Thread: Killing the North American Union Conspiracy

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=16103

Killing the North American Union Conspiracy

by John Hawkins
Posted Jul 19, 2006

"By 2010, the integration of Mexico, Canada and the U.S. will be almost complete. Congress and the media will not know what happened. Americans will be as clueless as ever; thanks to the complicity of the brain-dead media, the triumph of a bloodless bureaucratic elitist coup will become a reality, or close to it." -- Diane Alden

"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." -- Lou Dobbs Tonight

"President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy....Why doesn't President Bush just tell the truth? His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union." -- Jerome Corsi

Judging by the three hysterical quotes you've just read, you'd think that the United States was about to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into some sort of merger with Canada and Mexico.

However, that's not exactly true. As a matter of fact, to be completely accurate, it's not true at all. But, since claims of this sort are spreading like wildfire on the right, it seemed like a good idea to take the time to tear out the underpinnings of this conspiracy theory. So, let's explore some of the pieces of "evidence" that support the North American Union conspiracy theory and see how well they bear up under scrutiny.

Claim #1: There a Council of Foreign Relations report called, "Building A North American Community," that's being used as the "blueprint" for a merger of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada.

Back in 2005, a task force sponsored by the Council of Foreign Relations put out a report called, "Building A North American Community." I recently spoke to Lee Feinstein, Executive Director of the Task Force Program at the Council of Foreign Relations -- and he told me the report calls for improving security between the borders, steps to grow the American economy, and improving trade.

When I asked him if the report favors merging the United States, Canada, and Mexico, his reply was, "It doesn't favor anything of the kind." Indeed, if you read through the report (.pdf file), you will find that it doesn't call for the creation of a superstate. Moreover, Mr. Feinstein said he would be flattered if people in the Bush Administration were reading and paying attention to the report, but he denied that it was being used as any sort of "blueprint" and said, "Realistically, anyone outside the government has to be modest about the impact that they have on government policy because the government has its own ideas of what it wants to do."

Claim #2: "Quietly but systematically, the Bush Administration is advancing the plan to build a huge NAFTA Super Highway, four football-fields-wide, through the heart of the U.S..." -- Jerome Corsi

To be honest, this one has always been a little hard to figure out. After all, Canada and Mexico are our two biggest trading partners. Therefore, it's difficult to understand why some people are so adamantly opposed to improving the highways running between those nations, and into the US, or why they believe a road is part of some monstrous conspiracy. But nevertheless, since this issue has been widely discussed, I took the time to dig into this claim.

First of all, the group behind the "NAFTA Super Highway" is called NASCO. They're not a government entity and they're not advocating building "four football field-wide" roads or even new roads at all. They just support the expansion of existing roads to better serve business interests in the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. Yesterday, Tiffany Melvin, the Executive director of NASCO was kind enough to take the time to discuss the North American Union conspiracy theory with me. Here's what she had to say:

"NASCO is a non-profit organization that has been around for 12 years. We have no secret meetings with the Bush administration and we're not part of a conspiracy. We're a business organization trying to promote the NASCO Corridor and the connecting highways in Canada and Mexico as an efficient, secure transportation system that will attract companies to use our corridor for their business."

NASCO has gotten so tired of the conspiracy theories swirling around them that they've actually put up a "NASCO Myths Debunked (.PDF File)" section on their website to try to kill some of these rumors. People who believe they're involved in creating some sort of "North American Union" should take a look at that article. It'll quickly ease their concerns.

Claim #3: A customs facility in Kansas City is going to become Mexican territory!

What this refers to is the KC Smartport, which is, at least in my humble opinion, a brilliant idea. The idea is to set up an area in Kansas City, with Mexican and American customs officials there who can examine outgoing vehicles away from the long lines generated at the borders. You heard that right by the way; this facility will only handle outbound freight headed to Mexico, not Mexican vehicles headed into the United States.

