UPDATE -- July 5, 10:23 a.m.: Well, it took a few days, but John Hawkins is back, and he comes out swinging in Round 3.
I just e-mailed Hawkins' questions to Corsi. Stay tuned for a response.
UPDATE -- July 5, 2:13 p.m.: Corsi is back with a vengence. He's answered all of Hawkins' questions, and may have just delivered the final blow in this fight (or at least Round 3).
UPDATE -- July 6, 10:25 a.m.: John Hawkins is ready to call the fight after Round 4. He's come out throwing some big blows in his latest reply to Corsi:
UPDATE -- July 6, 3:14 p.m.: John Hawkins' decision to end the debate didn't go over too well with Jerry Corsi. Nope, he wants to carry this on past Round 4. Here is Corsi's latest comeback:
Twice now Jerome (here and here), I've shot enormous, gaping holes in your series of conspiracy theory columns about the merger of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico and twice now you've offered up "non-response responses." Still, I'm a gamer and I'm going to give it one more shot because someone needs to pound this ridiculous concept until it's "stepped on dead" and I'm just the guy to do it.
So, let's try this. Jerome, I am going to ask you five simple questions, all of which will be based on things you have written. If your columns have any validity at all, you should be able to easily give great answers to these questions.
Ready, Jerome? Here we go...
1) You've claimed that,
"President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.
The blueprint President Bush is following was laid out in a 2005 report entitled 'Building a North American Community...'"
One problem: that report was produced by a Council of Foreign Relations task force, not a governmental entity. Set aside the fact that the report doesn't even call for abrogating, "U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union," and explain the evidence that this is a blueprint George Bush is following. Has he mentioned the report at all? Has he said he'd like to, "dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union?" Where is the hard evidence that George Bush is using this specific report as a "blueprint?"
2) Jerome, you claimed in another column that George Bush wants to, "supplant the dollar with the Amero." Your evidence for that nonsensical assertion was merely that Robert Pastor, vice chairman of the CFR task force called for the creation of an, "Amero; a currency that is proposed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar, and the Mexican peso."
That is evidence that Robert Pastor supports an Amero, but certainly not evidence that George Bush does. So, do you have any evidence that George Bush wants to create an Amero? Has he mentioned wanting to combine the US dollar with Canadian and Mexican currency? Has the word "Amero" ever come out of his mouth?
3) Over at NASCO (.PDF file), they've pointed out that the "Nafta Superhighway" isn't "new" or "four football fields wide" as you've asserted in a previous column. Will you admit that you got your facts wrong? Also, can you explain what exactly is supposed to be so scary about expanding a highway?
4) Obviously, Bush couldn't, "dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union," by executive order. It would require a complete rewrite of the Constitution...or do you think that's not the case? Do you believe Bush can just give a press conference one day and announce, "By the way, the United States has merged with Canada and Mexico," and that's it? How would that aspect of the plan work?
5) You've said that the North American Union is scheduled to, "become a reality in 2010." However, Bush isn't going to be in office in 2010. So, how can Bush implement his "secret" plan when he's not going to be in office when it's supposed to be happen?
How about some answers, Jerome -- or better yet, a column explaining to your readers that there is no, "secret agenda...to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union?"
I just e-mailed Hawkins' questions to Corsi. Stay tuned for a response.
UPDATE -- July 5, 2:13 p.m.: Corsi is back with a vengence. He's answered all of Hawkins' questions, and may have just delivered the final blow in this fight (or at least Round 3).
Mr. Hawkins poses five specific questions. We shall take them in the order in which he proposed them.
1. Clearly, the Council on Foreign Relations is a non-governmental organization (NGO) that has no binding control on U.S. governmental policy-making. We are equally sure that Mr. Hawkins is fully aware of the influence NGO’s such as the CFR have exerted on U.S. governmental policy-making for decades. Granted, the influence is not always a direct, one-for-one correlation between influential NGO recommendations and U.S. government policy, but the correlation is often sufficiently strong that the direct influence on government policy is demonstrable.
