When it comes to this subject there is a whole slew of strange bedfellows and that is why none of us should take it lightly.
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?
Corsi:
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.(end)
The anwer to the first part would be '"No", Corsi won't admit that he got his facts wrong, and the answer to the second part is that NASCO-TTC-TxDOT is scary because he says so. Maybe he'll be more forthcoming in his soon-to-be-relesed book.
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?
Corsi:
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.(end)
The JBS people eat the bolded part up.
I'm speechless that you otherwise intelligent people believe this.
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?
Corsi:
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.(end)
Ample documentation?? Like these ridiculous answers to Hawkins' questions? LOL
Acknowledged by other experts?? LOL