So, is the area the KC Smartport sits on going to be leased or owned by Mexico? No. So, where did the idea come from? I asked Tasha Hammes, the Media Relations & Marketing Manager for the KC Smartport project, about that and she said it was an idea that was kicked around via email in something akin to an online brainstorming session at one point. However, as she confirmed to me in a follow-up email, the idea was not something that the KC SmartPort project chose to pursue:

"Kansas City, Mo., is leasing the facility to KC SmartPort. It will NOT be leased to any Mexican government agency or be sovereign territory of Mexico."

Claim #4: The United States, Mexico, and Canada are going to merge their currencies into something called an Amero.

It's always difficult to reason people out of something that they weren't reasoned into in the first place and therefore, it'll be very difficult to convince people who believe in this claim that it's not going to happen.

That being said, George Bush has never advocated merging our currency with that of another country and neither has anyone in his cabinet. Furthermore, no one has presented any proof whatsoever that anyone in the United States government is working on this idea. At least one of the North American Union conspiracy theorists has speculated that the Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America may be working on such a proposal. However, I spoke with David Bohigian over at the Commerce Department yesterday and he issued a flat denial that the SPP was working on merging America currency with that of our neighbors.

So, if people want to insist that we're creating some sort of unified currency based on the fact that a few professors think it's a good idea, that's fine -- but as of yet, there has not been one, single, solitary shred of evidence presented that the Bush administration supports, advocates, or is working on this idea.

Claim #5: The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America is the government entity that's working on merging the United States, Canada, and Mexico!

The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America is a group that was launched in 2005 and it works under the aegis of the Commerce Department. The SPP was created to help increase cooperation between the U.S. and its neighbors to the North and South.

As I mentioned earlier, yesterday I spoke to David Bohigian over at the Commerce Department about the SPP. He confirmed that the SPP is not using the, "Building A North American Community," report from the CFR task force as any sort of a "blueprint" and he added the following:

"This is not a treaty and not an agreement. It's like a discussion you'd have with your neighbors. Nobody is looking to merge our currency, or our borders, or do any sort of union like the EU. The United States is working cooperatively with its neighbors to enhance security and prosperity of our countries."

Summary: Folks, as you can see from reading this column, there is no "North American Union" in the works. If you don't believe me when I tell you that, then maybe you'll believe Tony Snow who had this to say when he was, "asked if the president would categorically deny any interest in building a European Union-style superstate in North America,"

"Of course, no. We're not interested. There is not going to be an EU in the U.S."

If you don't believe me and you don't believe Tony Snow, then believe your own knowledge of how the U.S. Government works. To merge the United States into a North American Union would obviously require a whole host of Constitutional Amendments. In fact, so many would be necessary that the only possible way to accomplish it would be through a Constitutional Convention, an event that hasn't occurred in over 200 years and that would require the support of 34 state legislatures to be possible. So, even if George Bush or any other U.S. President were so inclined to create a North American superstate, he would be powerless to do so unless he were able to rally 2/3 of America's state legislatures to his side.

Since that is the case, there's simply no need for people to try to turn run-of-the-mill attempts to improve cooperation with Canada and Mexico into some sort of vast conspiracy to create a North American Union. The reality is that since Mexico and Canada are our neighbors and our biggest trading partners, there are plenty of reasons for the government and private industry to try to streamline and improve our relationship with them on security, trade, and other issues. So, let's worry about real problems instead of non-existent conspiracy theories that melt like snow in the middle of a Texas summer the moment you take a hard look at them.

First of all, the group behind the "NAFTA Super Highway" is called NASCO. They're not a government entity and they're not advocating building "four football field-wide" roads or even new roads at all.

Funny they say this. NASCO list the Trans Texas Cooridor (TCC) as one of their projects and Tex-DOT just held a meeting showing the public this four-football field wide road that is in a different location from "the existing" roads. The county of Rockwall Texas will only be 4% of it's existing size after this highway goes through the county. The following clearly links NASCO with TCC.
http://www.nascocorridor.com/pages/projects/ttc-35.html

How wide do you think this will be?

The Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) is a proposed multi-use, statewide network of transportation routes in Texas that will incorporate existing and new highways, railways and utility right-of-ways. Specific routes for the TTC have not been determined.

As envisioned, each route will include:

separate lanes for passenger vehicles and large trucks
freight railways
high-speed commuter railways
infrastructure for utilities including water lines, oil and gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband and other telecommunications services

Plans call for the TTC to be completed in phases over the next 50 years with routes prioritized according to Texas’ transportation needs. TxDOT will oversee planning, construction and ongoing maintenance, although private vendors will be responsible for much of the daily operations.

From the TCC website
http://www.keeptexasmoving.org/projects/

What the above fails to mention, that in the center divider of the highway, there will be fuel stops. So envision a two directional highway divided by rest stops, eateries and gas stations in the center. Now picture rail lines and pipelines running on the outside of this highway. Are you seeing 4 football fields yet?

"NASCO is a non-profit organization that has been around for 12 years.

Funny how the article didn't mention funding. What is the motivation behind this non-profit? Do they just exist because they want pretty roads? Wonder who contributes to their "non-profit".

The Amero. Funny, that word and concept came right off of the SPP website. That's where I first encountered it.

NASCO is not telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Stop buying goods made in China! Buy American!

Dixie

First off this author of this piece is speaking from the very people who are implementing the plans. They ARE NOT going to tell the truth.

Notice how he uses the term "conspiracy theory". The term has always had a negative connotation and many Americans will hear that and their brains will shut down and they stop listening because they do not want to be viewed as a nutcase.

I say support Tom Tancredo and Jerome Corsi. Tancredo has called for an explanation of what is going on and the Jerome Corsi has filed a Freedom of Information request about the SPP so things can be clarified. His request has not been answered as of yet and to my knowledge Tancredo has not been answered either.

I read this morning that congressman Mike Rogers from Alabama came out and asked the very same questions and wrote a letter the Carlos Gutierrez on July 11, and is waiting for an answer.

If there is nothing to hide then Bush and the Department of Commerce and everyone else involved needs to step forward and make open any and all information regarding what they are doing with their secret "working groups" that do not wish to be bothered by the public as stated in another article.

He contacted the CFR and he believes them...that right there is laughable.

THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
Congressman presses on 'super-state' plan
Asks Bush administration to fully disclose its activities

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: July 20, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com



A congressman is pressing the Department of Commerce to fully disclose a congressionally unauthorized plan to implement a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada that critics say could lead to a North American union.

Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., chairman of the Subcommittee on Management, Integration and Oversight of the House Committee on Homeland Security, wrote July 11 to Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez requesting detailed disclosure of working groups in the Security and Prosperity Partnership office within his department.



Referring to an attached letter from a constituent, Rogers wrote to Gutierrez:


Judging by information contained in this letter, a number of legitimate concerns are raised regarding the implementation and operation of the SPP, including the membership and charge of its working groups; potential memoranda of understanding with foreign countries; and whether there has been any Congressional oversight of these working group, to name a few.
Rogers concluded by asking Gutierrez for a prompt review of the issues and for a response "as soon as possible."

The attached constituent letter was written by Eunie Smith, president of Eagle Forum of Alabama and by Bob Couch. They posed the following questions to Rogers:


What is the membership of the 30 SPP working groups?

What is the charge/working agenda of each of the 30 SPP working groups?

Please provide to me any trilateral memoranda of understanding and other trilateral agreements with Mexico and Canada.

Please provide findings, reports and presentations of the working groups.

Under what congressional action are these working groups constituted?

What congressional oversight is there of this process?

Are the working groups redefining American laws to make them tri-lateral?

What specific plans are there for reporting to Congress?
The constituents' letter also suggested four lines of inquiry should congressional hearings be convened to examine SPP working group activities:


Is the sovereignty of the United States threatened since it has been reported that a North American court and a parliamentary body are being proposed, complete with the "Amero" to replace the U.S. dollar?

Wouldn't an "outer security perimeter" remove the capacity of policing our borders from the hands of United States citizens?