The CFR task force report in question, entitled “Building a North American Community,” was issued in May 2005, two months after President Bush, Mexico’s President Vincente Fox, and Canada’s then-Prime Minister Paul Martin signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005. On page 3 of the 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, there can be no doubt that the CFR task force stated 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. Now, the only question becomes this: is the U.S. government following the CFR task force “blueprint” as the executive branch proceeds to pursue and realize the goals laid out in SPP?
The CFR task force report further endorses the creation of extensive trilateral executive branch “working groups” whose purpose is to forms substantive bureaucratic agreements to be implemented across a broad agenda of topics. To quote directly from pages 23-24 of the CFR report:
“While each country must maintain its right to impose and maintain unique regulations consonant with its national priorities and income level, the three countries should make a concerted effort to encourage regulatory convergence.
“The three leaders highlighted the importance of addressing this issue at their March 2005 summit in Texas. The Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America they signed recognizes the need for a stronger focus on building the economic strength of the continent in addition to ensuring its security. To this end, it emphasizes regulatory issues. Officials in all three countries have formed a series of working groups under designated lead cabinet ministers. These working groups have been ordered to produce an action plan for approval by the leaders within ninety days, by late June 2005, and to report regularly thereafter.”
We next turn to the Department of Commerce’s website devoted to the Security and Prosperity Partnership. Under the first bar to the left, we find the June 2005, “Report to Leaders,” submitted on the exact timetable specified in the CFR report. Reading this document, we find a close correspondence between the cabinet level working groups already set up by the Bush administration under the auspices of this Department of Commerce office and the working agenda specified by the CFR report (note especially pages 24-26). If Mr. Hawkins desires a full analysis, I would be happy to demonstrate out the extensive point-by-point correspondences not only in language, but also in working group methodology and stated purpose, between the working group agenda being pursued in SPP.gov and the “blueprint” specified in the CFR report.
I would also note that the co-chair of the May 2005 CFR report was American University professor Robert A. Pastor. Dr. Pastor’s 2001 book, titled “Toward a North American Community,” alone would qualify him to lead the competition to be designated the “father” of the North American Union, specified as a regional government which would have sovereignty over the U.S.A. We also Dr. Pastor’s testimony in November 2002 to the Trilateral Commission in which he recommended how a North American Community could evolve NAFTA into a regional government. We argue that the specific recommendations that Dr. Pastor makes in writing such as these hold a close correspondence to the action recommendations of the May 2005 CFR report and the reported working group bureaucratic decisions being reached by the Bush administration executive branch in SPP.gov.
If we were to submit these various documents to a scientifically rigorous content analysis statistical test, we are confident the correlations would be more than sufficient to reject the null hypothesis, namely that the documents bear no causal relationship whatsoever in content.
2. Mr. Hawkins concedes that Robert Pastor has ambitiously pursued the agenda to advocate the establishment of a new unified North American currency, called the “Amero,” designed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar, and the Mexican peso, much as the Euro has replaced the national currency of most EU member countries. He asks if President Bush has ever specifically advocated the creation of the Amero?
I have argued that the plan to establish the North American Union as a regional government is being advanced by the U.S. government through internal executive branch administrative action in order to keep the plan below the radar of U.S. public scrutiny. In accordance with this plan, I would argue that President Bush has intentionally avoided revealing his true plans to the American people.
If the executive branch has nothing to hide, I would encourage the office of SPP.gov in the Department of Commerce to fulfill promptly my FOIA request and release the names, working agendas, and various memoranda of understanding or other trilateral agreements already achieved, but largely unannounced to the American media, the American public, or the U.S. Congress. I cannot find a single speech where President Bush details a discussion covering the extensive new memoranda of understanding agreement being reached with Mexico and Canada or the other trilateral agreements already decided by the SPP.gov working groups, let alone the Amero. Why doesn’t President Bush or a credible spokesperson for the President come forth and charge that the multiple articles I have written on the subject are without foundation? I have gone so far as to suggest that the creation of a new regional government within the bureaucracy amounts to an executive branch coup d’etat. Certainly a charge this serious merits repudiation by a Bush administration under siege in many different areas for extra-constitutional exercise of executive branch authority.
We would also note that the updated 2006 SPP.gov listing of working groups describes a “Financial Services Working Group” that appears to be new since the June 2005 report to the leaders. The description of the Financial Services Working Group is typically top-level, without sufficient detail to determine if trilateral integration of currencies is on the agenda. We would hope that the documentation forthcoming from our FOIA request would answer these questions.
