Amero "Our New North American Currency"

[blkowl]

Gentlemen and Ladies,

I am just an American that loves my country.

We the people of both countries must fight these money crazed Globalist.

These are the "ILLUMANATI the controlling government of the world/

Please do a search on the net to find the truth.

The Case for the Amero: Foreword by Gordon Gibson

http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/cri...section_01.html

The three huge public policy issues for Canada over the next decade are unity, productivity, and governance. All of these questions will be importantly influenced by the current debate over a common currency with the United States. This major work by Herb Grubel is the culmination of a decade of research on the topic. It sets out the best integrated approach to seizing the advantages and avoiding the dangers implicit in this current of monetary history, spurred by the success of the euro.

Unlike some other commentators, Mr. Grubel does not see a common currency as inevitable but, on balance, very desirable. However, the greatest advantage can only be gained by carefully examining and understanding our national interests and working with the United States and Mexico (and perhaps others in the longer run) to establish the institutions that would give Canada a continuing role in the management and profits of a North American currency.

In his advocacy of the "amero" for our continent, Mr. Grubel goes beyond the work of other commentators. The justification is found not only in negative terms--a way of ending the pattern of significant long-term decline that has been the fate of the Canadian dollar over the past generation with the subsequent international erosion of Canadian wealth--but for highly positive reasons.

These include the benefits of greater price stability, significantly lower long-term interest rates, enhanced trade, greater productivity, and the creation of more wealth in Canada for personal and social ends. He gives chapter and verse on the magnitudes of expected benefits and the mechanisms by which they will be realized.

Canadian critics of a common currency take three main positions. The first is that the present system has worked well, so why tamper with it? The second is that a unique Canadian currency is a necessary bulwark of our sovereignty and independence. The third is a claim that the United States would never cooperate in any event.

On the first issue, the system has not worked well. Mr. Grubel explains how the floating exchange rates of the past generation have acted as a kind of non-tariff protection from world market forces, leading to the relatively poor productivity performance and stunted technological sector we see today. Indeed this system has "contributed to Canada's continued high and excessive reliance on the production of natural resources." A monetary union will ensure that we move to "high-tech and other profitable and expanding industries at a more optimal pace."

Simply put, attempts at long-term insulation from economic reality are counterproductive in the end. Of course Canada has many such devices scattered throughout our economy--marketing boards, industrial subsidies, high deficits and government spending--but flexible exchange rates have allowed us to continue such mistakes by the simple device of lowering our wages in the world year after year. This is not an intelligent long-term strategy.

Mr. Grubel discusses Robert Mundell's concept of "Optimum Currency Areas." This discussion arises from the seminal question (translated into Canadian terms): "If a different dollar is good for Canada, why not for British Columbia as well?" The debate ranges over site-specific short-term requirements versus long-term portfolio diversification. He concludes that while, at one extreme, a single currency for the world might not be a good thing (because of the advantages of competing systems), regional currencies, as for North America, meet the optimality test.

Mr. Grubel brings some fascinating insights to bear on the issue of a separate Canadian currency as related to sovereignty and independence. For those who say that the North American economic and political situation--with one giant player--is different in kind from the European Union, he notes that the Netherlands and Austria experienced poor performance for years until they linked their currencies to giant Germany 20 years ago, long before the advent of the Euro. Their sovereignty did not suffer.

Of course, for 100 years Canada used the same Imperial unit measurement system as the United States without any loss of sovereignty, and what is money but another unit of measurement? Tellingly, when Canada adopted a new unit of physical measurement 25 years ago (the metric system), no one forecast an increase in sovereignty for this reason, nor has it materialized.

Most fundamentally however, Mr. Grubel makes the sensible observation that "sovereignty is not infinitely valuable." Every nation in the world, even the mighty United States, has traded off elements of sovereignty to multi-national associations such as the WTO, NAFTA, and the United Nations. Canada has been in the forefront of encouraging every such development--a natural policy for a middle power.

Importantly, none of these associations have impaired our ability to run our own foreign policy or foster our own cultural institutions. (The magazine war of this year is not a counter-example. We have every right under NAFTA to subsidize our magazine industry and are apparently going to do so.)

Finally, at the conceptual level, Mr. Grubel notes the advantages of a common currency in the area of governance. Advanced societies have found it useful to put constraints on politicians in fundamental areas. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is exactly such an example in Canada. A tripartite central bank established to protect the integrity of the amero would be less open to political meddling than any of the Bank of Canada, Federal Reserve, and Mexican central banks independently. Mr. Grubel believes the mandate of such a central bank should be restricted purely to the value of money, with local governments continuing to look after questions of employment and social issues.