Isn't "harmonizing entry screening and visa and asylum regulations" code for a quantum leap in liberalizing our country's immigration laws?

What about the May 2005 CFR Task Force documents calling for a "seamless North American market" and for "the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico" and for a "permanent tribunal for North American dispute regulation," as well as calling for allowing Mexican trucks "unlimited access" to the U.S.
The constituents' letter also attached a copy of a July 2005 article by Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly entitled, "The Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada."

Schlafly was one of the first analysts and commentators to question the purpose of SPP. In her article, she wrote that the Council on Foreign Relations task force report entitled "Building a North American Community" let the "cat out of the bag about what's really behind our trade agreements and security partnerships with the other North American countries."

Schlafly argued the CFR task force report "spells out a five-year plan for the 'establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community' with a common 'outer security perimeter.'"

She commented:


This CFR document, called "Building a North American Community," asserts that George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin 'committed their governments' to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details.
Rogers' letter to Gutierrez supports a demand for information made last month by Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.

Smith, on behalf of Eagle Forum of Alabama, told WND she is "very pleased" with Rogers' commitment to inquire into the SPP operations.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=51143

I'm not a tin foil kind of girl. However, lies are lies and the little NASCO Darling(Tiffany Melvin) was just caught in one.



Dixie

Thought I would put this here.


http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=16134

North American Union Is No Conspiracy

by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted Jul 21, 2006

John Hawkins apparently has taken on a mission to prove that the Bush Administration is not creating a North American Union to replace the United States, or a new currency -- the Amero -- to replace the U.S. dollar.

Recently, in a blog debate on this website, I exchanged views with Mr. Hawkins. When Mr. Hawkins declined to respond in what the editors termed “Round 4” of that debate, I concluded Mr. Hawkins allowed me to have the final word because he lacked a convincing rejoinder. Now, we see Mr. Hawkins wants to carry on the debate but this time against a vaguely defined “conspiracy theory” whose proponents Mr. Hawkins neglects to identify except to point fingers at Lou Dobbs, Diane Alden, and me.

Hawkins begins by characterizing the argument that the NAU is being created as a “conspiracy theory.” As I argued in the debate on the blog, this technique is an attempt to discredit the argument by ridicule. What Mr. Hawkins wants readers to assume is that any writer arguing the NAU proposition has to believe by definition that behind the NAU movement are the illuminati, or that Bigfoot is the “brains behind the NAU.”

The tactic was well described by radical socialist Saul D. Alinsky whose 1971 book “Rules for Radicals” asserted that: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule.” Mr. Alinsky was wrong on this, as he was on many political arguments. Ridicule can be countered by pointing out that ad hominem articles are usually all that is left for those who cannot muster the arguments to defeat a debate opponent on point.

Mr. Hawkins, you do not have to characterize statements by those of us who advance the NAU argument as “hysterical quotes” or arguments that are “not true at all” in order to position yourself to make the arguments you want to make.

To set the record straight, I believe there is no convincing evidence that a second assassin positioned behind the grassy knoll killed JFK, nor do I see definitive scientific evidence that the Loch Ness monster exists. I do find credible evidence, however, to advance the argument that the Bush administration is quietly creating the trilateral structure in administrative law of the NAU. The key action is going on within the executive branch in SPP.gov working groups. The goal seems to be to make the NAU a fait accompli without having to present the proposition first to the American public or the U.S. Congress for debate and approval. Far from being a conspiracy, the evidence for these contentions is “hidden” in the open, much of it published on government websites.

Mr Hawkins advances five “claims” which we will examine here in the order in which his article presents them. I will state the claims as Mr. Hawkins phrased them.

Claim #1: There is a Council of Foreign Relations report called, “Building a North American Community,” that’s being used as a “blueprint” for a merger of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada.

First, there is a CFR task force report under that title that was issued in May 2005. Moreover, there was a relatively neglected “Chairman’s Statement” under the title “Creating a North American Community” that was issued earlier, in March 2005.