Finally, a rich and abundant economic literature (beyond Dr. Pastor) exists on creating a unified North American currency. For documentation of this point, I will just refer to one such paper, that authored by Benjamin J. Cohen of the University of California, entitled, “North American Monetary Union: A United States Perspective.” Given the broad range of issues now subject to “trilateral homogenization” by the working groups organized in SPP.gov, we believe reaching the question of the Amero with executive branch committees is at best only a matter of time.
3. Mr. Hawkins asserts that the revised NASCO homepage disputes that NASCO is supporting a “new” NAFTA Super-Highway that is four football-field-lengths in width (as much as 1,200 feet wide as proposed in to be built in the current Trans-Texas Corridor project). Evidently, this query was written before Mr. Hawkins had the opportunity to read my column today, in which I charge that NASCO is currently engaged in a public relations make-over designed to defuse public criticism. As I discuss in today’s article, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) plans to hold final hearings on TTC-35 this month and next month. TxDOT is a member of NASCO. I again invite NASCO to repudiate the plans of the TxDOT to build TTC-35, otherwise I will charge again that NASCO is hiding behind its trade organization charter, while endorsing the plans of its members to build just such a proposed super-wide NAFTA Super-Highway.
4. Mr. Hawkins argues that President Bush would have to completely re-write the Constitution of the U.S. to put in place a North American Union. If that is the case, then I call for a Constitutional Convention to be convened immediately. What I have argued is that the North American Union is being constructed by the executive branch in a de facto manner, through bureaucratic action being conducted within SPP.gov. We already have Chapter 11 tribunals under NAFTA, what would be needed to block the expansion of Chapter 11 tribunals from evolving into a structure where they became a de facto North American Union court that would trump the U.S. Supreme Court. Cases are already underway within the exiting Chapter 11 tribunals that could easily evolve into this result. I have begun to write articles detailing how the SPP.gov working groups are already opening our borders, opening our skies, and opening our highways in a manner that should have been openly acknowledged by the Bush administration when the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill was before the Senate. Much of that legislation was moot, given what SPP.gov has already accomplished out of public view.
5. Mr. Hawkins has argued that President Bush cannot possibly have planned to have a North American Union become a reality in 2010 because he may not be in office in 2010. Our argument is that the development of the North American Union has been a progressive movement begun not by President George W. Bush, but by President George H.W. Bush and advanced by President William Jefferson Clinton. Whether President Bush will complete his current term is by no means certain, especially if the Democrats gain control of the House of Representatives in the 2006 elections.
Examining SPP.gov, we find that a wide range of memoranda of understanding and trilateral agreements have already been signed. Geri Word within the NAFTA office of the Department of Commerce reports that these trilateral agreements have been described on the SPP.gov website, but have not been published, not even on the Internet. With this much already agreed to, via a behing-the-scenes fiat manner of administrative agency trilateral inter-action, how would a next president reverse these agreements already established? What is astonishing is that the SPP.gov working groups have proceeded entirely by executive branch fiat, without specific discussion before the American people, or presented to Congress as new legislation to be passed or treaties to be ratified? What is the specific Congressional authorization for the SPP.gov memoranda of understanding and trilateral agreements already reached?
My point is that President Bush is proceeding to take the SPP declaration of Waco, Texas –- nothing more than a trilateral joint press statement -– and utilize that statement as if it were legislation or a treaty authorizing the extensive SPP.gov agreements that are being formed. The point was recently made by Christopher Sands of the Center for Strategic and International Studies who wrote in May 2006 that:
“For now, however, President Bush, President Fox, and the newcomer, Prime Minister Harper, remain committed to the bureaucratically led negotiations of the NASPP (North American Security and Prosperity Partnership). Politically led integration is proceeding in tandem, as leaders at the state and provincial level build ties and solve problems arising from growing linkages between the three countries.”
Our charge is that the integration going on with SPP.gov exceeds Constitutionally-defined limits of the executive branch. We believe the plan is to “lock-in” whomever succeeds George W. Bush to continue the process of creating the North American Union behind the scenes, hoping all the while that economic and public attitude trilateral integration will be so strong that nobody will dare object.
