2. NAU OPPONENTS IN U.S. CONGRESS – There are also a few Congressmen, such as Congressmen Ron Paul (R-TX), who realize what’s happening and have the courage to speak out. Congressman Paul says organizations like NAFTA, CAFTA and the FTAA “have far less to do with the free movement of goods and services than they do with government coordination and management of international trade.” He goes on to say the SPP/NAU “adds up to not only more and bigger government, but to the establishment of an unelected mega-government.”

Congressman Virgil H. Goode, Jr (R-VA) has sponsored H.CON.RES. 40, a congressional resolution“Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.” Congressman Goode has been joined by congressional cosponsors John J. Duncan, Jr (R-TN), Virginia Foxx (R-NC), Walter B. Jones, Jr (R-NC), Charles W. Norwood (R-GA) [ED. NOTE: Congressman Norwood died of cancer on Feb. 13, 2007.], Ron Paul (R-TX), Ralph Regula (R-OH), Jim Saxton (R-NJ), Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Patrick J. Tiberi (R-OH), and Zach Wamp (R-TN).

In late 1994, just before the U.S. formally joined the WTO (World Trade Organization), incoming House Speaker Newt Gingrich testified before the House Ways and Means Committee. He warned that joining WTO would bring about a fundamental change in our system of government by “transferring from the United States at a practical level significant authority to a new organization. This is not just another trade agreement. I think we have to be very careful, because it is a very big transfer of power.” Creation of the SPP and NAU is of a similar magnitude.


We’ve all heard the term “fast track authority,” but few understand it. The New American magazine (Oct 2) says that fast track authority is when “a president is permitted to negotiate not just a particular trade agreement, but also to craft the implementing legislation needed to ‘harmonize’ U.S. law to conform with the agreement.” It sets aside (and violates) constitutional separation of powers by allowing the executive branch to create legislation that should (by law) originate in Congress.

The first President Bush used fast track authority to conclude NAFTA. President Clinton used it to conclude negotiations to join the WTO. And the current President Bush used it to create CAFTA and the SPP/NAU. Current President Bush also used fast track to conclude a bilateral trade agreement with Oman, which will be part of MEFTA (Middle East Free Trade Area) another regional trade bloc scheduled to come into existence by 2013.

All of these regional alphabet trade organizations ultimately fall under the umbrella of the WTO, the global mother of all trade organizations. By now you’ve no doubt realized it’s not really about “free” trade at all, but “controlled” trade. And controlled trade means controlled people and controlled everything else. Fast track authority simply accelerates the rush to global socialism and should be banned, not only because it’s illegal, but also because it goes against the very principles on which the nation was founded.

[ED NOTE: NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, SPP and NAU are supported by the leaders of both political parties (i.e., the Bush’s, Clintons, etc.) because both parties are controlled by a global socialist establishment wholly dedicated to world government. It’s called “bi-partisan treason.” And sadly, the rank and file in both parties are too ill-informed to see that, just as with the EU, our sovereignty and freedoms are being manipulated out of existence.]


Robert Pastor is director of North American studies at American University and author of the book Toward A North American Community. He is also vice-chairman of the CFR task force (and godfather) behind creation of the North American Union. In 2005, Pastor testified before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee advocating limiting of U.S. power and sovereignty in deference to a greater super-regional entity (the NAU). Paralleling creation of the NAU, Pastor called for the creation of the “amero,” a common currency to replace the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar and the Mexican Peso.

There would be extraordinary opposition by both U.S. and Canadian citizens to sacrificing their currencies on the altar of North American Union in favor of the amero. Some knowledgeable observers say the only way to bring about acceptance of such a historic change would be through creation of a severe financial- monetary-banking crisis whereby the “powers behind the throne” would hold up the amero as the solution to awful financial and monetary woes. With the backdrop of massive U.S. government debt, the very real prospect of a painful property collapse, the highly suspicious Fed halt in reporting of M3 (money supply), it’s no secret that the U.S. dollar today sits at the edge of a precipice. If the dollar were to take a huge dive, the stage could be set for such a scenario and introduction of the amero. It might also be a means by which the U.S. government could dilute its massive debt burden.

There are those who dismiss all this talk of the amero and NAU as nothing but conspiracy theories. Yet, in early December, Steve Previs, vice president of Jefferies International Ltd. in London, was interviewed onCNBC. Previs said, the amero “is the proposed new currency for the North American Community which is being developed right now between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.” He said the aim is to make a “borderless community, much like the European Union, with the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso being replaced by the amero.” Readers may find it virtually impossible to believe, but Pastor and the CFR have also set a deadline of 2010 for the establishment of the NAU.


Informed people and organized opposition is the only way to stop this headlong rush to create a bureaucratic megastate intent on obliterating our sovereignty. The New American magazine expresses well the gravity of the situation: “It is incredible, but in less than four years from  ow—if the CFR template is followed—the United States may cease to exist as an independent political entity. Its laws, rules and regulations—including all freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution— will be subject to review and nullification by the North American Union’s governing body.

“Sure, the United States will still be here in name, American soldiers will still fight, mostly, under the U.S. flag. There will be a U.S. president and both houses of Congress will continue to meet and pass legislation. Nevertheless, in very important ways, the United States will become nothing more than a province—albeit and important one—in the emergent North American superstate.” The New American magazine often provides insight rarely available elsewhere, and we heartily recommend it: PO Box 8040, Appleton, WI 54912 ($39 per year).

Those who doubt the massive, deceptive control and influence of the elitists exercising power behind the throne need only study and observe history and the current status of the European Union to know exactly where we are headed. It took 50 years for the EU to evolve from the original European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) to its present bloated size – as a political bureaucracy or superstate which rules Europe. But, like everything else in our fast-pace hi-tech world, the NAU is proceeding at a much faster pace than the EU.

From inception in the early ’90s to installation in 2010, the North American Union could have an incubation period of under 20 years. Learning from their mistakes in Europe, the globalists will keep the birth of the NAU under the radar screen (out of public view) as long as possible – to avoid public opposition. There will be no public referendums (which in Europe slowed down the process).

The plan is to simply unveil the NAU in 2010 as a fait accompli – American or Canadian public opposition can be damned, as far as the NAU promoters are concerned! If people don’t wake up quickly, they will no longer have a country, and they will have lost their currency.

[ED. NOTE: Robert Pastor, the architect of the “North American Community” that would integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada, will publicly debate his proposals with author and WorldNetDaily columnist Jerome Corsi at NEWS EXPO 2007 in Washington, May 11. It will be the first debate of its kind between a major proponent of North American integration and an outspoken critic.]

Add new comment

Plain text


McAlvany Weekly Commentary provides investors with valuable monetary, economic, geo-political and financial information that cannot be found on Wall Street. Your host David McAlvany presents a solid strategy of wealth preservation for your financial and retirement assets while living in an unstable economy.

Through its client focused, customized approach, MWM is committed to providing independent, well-researched, objective advice, and investment professionalism. At MWM, our client commitment is to preserve capital, manage risk, and grow your assets in an ever-changing global environment.

At International Collectors Associates (ICA), we specialize in the sale of bullion, semi-rare U.S. and European gold coins and secure offshore storage in Switzerland for your precious metals. Our highly trained and experienced advisors strive to help you in customizing solid strategies of wealth preservation for your financial and retirement assets.

McAlvany Financial Group

The McAlvany Financial Group has a contrarian, in-depth approach to its analysis, allowing the company to avoid decisions based on emotion, and thus combine maximum risk mitigation with consistent real growth for its clients’ investments. Integrity, attentiveness, and longevity have characterized the company’s client relationships since 1972.