Mr. Hawkins states that he telephoned Lee Feinstein, who is the executive director of the CFR task force program. Mr. Feinstein denied that the CFR reports in question called for the creation of a “superstate.” Moreover, Mr. Feinstein expressed uncertainty that anyone in the Bush administration was reading the report, paying any attention to it, or using it as a “blueprint.”

While Mr. Feinstein may head the CFR program, but we find no mention that Mr. Feinstein participated on the task force of either of the CFR reports documented above. Nor do we find any evidence that task forces organized under Mr. Feinstein's office have a requirement to consult him or seek his views, advice or approval before issuing their reports.

Mr. Hawkins is non-responsive to the argument I advanced in the blog debate that a scientifically conducted content analysis would most likely show correspondence between the CFR reports in question, the activity documented by the Department of Commerce website (SPP.gov), and the writings of a person who was task force vice chair for the reports in question, Dr. Robert A. Pastor of American University. Regardless of denials expressed by any CFR executive or even a task force member, the documents in question should speak for themselves.

There are too many correlations among these evidentiary sources to document them fully here. To cite one correspondence as an example, we note that the CFR May 2005 report called for the immediate creation of a “North American Advisory Council,” described on page 31 as an “independent body of advisers,” composed of “eminent persons from outside government, appointed to staggered multiyear terms to ensure their independence.” In the May 27, 2005 press conference announcing the release of the May 2005 CFR task force report, Robert Pastor argued for the creation of some “lean institutions,” one of which was described as a “North American advisory council made up of eminent individuals from all three countries, appointed for terms that are longer than those of the governments, and staggered over time.”

The idea for a “North American Commission” surfaced in Dr. Pastor’s 2001 book titled "Toward a North American Commission," where on page 187 he recommended that the advisory group be “composed of distinguished individuals who are appointed by the three governments but are not in any of the governments.” The homepage at SPP.gov concludes by noting that President Bush, President Fox, and then-Prime Minister Martin of Canada announced at their March 2005 summit at Waco, Texas, “the creation of a North American Competitiveness Council to fully incorporate the private sector into the SPP process.” Then, on June 15, 2006, the NACC was created. Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez convened the first meeting of the North American Competitiveness Council, organized exactly as Dr. Pastor and the May 2005 CFR task force report had recommended.

Another correspondence that a content analysis would reveal is the formation of a North American Investment Fund. Robert Pastor discussed this idea in his 2002 speech to the Trilateral Commission in which he argued for just such a fund. Next, the May 2005 CFR task force report argues for the creation of a North American Investment Fund on page 14. The acknowledgments section of this CFR report thanks Sen. John Cornyn (R.-Tex.) for contributing to the task force meeting in New York City in December 2005. Finally, on June 29, 2006, Sen. Cornyn introduced S. 3622 into the Senate, a bill calling for the formation of a North American Investment Fund. Always the discussion was the same -- to create a new North American investment fund that would supplement World Bank funds expended in a trilateral effort to develop Mexico economically.

In the blog debate with Mr. Hawkins, I pointed out that on page 3 of the May 2005 CFR report, the task force referenced the March 2005 SPP declaration and wrote: “The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized.” Given this sentence, we advance the argument that the CFR task force stated openly the intent to lay out a plan, or “blueprint,” for how the U.S. government should proceed to “pursue and realize” the partnership the Waco, Texas declaration had put into effect as of March 23, 2005. We also argued that the correspondence between the areas identified for trilateral agreement in the May 2005 CFR report and the trilateral executive branch working groups established under SPP.gov correspond quite closely.

All this we consider strong evidence that the May 2005 CFR was a blueprint for SPP.gov, a blueprint which is following the intellectual structure Dr. Pastor has put forth in his many years of labor to bring the NAU into existence. These correspondences are empirical documentary evidence, independence of the assertions of any particular executive who may have a personal agenda that informs their statements of denial.