We invite Mr. Hawkins to open his eyes to what is hidden in plain view, including ample documentation for our arguments on government websites, acknowledged by other experts to be happening, regardless whether Mr. Hawkins cares to hear the debate or not.
UPDATE -- July 6, 10:25 a.m.: John Hawkins is ready to call the fight after Round 4. He's come out throwing some big blows in his latest reply to Corsi:
So far, I've ripped the guts out of Jerome's silly little conspiracy theory series three times and in response, Jerome has only been able to give "two non-response responses" and a nearly 2,000-word missive that didn't answer a single question I posed. So, since Jerome seems unable to answer these basic questions -- let me, in my last post in this series (I am only going to spend so much time debating this nonsense), do it for him.
1) "Has (Bush) mentioned the (Building a North American Community) report at all? Has he said he'd like to, "dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union?" Where is the hard evidence that George Bush is using this specific report as a "blueprint?"
No, Bush hasn't mentioned the report and there's no real evidence that he's using it as a blueprint anywhere except in Jerome's fevered imagination.
2) "(D)o you have any evidence that George Bush wants to create an 'Amero?'" Has he mentioned wanting to combine the US dollar with Canadian and Mexican currency? Has the word "Amero" ever come out of his mouth?"
Jerome did find a second university professor who favored a unified currency and offers that up as if it has something to do with George Bush. That's a fascinatingly idiotic idea you have there, Jerome. If two people, neither of whom are speaking for George Bush or are members of the government, think there should be a unified currency, then ipso facto, it's George Bush's position. But back in the real world where the rest of us live: no, George Bush hasn't mentioned the Amero or combining the US currency with that of Mexico or Canada because it's not going to happen.
3) "Will you admit that you got your facts wrong? Also, can you explain what exactly is supposed to be so scary about expanding a highway?"
No, Jerome doesn't want to admit that he got his facts wrong and that there's nothing scary about building a road. Jerome, is there something you want to tell us about why you're so afraid of a road? Was someone you loved paved over when you were a child?
4) "Do you believe Bush can just give a press conference one day and announce, 'By the way, the United States has merged with Canada and Mexico,' and that's it? How would that aspect of the plan work?"
Jerome is just shooting from the hip here and doesn't have the slightest idea of how this would work. Big surprise there. He's no different from tin foil hatters who claim that the Pentagon was hit with a truck bomb, but who can't explain what happened to the people on the airplane or why so many people actually saw the plane hit.
5) "So, how can Bush implement his 'secret' plan when he's not going to be in office when it's supposed to be happen?"
According to Jerome, it's all part of a vast conspiracy that Bush, Sr. and Clinton were all involved in as well. There's no word yet on whether the Illuminati, lizard people, or aliens are all also involved in building the "road of doom," but I wouldn't be surprised if that were coming soon.
Let me go ahead and take the gloves off. Jerome, either you're very ignorant about how government works, you're a kook, or you're some combo thereof. Whatever the case may be, there's nothing alarming going on here.
Nations that live next to each other are always trying to improve their level of cooperation. Of course, we want Mexico and Canada to work hard to defend our borders from criminals, terrorists, and illegals while making it easier for our law-abiding citizens and their law abiding citizens to cross the borders. Since we're all trading partners, of course we want to make it easier for our goods to move through each other's countries. But, that doesn't mean there is some vast conspiracy to merge the United States with Mexico and Canada.
Now, Jerome, if it were just you who believes in these crackpot theories, I'd just write you off as a nut and let it slide. But, because this garbage is being published on Human Events and WorldNetDaily instead of on a kook website where it belongs, the misleading trash you're cranking out on a weekly basis is duping people who would normally know better. That's why I'm glad to have had a chance to point out the sort of gibberish you're spouting on the pages of Human Events, even if I have had to suffer the indignity of debating this complete stupidity, which is about two steps removed from arguing over whether the moon is made of green cheese.
UPDATE -- July 6, 3:14 p.m.: John Hawkins' decision to end the debate didn't go over too well with Jerry Corsi. Nope, he wants to carry this on past Round 4. Here is Corsi's latest comeback:
In reading Mr. Hawkins attacks on the series of articles I have written on the North American Union, I find that Mr. Hawkins has misquoted my comments systematically as part of what appears to be an ad hominem attack designed at discrediting the arguments made rather than answering the arguments directly.