As to the claim that the Americans would never enter a currency marriage that gave Canada and Mexico seats on the governing board and their own share of "seigniorage" (the profits governments gain from printing money, about $2 billion annually for Canada), he makes several observations. The first is that the Americans will need new allies to maintain their ascendency vis à vis a large and growing Europe. A second is that they have seen the advantages to be gained through the WTO and NAFTA (notwithstanding the Ross Perots of this world), and a common currency fits the same mould. Finally, there are strong geographical ties across the border--the United States and Canadian prairies for example share many of the same economic concerns--that could find useful expression on a joint board.

Of course this development will take time. No one would have guessed 20 years ago that we would be almost 10 years into NAFTA today. But such are the currents of history.

For now, Canadian government politicians and bankers pooh-pooh the idea of a common currency. This is natural; it is the cautious route. And Ottawa is so fixed upon making the world difficult for Quebec sovereigntists that they see a common currency as solving a problem they do not want solved. This too will pass in the fullness of time.

For now, the job of academics and commentators is to explore the grand concepts and the nitty-gritty details that need to be worked through. Mr. Grubel's work attacks both levels admirably, from the major (optimal currency areas) to the minor (what symbol do you put on the coins?). It is a major contribution to one of the most important public-policy discussions of the coming generation.

[jbg]

I do not see an Amero as necessary or desirable. The Euro has served little purpose, and I predict it will eventually implode.

My preference, now that global inflation in the developed world is both relatively tame and the rates of inflation are relatively similar is to return either to the gold standard or to a standard based upon a basket of commodities, say gold, silver, oil and copper.

That way, every country could decide what pretty faces to put on their currency but, with full convertability, there'd be none of the transaction costs incurred nowadays in currency hedging.

[RB]

Amero is not a desirable name sounds Spanish, but merging of the currency of US and Canada would actually grow the Canadian economy. Alternative is to invest and grow your military.

Look everyone is selling the same thing now and in simple terms all we want is market share and to steer our interest.

Both economies are already homogeneous, and once merge, productivity will increase, trade will result and income will keep rising. That's how we can manage to maintain a high standard of living

Even though our dollar is currently high, Canada's economic policy is still constrain by the more powerful US control and Euro influence and if we continue to stand alone we will be dominated and treated as smaller circular economies.

Contrary, the Euro is very powerful now with a huge trading bloc, I mean the countries that was absorbed were more or less historically and culturally linked. There are going to be able to hold their own with the steady rise of the Asian markets while decimating the poorer countries.

My thinking is you choose reality to become competitive and a player as following suite with Euro or accept that you will have a lower standard of living

I mean looking at the numbers below if you add Canada and US, it is higher than the European Union.

The European Union and a US Canada Union controls half the world economy.

yes?

Rank Country GDP

— World economy 44,433,002

— European Union 13,446,050

1 United States 12,485,725

2 Japan 4,571,314

3 Germany 2,797,343

4 People's Republic of China 1 2,224,811

5 United Kingdom 2,201,473

6 France 2,105,864

7 Italy 1,766,160

8 Canada 1,130,208

9 Spain 1,126,565

10 South Korea 793,070

11 Brazil 792,683

12 India 775,410

13 Mexico 768,437

14 Russia 766,180

15 Australia 707,992

16 Netherlands 625,271

17 Belgium 372,091

18 Switzerland 367,513

19 Turkey 362,461

20 Sweden 358,819

21 Republic of China 346,141

22 Saudi Arabia 307,770

23 Austria 307,036

24 Poland 300,533

25 Norway 296,017

26 Indonesia 276,004

27 Denmark 259,746

28 South Africa 239,144

29 Greece 222,878

30 Republic of Ireland 199,722

31 Iran 196,409

32 Finland 193,491

33 Portugal 183,436

34 Argentina 181,662

35 Hong Kong, PRC 177,723

36 Thailand 168,774

37 United Arab Emirates 133,768

38 Venezuela 132,848

39 Malaysia 130,796

40 Czech Republic 123,603

[blkowl]

The numbers make sense but the citizens will lose more control over their countries.

It is not about money it is about control the EU Parliment has no control over the bills and laws passed.

It is more or less a debating society!

Edited November 13, 2008 by Charles Anthony
deleted re-copied previous post

[Toro]

I don't like the idea.

Canada's economy is much more commodity-oriented, and the ebbs and flows of commodities have effects on Canada that do not exist in the United States.

I haven't looked at Grubel's paper - and I like the man - but a currency union without the free flow of labour across boundaries could set up Canada for disaster.