Claim #2: “Quietly but systematically, the Bush Administration is advancing the plan to build a huge NAFTA Super Highway, four football-fields-wide, through the heart of the U.S.” – Jerome Corsi

Here Mr. Hawkins argues that cites the executive director of NASCO who assets that NASCO is merely a trade organization that is not part of a conspiracy to build NAFTA super-highways. Mr. Harkins’ argument here is identical to his argument in the first claim: he references the denial of an executive as a statement of proof that their organizations are not involved in the alleged activity. The argument suffers the same deficiency: What is the proof the executive is not issuing a self-serving denial conveniently design to deflect public examination and criticism?

Mr. Harkins’ argument, however, is once again non-responsive. We have argued repeatedly that NASCO members are actively involved in building components of what we argue will emerge as a NAFTA super-highway on the model of the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC-35). We issued a challenge for NASCO to prove their point by repudiating the publicly stated plans of NASCO members, including the Texas Department of Transportation and the Kansas City SmartPort. We charged that NASCO added “debunking” sections to their homepage and website as a public relations make-over designed to deflect criticism. So far, NASCO has not responded, and neither has Mr. Hawkins.

Claim #3: A customs facility in Kansas City is going to become Mexican territory!

Here Mr. Hawkins begins by offering some personal praise, subtly packaging yet another ad hominem attack as professional admiration by characterizing the Mexican customs office being built in Kansas City by KC SmartPort as “a brilliant idea.” He points out that KC SmartPort officials assert that the purpose of the Mexican customs facility will only be to check “outgoing vehicles,” i.e. exports, which evidently Mr. Hawkins believes should give us no reason to object. Finally, Mr. Hawkins relies upon the testimony of yet another potentially self-interested executive, Tasha Hammes, a KC SmartPort marketing manager, who is associated with the Kansas City Area Development Council. Ms. Hammes asserts that the facility will be U.S. sovereign territory leased to Mexico. For Mr. Hawkins, that statement alone ends the debate on the issue.

Again, Mr Hawkins is non-responsive. We have examined internal emails of KC SmartPort executives that were obtained under a Missouri Sunshine Law. We have quoted from these emails to show that KC SmartPort officials communicating with each other in what they most likely assumed were never-to-be-public writings that the Mexican customs facility might just have to be considered Mexican sovereign territory. Moreover, the internal emails document that the question will remain open until KC SmartPort receives approval from the U.S. Department of State of the C-175 form KC SmartPort submitted to U.S. Customs and Border Protection to receive approval on the Mexican customs facility proposal. Mr. Hawkins failed to comment on this internal email evidence that we have presented and argued.

Claim #4: The United States, Mexico, and Canada are going to merge their currencies into something called an Amero.

Again, Mr. Hawkins begins with another form of the ad hominem discrediting argument, belittling anyone who would believe this claim that an Amero is in the works. He writes: “It’s always difficult to reason people out of something that they weren’t reasoned into in the first place and therefore, it’ll be very difficult to convince people who believe in this claim that it’s not going to happen.”

Moving beyond the personal attack, Mr. Hawkins once again advances executive statements to disavow the claim that the Amero is being contemplated by the U.S. government under the Bush administration. Mr. Hawkins notes that President Bush has never advocated this idea. Mr. Hawkins also notes that he spoke with David Bohigian at the Commerce Department who issued a flat denial that SPP was working on merging American currency with that of our neighbors. Again we note, that executive statements are not conclusive when the executives issuing a statement may have a self-interest in advancing a denial.

We have repeatedly argued that the NAU is being put in place incrementally, by executive action that is not explicitly stated in public speeches or advanced through legislation debated in Congress. We have cited the conclusions of Christopher Sands of the Center for Strategic and International Studies that the leaders of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada have committed to a process of bureaucratically led negotiations that will result in trilateral political integration, rather than proceeding through a process of open or public integration that going to the publics of the three countries or their legislatures would entail.

Mr. Hawkins agrees that creating the Amero is an explicit agenda item that Dr. Pastor has actively pursued, so we are spared having to document this point by reference to Dr. Pastor’s many writings and statements arguing for the creation of the Amero. Mr. Hawkins is once again non-responsive to our argument that a large body of academic literature exists arguing the desirability of creating a North American monetary union, whether or not the trilateral currency is named the Amero.