First, let me substantiate this claim with a few examples. On May 22, 2006, I wrote:
“If President Bush had run openly in 2004 on the proposition that a prime objective of his second term was to form the North American Union and to supplant the dollar with the ‘Amero,’ we doubt very much that President Bush would have carried Ohio, let alone half the Red State majority he needed to win re-election.”
What was Mr. Hawkins’ take on this sentence:
“What’s Corsi’s evidence for this silly assertion? A guy by the name of Robert Pastor ‘was a vice chairman of the CFR task force that produced the report “Building a North American Union.”’ Well apparently, at some point, ‘Pastor has also called for the creation of a new currency which he has coined the “Amero,” a currency that is proposed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dolar, and the Mexican peso.’
“So, the fact that Robert Pastor said that he’d like to see an Amero replace the dollar translates in Corsieese to the ‘prime objective of (Bush’s) second term was to form the North American Union and to supplant the dollar with the “Amero?”’ This is the sort of logic you expect to see from someone who claims the Illuminati rule the world, not from a conservative columnist.”
Evidently, Mr. Hawkins intends the italicized parts of his discourse to be direct quotes from my writings. If you look carefully, you will note that the quotation in Mr. Hawkins’ second paragraph fails to include the conditional dependent clause in which the quotation was embedded. I was not claiming that a prime objective of Bush’s second term was to form the North American Union and to supplant the dollar with the “Amero.” I was posing that conditional proposition – a factual counter-positive – to demonstrate how little support President Bush would have had from American voters had such an objective been openly advanced as part of President Bush’s re-election campaign strategy.
This is not an insignificant point. I am arguing that the working groups established in SPP.gov are actively writing new memoranda of understanding with Mexico and Canada, as well as signing unpublished trilateral agreements that have apparently not been shared with Congress. This appears to involve a decision by the Bush administration to advance the Security and Prosperity Partnership by bureaucratic action, below the radar of public opinion. I have also cited Christopher Sands of the Center for Strategic and International Studies who in his newsletter titled “North American Integration Monitor” also argues that the Bush administration has chosen to advance SPP by “bureaucratically led integration” rather than through public disclosure and debate, a strategy Sands characterizes as “politically led integration.”
Having twisted my argument, Mr. Hawkins next proceeds to discredit an argument I did not make by charging that I must believe the Illuminati rule the world. Sorry, Mr. Hawkins, but I put no credence in the proposition that some secret society rules anything. I do, however, argue that astute politicians sometimes wisely decide to hide their true intentions from a voting public that the politician has ample reason to believe would reject the true intentions if openly expressed.
Let’s take another example. Mr. Hawkins attacks me for discussing the “NAFTA Super Highway.” He writes:
“He [Corsi] has even managed to write 3 columns about a ‘NAFTA Super Highway’ running from Mexico to Canada. Come on! Who hears someone say, ‘Oh, they’re building a road,’ and thinks, ‘It must be part of some sort of secret conspiracy!’ It’s just a highway, Jerome, it’s just a highway.”
Rather than argue that the NAFTA Super Highway was a conspiracy, what I have written from the beginning is that “The details of the NAFTA Super Highway are hidden in plain view.” My point again was twisted by Mr. Hawkins. What I was arguing was that a close examination of public documents would reveal underlying intentions that public officials were not disclosing clearly and openly to the public. For example, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) likes to characterize the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC-35) as a road needed to accommodate anticipated population and traffic growth in the state. Yet a close reading of the 4,000 page Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) posted on the Trans-Texas Corridor website reveals on page 3 the NAFTA purpose of the TTC-35. Under the subtitle “enhance economic vitality,” the EIS notes that “approximately 75 percent of America’s commerce with Mexico travels through Texas. Increased access and mobility within the study area would improve the movement of people, goods, and services and potentially lead to new employment and business opportunities.” This should make clear that the TTC-35 project is not “just a highway,” it’s a NAFTA-intentioned highway.
