Amero, North American Union - What're the Facts?

UPDATES AS THEY COME IN:

OCT 28, 2009 NAU EXPLAINED BY OFFICIAL
JULY 7, 2009 Paul Joseph Watson on Senate Blocking Fed audit - Why???
APRIL 30, 2009

JAN 16, 09 Blog article
Gold confiscation coming?
The US Economy is being marched to the Gallows
Paul Craig Roberts goes through the numbers
Kurt Nimmo on this topic
Snopes article
Boston.com says there is no such thing
Financial Times on world govt.
Marketwatch - how realistic is a North American Currency?
NAFTAs Dangerous Security Agenda
UPDATE FEB 8, 2009 WTO chief warns of unrest Where is his role defined in the U.S. Constitution?
UPDATE MARCH 19, 2009 Kremlin to pitch new currency at G20
UPDATE APRIL 3, 2009 G20 still a Conspiracy Theory?
UPDATE APRIL 6, 2009 Telegraph article on IMF/EU - can this happen to USA?
UPDATE APRIL 6, 2009 Geithner's slip re One World Currency?
UPDATE OCTOBER 17, 2009

INTRODUCTION
Have you heard rumors circulating about the North American Union? Have you heard rumors about the "Amero?" Have you heard rumors of the New World Order? Here are some thoughts and links I hope you will find useful in your search for the truth.

NORTH AMERICAN UNION (NAU)
The North American Union is the subject of "conspiracy theory." The idea is that the United States, Mexico, and Canada will be merged into a superstate. The implication is that there will no longer be a Canada, United States, or Mexico - there will be one giant country sharing a common currency called the "Amero." Part of this plan is to build a gigantic highway (Trans-Texas Corridor) that links from Mexican ports, through the center of the U.S. up to Canada. The beneficiaries of this superstate will be big business, with a trend toward the "New World Order" or world government.

IS THERE ANY CREDIBILITY TO THIS IDEA?
The first place one may wish to look is HERE (CLICK) at the SPP.GOV website to see what the U.S. government has to say about this. They have a "myths and facts" section you may wish to peruse. The webpage describes a harmless move toward harmonization. But is everyone discussing this NAU as calm and unexcited as the people that put the SPP.GOV website together? No, they are not. Here is a video of Stan Jones on C-SPAN delivering a speech that introduced the author to the term "Amero" - I was alarmed when I saw the video:

I wondered why a candidate for Senator of Montana would bring up such radical ideas - with the risk of being labelled a "conspiracy theorist." This label is almost as bad as "Jew" in Nazi Germany or "Terrorist" in modern America. Why would a person distinguished enough to earn such a high position in the spotlight take such a risk saying such outlandish things? I wondered if there was something to what he was telling us. So I started digging and paying a little more attention and found this man, (CLICK) , the father of the Amero. The Amero - what a catchy name for money - perfect I thought. I'd seen videos like this too:

How about Lou Dobbs discussing this concept? Is that credible?


So is this such a far-fetched idea? Let's take a look at our past. In his book An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution James Beard puts forward a theory that the Constitution of the United States was created more for economic interests than those having to do with high-minded "American Ideals."

I recently read a book called "The Framing of the Federal Constitution", text by Richard B. Morris, Produced by the Division of Publications, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. 1986. This fascinating book distills much history into a very readable handbook. In short the story of the Constitution is told, starting with the desire of George Washington to open Western waterways so interstate commerce could flow between and into his state of Virginia. Bringing several states together soon became a larger gathering between even more states finally bringing about the Constitution. The Federalists used many political schemes to get the job done - and it worked. The anti-federalists were able to get the Bill of Rights attached in the form of the first amendments to the Constitution. So?

It seems to me that if commerce was the impetus behind a new centralized government before - it isn't that far-fetched to consider that commerce may be the impetus driving another centralized government. Let's take away all of the good, bad, your side, my side - just look at that one aspect - and the idea doesn't seem too remote. Now add in the convenience of a common currency - hmmm.

An unfinished article

Here's a good defense if you care to check it out...