We noted that the updated SPP.gov listing of working groups describes a new “Financial Services Working Group” such that the top-level description does not produce sufficient detail to determine if trilateral integration of currencies is on the agenda, or not.

Even in the creation of the European Union, the creation of the Euro took some time. The European Council meeting in December 1995 in Madrid settled upon the Euro as a definitive name for the new European “unique currency,” even though the origins of the EU can be traced back to the Treaty of Rome in 1957. We expect the actual creation of a NAU unified currency will take several years after the NAU itself is fully realized.

Claim #5: The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America is the government entity that’s working on merging the United States, Canada, and Mexico!

Predictably, Mr. Hawkins establishes his denial of this claim by referring to executive testimony. David Bohigian at the Commerce Department evidently also told Mr. Hawkins that SPP was just “like a discussion you’d have with your neighbors,” not a treaty or agreement to merge currencies or erase borders. We note the contrast between this statement and the stonewalling the Commerce Department is doing with our FOIA request to see the composition of the SPP.gov working groups, as well as the trilateral agreements and memorandum of understanding being written by these working groups with Mexico and Canada. If the activity in SPP.gov were truly as innocent as Mr. Bohigian asserts, why has SPP.gov resisted posting on the Internet the information our FOIA request is seeking to have released for the public to read?

A close examination of SPP.gov documents that many areas of law and regulation that previously were the purview of the U.S. laws alone are evidently being rewritten by executive branch working groups as new trilateral administrative laws and regulations, without first being submitted to Congress for oversight, new legislation, or other forms of legislative approval.

For instance, the 2005 Report to Leaders on the SPP.gov website documents trilateral agreements to issue biometric ID cards to North American “trusted traders” who will apparently be able to use these cards alone to move freely throughout North America, able to live and work where they choose, without any other specific visa or border crossing documentation. This and the “trusted trader” trilateral agreements later described in the document are highly suggestive of the conclusion that SPP.gov is effectively erasing our borders with Mexico and Canada, even if that explicit purpose is never announced or admitted.

Mr. Hawkins also cites Tony Snow’s press conference denial that the Bush administration intends to merge the U.S. into the NAU. Retractions or restatements by White House press secretaries whose prior briefings were incomplete, or whose information given to the public needed otherwise to be restated are numerous in all modern presidential administrations, Democratic and Republican alike.

Mr. Hawkins argues that the creation of the NAU would require an explicit Constitutional process, possibly even a Constitutional Convention. Again, Mr. Hawkins is non-responsive to our argument that the legal and regulatory infrastructure of the NAU is being created by the executive branch in a de facto manner. Nor did he respond to our example that we already have Chapter 11 tribunals under NAFTA that could evolve into acting like the kind of North American dispute resolution institution described frequently in the writings of Dr. Pastor, as well as in the CFR May 2005 task force report.

Finally, Mr. Hawkins concludes with an admonition that we should be happy SPP.gov is working with our neighbors to improve our security and our prosperity and we shouldn’t worry about a non-existent “vast conspiracy to create a North American Union.” The “don’t worry” part of this “don’t worry, be happy” formula is delivered in the last sentence, where Mr. Hawkins cannot resist one last ad hominem shot. I will refrain from repeating the sentence but I will note that the arguments over the NAU gain credence the closer we look at them. I encourage Mr. Hawkins to rely less on personal testimony derived from involved participants and to spend more time studying and arguing from the extensive evidentiary body of SPP documents which many of us who are examining these questions have linked to in our various articles.

I conclude here as I concluded in the blog debate. I am grateful to Mr. Hawkins for continuing this debate. Challenging the arguments on the NAU should only draw more public attention and scrutiny of the many important issues being debated. I would only encourage Mr. Hawkins to drop the invective, which in the final analysis ends up being less abusive to those of us arguing the NAU than it is to himself.