Mr. Hawkins’ goal appears to be to twist my arguments sufficiently so he can establish the specious ground for an ad hominem attack:
“Corsi’s articles amount to a great big sack of nothing. There’s just no ‘there, there’ to anything he’s saying. I mean this stuff is so ludicrous that the sort of people who believe that the Trilateral Commission secretly controls the whole world would look at it and go, ‘“No, that’s just too far fetched.”’
Again, I am going to quote Christopher Sacks, who also advances the argument that SPP.gov is moving to bureaucratic achievement of a degree of North American integration that has not been openly presented to the American public in a clear and easy to understand manner.
“In NAFTA, the three governments established working groups on the operation of NAFTA rules of origin and customs classificatory procedures (Article 513), on standards-related measures (Article 913), on trade and competition policies (Article 1504), and on temporary entry for business persons (Article 1605). The NASPP [North American Security and Prosperity Partnership] builds on this structure by creating new working groups and giving them a renewed endorsement by the political leaders. Significantly, the NASPP also incorporates, integrates, and expands on the security agendas of the separate U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico Smart Border Accords adopted after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington.”
I have filed a FOIA request because SPP.gov is unclear whether the working groups first reporting in June 2005 have created memoranda of understanding and other trilateral agreements which exceed their Congressional authority. Asking this question is quite different from arguing that the Trilateral Commission rules the world.
Mr. Hawkins’ tactics appear to conform to the recommendations of radical socialist Saul D. Alinsky, who advised on page 128 of his 1971 book Rules for Radicals that: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule.” Mr. Alinsky was wrong, however, in that ridicule can be counterattacked, simply by pointing out calmly that ad hominem attacks are typically the last resort of those whom evidence and argument fail.
On July 6, 2006, Mr. Hawkins answered my responses to his five questions. Again, he begins with dismissal and ridicule, boasting that: “So far, I’ve ripped the guts out of Jerome’s silly little conspiracy theory three times.” Again, I have never argued for a conspiracy theory. Quite the contrary, I have consistently argued that the evidence for my arguments is in the open, often published on government websites. True conspiracies are not hidden in plain view.
Still, let’s review Mr. Hawkins’ latest responses on the five questions he posed.
1. What is the basis for assuming that the Council on Foreign Relations task force report “Building a North American Community” is a blueprint for SPP.gov?
Because President Bush has not given a speech referencing this report, Mr. Hawkins concludes “there’s no real evidence that he’s [i.e., George W. Bush] is using it [the CFR task force report in question] as a blueprint anywhere except in Jerome’s fevered imagination.”
Ignoring the ad hominem attack, we note that Mr. Hawkins is non-responsive to my argument that a scientifically conducted content analysis would show a strong correlation between the language and the recommendations in (a) the CFR task force report, (b) the language of the 2005 Report to Leaders found on SPP.gov, and (c) speeches given by Dr. Robert Pastor, the vice chair of the CFR task force report, as evidenced by his 2001 speech to the Trilateral Commission. Content is a perfectly acceptable scientific method for determining such correspondences. While correlation cannot prove causality, a strong correlation between the wording and recommendations of these documents would suggest the documents were not related to one another by chance.
In other words, as I argued, page 3 of the CFR task force report claims to “provide specific advice” regarding how SPP could be “pursued and realized,” and examination of SPP.gov gives strong evidence that the CFR advice is being followed. CFR’s advice derives strongly from Dr. Pastor’s continued recommendations that a North American Union be created as a European Union-style regional government, with a parliament, a regional court, an executive branch, and a new currency – the “Amero.”
2. What evidence is there that George W. Bush wants to create the Amero?
For citing Benjamin Cohen’s paper on the creation of a North American monetary union, Mr. Hawkins took the occasion to attack: “Jerome did find a second university professor who favored a unified currency and offers that up as if it has something to do with George Bush. That’s a fascinatingly idiotic idea you have there, Jerome. If two people, neither of whom are speaking for George Bush or are members of the government, think there should be a unified currency, then ipso facto, it’s George Bush’s position.”
