Posted on 10/02/2006 3:55:59 AM PDT by Man50D
WASHINGTON – While several members of Congress have denied any knowledge of efforts to build "NAFTA superhighways" or move America closer to a union with Mexico and Canada, four members of the House have stepped up to sponsor a resolution opposing both initiatives.
Rep. Virgil Goode Jr., R-Va., has introduced a resolution – H.R. 487 – designed to express "the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union (NAU) with Mexico and Canada."
"Now that Congress is preparing to take up the issues of the North American Union and NAFTA superhighways, we are moving out of the realm where critics can attempt to disparage the discussion as 'Internet conspiracy theory,'" explained Jerome Corsi, author and WND columnist who has written extensively on the Security and Prosperity Partnership – the semisecret plan many suspect is behind the efforts to create a European Union-style North American confederation and link Mexico and Canada with more transcontinental highways and rail lines. "This bill represents a good first step."
Corsi explained to WND that the Bush administration is trying to create the North American Union incrementally, under the radar scope of public attention.
"Even today," said Corsi, SPP.gov has a 'Myths vs. Facts' section that denies the administration is changing laws or working to create a new regional government. Unfortunately, the many references on SPP.gov to Cabinet-level working groups creating new trilateral memoranda of understanding and other trilateral agreements makes these denials sound hollow."
The resolution introduced by Goode had three co-sponsors: Reps. Thomas Tancredo, R-Colo., Ron Paul, R-Texas, and Walter Jones, R-N.C.
The "whereas" clauses of the resolution lay out the case against the North American Union and NAFTA Superhighways as follows:
Whereas, according to the Department of Commerce, United States trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have significantly widened since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA);
Whereas the economic and physical security of the United States is impaired by the potential loss of control of its borders attendant to the full operation of NAFTA;
Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System from the west coast of Mexico through the United States and into Canada has been suggested as part of a North American Union;
Whereas it would be particularly difficult for Americans to collect insurance from Mexican companies which employ Mexican drivers involved in accidents in the United States, which would increase the insurance rates for American drivers;
Whereas future unrestricted foreign trucking into the United States can pose a safety hazard due to inadequate maintenance and inspection, and can act collaterally as a conduit for the entry into the United States of illegal drugs, illegal human smuggling, and terrorist activities;
Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System would be funded by foreign consortiums and controlled by foreign management, which threatens the sovereignty of the United States. The resolution calls for the House of Representatives to agree on three issues of determination:
The United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System;
The United States should not enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and
The President should indicate strong opposition to these or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the United States. "As important as this resolution is," Corsi said, "we need still more congressional attention. Where is congressional oversight of SPP? We need congressional hearings, not just congressional resolutions."
H.Con.Res.487 has been referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and to the Committee on Internal Relations for consideration prior to any debate that may be scheduled on the floor of the House of Representatives.
That would be CFR Rule 113(12)(e).
Hey, we've heard them. We know that they know that we know that they know that they are on to us.
We need a new plan. Something that involves iguanas.
That's 113(12)(f)
And would you just look at who else was on that thread!
Why, it's...YOU!
HCON 487 IH
Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.
Mr. GOODE (for himself, Mr. PAUL, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, and Mr. TANCREDO) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
Expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.
Whereas, according to the Department of Commerce, United States trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have significantly widened since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA);
Whereas the economic and physical security of the United States is impaired by the potential loss of control of its borders attendant to the full operation of NAFTA;
Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System from the west coast of Mexico through the United States and into Canada has been suggested as part of a North American Union;
Whereas it would be particularly difficult for Americans to collect insurance from Mexican companies which employ Mexican drivers involved in accidents in the United States, which would increase the insurance rates for American drivers;
Whereas future unrestricted foreign trucking into the United States can pose a safety hazard due to inadequate maintenance and inspection, and can act collaterally as a conduit for the entry into the United States of illegal drugs, illegal human smuggling, and terrorist activities; and
Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System would be funded by foreign consortiums and controlled by foreign management, which threatens the sovereignty of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Sounds scary. If we stop this road, will we be safe? Do we need to get rid of some of the other roads that an enemy might use?
Just consider it my attempt to bring your military knowledge out of the 1940's.
If the survival of America teeters on a whether we can control one steenkin' road within our own country, then we are complete pussies and should surrender to whomever you think the NWO is right now.
Maybe we need more tollbooths, to slow down enemy troop movements?
Mexico urges Bush to veto U.S. border fence bill Mon Oct 2, 2006 3:43pm By Greg Brosnan MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexico pleaded with President Bush on Monday to veto a Senate proposal to build a fence to keep illegal immigrants out, saying it could backfire by making the border less secure. The U.S. Senate overwhelmingly backed a bill on Friday to put up about 700 miles of fence, a project Republicans hope will impress voters calling for tougher immigration control ahead of November 7 congressional elections.
Hey, philman_36, want to know more?
Wait, so this hypothetical "NAU" would be fine with you as long as there was congressional oversight?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.