Besides, it will never happen. America will never give up the dollar. If Canada wants to enter a currency union with the United States, it will have to accept the dollar with no say at the Federal Reserve.

[PocketRocket]

Amero is not a desirable name sounds Spanish...

Then maybe we should call it the Amer-eh???

[geoffrey]

Our dollar will outperform the US dollar in not too long. God bless Ontario manufacturing, we'll have jobs for you guys out here.

[GostHacked]

I see this on the same level as huge corporations getting together to have a bigger stake in the economy. When that happens, layoffs are not far behind.

This will not increase the economy of Canada. This will hurt it even more. This will hurt Canada just likie NAFTA has had in the past, and SUPER NAFTA will take us down the road to a North American Union.. F&(k that. This is a goal of globalization as well. one currency eventually, but pssshaw you say.. but look around you

[US Citizen]

Besides, it will never happen. America will never give up the dollar. If Canada wants to enter a currency union with the United States, it will have to accept the dollar with no say at the Federal Reserve.

I beg to differ. I believe the US IS setting up to replace the dollar. Isn't it true that the oil countries are wanting to be paid in Euros as of late? I am pretty sure I read that somewhere, that that is the growing trend.

I keep reading how it will be a Canadian, US merger. What about Mexico? Don't forget about them. The US CAN'T forget about them.

[jbg]

Besides, it will never happen. America will never give up the dollar. If Canada wants to enter a currency union with the United States, it will have to accept the dollar with no say at the Federal Reserve.

I beg to differ. I believe the US IS setting up to replace the dollar. Isn't it true that the oil countries are wanting to be paid in Euros as of late? I am pretty sure I read that somewhere, that that is the growing trend.

I keep reading how it will be a Canadian, US merger. What about Mexico? Don't forget about them. The US CAN'T forget about them.

As I posted elsewhere, there are too many cultural, standard of living and linguistic differences to support a viable common currency and economic policy. Translated, that means that there is no way the relatively affluent American and Canadian taxpayers will bring Mexicans up to our standard of living without the Mexicans producing themselves.

[US Citizen]

Besides, it will never happen. America will never give up the dollar. If Canada wants to enter a currency union with the United States, it will have to accept the dollar with no say at the Federal Reserve.

I beg to differ. I believe the US IS setting up to replace the dollar. Isn't it true that the oil countries are wanting to be paid in Euros as of late? I am pretty sure I read that somewhere, that that is the growing trend.

I keep reading how it will be a Canadian, US merger. What about Mexico? Don't forget about them. The US CAN'T forget about them.

As I posted elsewhere, there are too many cultural, standard of living and linguistic differences to support a viable common currency and economic policy. Translated, that means that there is no way the relatively affluent American and Canadian taxpayers will bring Mexicans up to our standard of living without the Mexicans producing themselves.

But weren't there vast cultural and linguistic differences in the countries which now form the EU? This is how I see it...the "powers that be" (in all 3 NAU countries) have already put plans in place for this to occur. As far as "bringing Mexicans up to our standard of living", I'm afraid you haven't thought of the alternative...to bring the middle class of the US and Canada down to the standard of a third world country. Please don't dismiss me as some raving lunatic. This is what is already happening in the US. Parts of California are already indistingushable from parts of Mexico...crime, gangs, "ghetto type" living in what used to be affluent middle class neighborhoods.

Please read this article from the LOS ANGELES TIMES http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/l...3638,full.story

Here is a quote from that story:

Today, the Magdalenos in Lexington earn more than they did in Los Angeles, in a city where the cost of living is lower. Kentucky is now their promised land, and they talk about California the way they used to talk about Mexico.

"What we weren't able to do in many years in California," Alejandra said, "we've done quickly here.

"We're in a state where there's nothing but Americans. The police control the streets. It's clean, no gangs. California now resembles Mexico — everyone thinks like in Mexico. California's broken."

[Riverwind]

I'm afraid you haven't thought of the alternative...to bring the middle class of the US and Canada down to the standard of a third world country. Please don't dismiss me as some raving lunatic. This is what is already happening in the US.

I think your are missing the bigger picture. High paying, high skilled jobs in North America are under threat from places like India and China because equally skilled people there can afford to work for a fraction of the salary. They can afford to work cheap because their societies have a massive pool of cheap labour which keeps their cost of living down. In the short term the US may be able to keep its wage rates for low skilled work higher by limiting Mexican immigration, however, doing that would cause more high skilled jobs to goto places like India. For that reason, cheap labour from Mexico is essential to the future competitiveness of North America on the world stage.