Cutting through the typically dismissive and demeaning language, Mr. Hawkins’ again twists my argument. As I demonstrated in Point #1 above that academic arguments about the formation of a North American Union regional government and the creation of a NAU currency have shaped government policy being implemented under SPP. Mr. Hawkins should be aware of a growing body of academic literature supporting the idea of a North American monetary union and the formation of an “Amero,” or otherwise named NAU currency, much as the EU has formed the Euro. The CFR as an NGO can and does impact government policy, much as academic arguments find their way into White House thinking. How much impact this influence has does often require scientific techniques such as content analysis to determine.
Nor did Mr. Hawkins respond to my observation that the SPP.gov working groups have formed a “Financial Services Working Group,” about which almost nothing has been disclosed.
That the president has given no speech specifically arguing for the creation of the Amero is not conclusive evidence that the executive branch is not working on plans to form a North American monetary union, especially in light of strong academic arguments that the creation of a unified North American currency is advisable.
3. Mr. Hawkins poses the third question as “can you explain what exactly is supposed to be scary about expanding a highway.” Actually, this April 6 formulation of the third question differs dramatically from the way Mr. Hawkins posed the question on July 5. Then Mr. Hawkins was asking about NASCO and claiming that I got my facts wrong because NASCO was not advocating the creation of a NAFTA Super Highway.
I responded then, as I do now, that NASCO supports the actions of their members, such as TxDOT and the Trans-Texas Corridor which are actively planning to build TTC-35 after they complete this month’s and next month’s final round of public hearings, just as NASCO supports their member KC SmartPort that is planning to build a Mexican customs facility in their inland port. I have challenged NASCO to repudiate these activities of their members, otherwise I have argued NASCO is supporting the activities of their members to create new “Super Corridor” infrastructure that is consistent with producing components of a Super Highway designed to accommodate increasing volumes of NAFTA trade.
Nor has Mr. Hawkins responded to my contentions that opening up our borders to open migration and free movement of trains and trucks identified by SPP.gov as “trusted travelers” or “trusted traders” will increase the numbers of Mexicans living and working in the U.S., to the detriment of our labor unions and our middle class.
4. Again, Mr. Hawkins is asserting that creating a North American Union would require a revision of the U.S. Constitution. On July 6, he writes: “Do you believe Bush can just give a press conference one day and announce, ‘By the way, the United States has merged with Canada and Mexico,’ and that’s it? How would that aspect of the plan work?
Again, Mr. Hawkins is non-responsive to the argument I made that the SPP.gov working groups by agreeing to numerous non-published memoranda of understanding with Mexico and Canada, as well as non-published trilateral agreements is putting a de facto North American Union regulatory structure in place today. The governments of Europe did not need to ratify their constitutions to formulate the EU. Even NAFTA itself was introduced as a law, not a treaty, simply because a Congressional super-majority was not in favor of the agreement. Even today, the EU operates as a regional government without a ratified constitution. Again, my charge is that the integration going on with SPP.gov could well be exceeding the constitutionally-defined limits of the executive branch. Should SPP.gov comply with my FOIA request, we should obtain the documentary evidence necessary to examine that question.
5. Mr. Hawkins’ fifth question is really just a slight modification of his fourth question. He doubts George W. Bush could be responsible for putting the North American Union into place in 2010 because George W. Bush leaves office in 2009. He writes: “Bush isn’t going to be in office in 2010. So how can Bush implement his “secret” plan when he’s not going to be in office when it’s supposed to be happening?
Again, the answer is non-responsive. The goal of SPP.gov is to accomplish so much North American integration by bureaucratic regulatory action that the decision to finally form the North American Union becomes virtually irreversible, a fait accompli, regardless who is president. We have already had three presidents in a row buy into the NAFTA process – President George H.W. Bush, President William Jefferson Clinton, and President George W. Bush. Why does Mr. Hawkins think we will not have a fourth that will do the same, unless we bring these issues into the light of day and invite the American people to debate them robustly.
If Mr. Hawkins wants to continue this dialogue, I would only ask that he drop the invective. My experience is that many readers realize there must be something to what I am writing if critics engage in ridicule as a tactic to discredit and dismiss the argument without refuting it. For my part, I am enjoying the exchange, so I hope Mr. Hawkins does respond. I consider the subject of highest importance, so much so that I am willing to take more abuse, if that is all Mr. Hawkins can summon in advancing his point of view.