Unfortunately, allowing a large pool of cheap labour comes with all kinds of social problems that makes the socialist in me cringe in horror. Unfortunately, the capitalist in me tells me that there is no other alternative.

[US Citizen]

I'm afraid you haven't thought of the alternative...to bring the middle class of the US and Canada down to the standard of a third world country. Please don't dismiss me as some raving lunatic. This is what is already happening in the US.

I think your are missing the bigger picture. High paying, high skilled jobs in North America are under threat from places like India and China because equally skilled people there can afford to work for a fraction of the salary. They can afford to work cheap because their societies have a massive pool of cheap labour which keeps their cost of living down. In the short term the US may be able to keep its wage rates for low skilled work higher by limiting Mexican immigration, however, doing that would cause more high skilled jobs to goto places like India. For that reason, cheap labour from Mexico is essential to the future competitiveness of North America on the world stage.

Unfortunately, allowing a large pool of cheap labour comes with all kinds of social problems that makes the socialist in me cringe in horror. Unfortunately, the capitalist in me tells me that there is no other alternative.

Wow, you certainly paint a bleak picture, considering that I consider myself to be middle class (getting "lower" middle class every day) here in the US. Here is a thought, open for discussion. I have been hearing on the internet that if the Senate "amnesty" (which Bush and his cronies are trying to pass off as "comprehensive immigration reform"), that the amount of work visas which are currently limited to a certain amount (sorry, I don't know the exact figure) annually will have their limits taken off and the way would be wide open for not only "cheap, low skilled labor", but for professional jobs as well. I can somewhat "verify" this fact in that I received a "form letter" regarding immigration from one of my Senators which stated, "Likewise, the worker shortage has an impact on our nation's health care system. The health care industry, especially in rural areas, reports high vacancy rates and more difficulty in recruiting workers for positions ranging from housekeeping and maintenance to nursing assistants, registered nurses, and trained physicians." Now, tell me how, as a 53 year old woman with a 19 year old daughter in college who is studying to be a nurse, how am I not to worry for her future when this would be allowed to happen? If I were a nurse, working in India, or any other country, for around say, $7.00 / hr, why wouldn't I come to the US to make say, $12.00 which would definitely undercut the pay of an American nurse? THIS is the basis for my frustration with globalization. My life is almost over, but I am truly worried about the future of my child and any children she may have. (Let me add here, too, that another source of frustration is my daughter is working 2 jobs, plus babysitting when she can, going to school full time and was unable to obtain any financial aid other than "student loans"...which my elected officals deemed fit to raise the interest on, substantally. But ILLEGAL immigrants in my country can get FREE COLLEGE TUITION! Do you understand why I am so frustrated?)

Thanks for letting me ramble. I am not an educated person...don't have a college degree...and I really do appreciate any insights as to any GOOD news that can come out of the loss of borders between your country and mine...and Mexico. Right now, I TRULY understand the "why fors" as far as us being able to compete with other bigger conglomerates of countries. But I TRULY can't see it as a good thing for us as individuals.

Thanks again, for allowing me to be part of your forum!!

[ceemes]

Why would Canada or even Mexico for that matter want to tie their currency to the US'?

When you consider that massive and ballooning US debt along with equally fast declining dollar value who in their right mind would even consider this? Until the US gets its own economic house in order, both Canada and Mexico should avoid this scheme like the plague.

[US Citizen]

Why would Canada or even Mexico for that matter want to tie their currency to the US'?

When you consider that massive and ballooning US debt along with equally fast declining dollar value who in their right mind would even consider this? Until the US gets its own economic house in order, both Canada and Mexico should avoid this scheme like the plague.

I agree with everything you said, but I don't think you are going to have a choice in the matter...

[jdobbin]

I agree with everything you said, but I don't think you are going to have a choice in the matter...

I don't know that the U.S. would allow it. I haven't heard of any high level talks on one currency.

[US Citizen]

I agree with everything you said, but I don't think you are going to have a choice in the matter...

I don't know that the U.S. would allow it. I haven't heard of any high level talks on one currency.

here is the link: http://www.rense.com/general71/dfoll.htm

In his June 2005 testimony to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Robert Pastor, the Director of the Center for North American Studies at American University, stated clearly the view that the North American Union would need a super-regional governance board to make sure the United States does not dominate the proposed North American Union once it is formed.

Pastor's 2001 book "Toward a North American Community" called for the creation of a North American Union that would perfect the defects Pastor believes limit the progress of the European Union. Much of Pastor's thinking appears aimed at limiting the power and sovereignty of the United States as we enter this new super-regional entity. 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 dollar, and the Mexican peso.

here is the link to his "website" http://www.american.edu/ia/staff/rpastor.html

Dr. Pastor has been a foreign policy advisor to each of the Democratic Presidential Candidates since 1976 and was Chair of the Working Group on North America for the Kerry-Edwards campaign. President Bill Clinton nominated him to be Ambassador to Panama, and he served as the Senior Advisor to the Carter-Nunn-Powell Mission to restore constitutional government in Haiti in 1994. He is the Vice Chair of the Council on Foreign Relations Task Force on North America, and he is also Executive Director of the Commission on Federal Election Reform.

[jdobbin]

Hmm, well two of those leaders are no longer there. And I haven't heard Bush mention it recently. I wonder if it is as dead a doornail.

[Riverwind]

here is the link: http://www.rense.com/general71/dfoll.htm

People come up with all sorts of the crazy plans and theories - that does not mean they will ever happen. In the mid 90s there were some pundits who felt the Canadian 'peso' simply could not survive in the new global economy. Those pessimists have since been proven wrong.

[jdobbin]

here is the link: http://www.rense.com/general71/dfoll.htm

People come up with all sorts of the crazy plans and theories - that does not mean they will ever happen. In the mid 90s there were some pundits who felt the Canadian 'peso' simply could not survive in the new global economy. Those pessimists have since been proven wrong.

Very true. Can you imagine if we had fixed the dollar back when some pundits wanted to? A 63 cent dollar? Ouch.

[US Citizen]

In a related article:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=51233

THE NEW WORLD DISORDER

Feds finally release info on 'superstate'

Asked to disclose details of plan that could form 'North American Union'

Posted: July 26, 2006

1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

After missing a deadline, the U.S. Department of Commerce finally has granted a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain complete disclosure of a congressionally unauthorized plan to implement a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada that critics say could lead to a EU-style alliance in North America.

The plan is being implemented through an office within the Department of Commerce called the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America," under the direction of Geri Word, who is listed as working in the agency's North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, office.

As WorldNetDaily previously reported, the White House has established executive branch working groups documented on the Commerce website SPP.gov. The Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP, was issued as a joint press statement by President Bush, Mexican President Vincente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005.

Granting of the FOIA request comes after the Commerce Department missed a statutory requirement to respond within 20 businesses days.

The request was filed by author Jerome R. Corsi on June 19.

Corsi said the Commerce Department's compliance with the request is a major breakthrough.

"We're now going to get the documentary evidence to determine if the working groups in SPP.gov are creating new memoranda of understanding and trilateral agreements that under our Constitution should more appropriately be submitted to Congress as new treaties or laws," he said.

Corsi added that if this turns out to be the case, "we're going to present that evidence to the American people and let them make up their own minds."

Freedom of Information Act Officer Linda Bell mailed the "first interim response" yesterday and promises more response as batches of documents are processed, according to Brenda Dolan, a departmental officer.

Robert McGuire, attorney for Corsi, e-mailed Commerce July17, notifying the agency of the statutory violation in its failure to respond. He then received an e-mail from Dolan indicating the request was being processed. But McGuire asserted the response was unacceptable, saying the department "skipped a deadline required by law."

[US Citizen]

This link shows it is VERY MUCH alive in our House of Representatives:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=51143

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.

[jdobbin]

This link shows it is VERY MUCH alive in our House of Representatives:

I guess we'll see when the three next meet. Think Bush might keep it quiet till after the election?

[US Citizen]

This link shows it is VERY MUCH alive in our House of Representatives:

I guess we'll see when the three next meet. Think Bush might keep it quiet till after the election?

Without a doubt...probably even after that. If the majority of Americans knew this was in the works, there would be a HUGE outcry of resistance...just like when the illegal immigrants marched in our streets on May 1st.

What about your Prime Minister? Is he keeping this all a "secret", too? If so, why do you think that is? If this is such a great deal for our countries (and Mexico...let's not forget them), then why is there so much mystery and secrecy around it?

[jdobbin]

Without a doubt...probably even after that. If the majority of Americans knew this was in the works, there would be a HUGE outcry of resistance...just like when the illegal immigrants marched in our streets on May 1st.

What about your Prime Minister? Is he keeping this all a "secret", too? If so, why do you think that is? If this is such a great deal for our countries (and Mexico...let's not forget them), then why is there so much mystery and secrecy around it?

I have no idea. With a minority government, he is not likely to raise a controversial subject if he can help it.

He is already having a hard time selling some of policies in provinces that he needs to win next election to have a majority government.