Keep an eye skyward Ben -
They're coming for OBL fools.
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.
You know the "free traitors" don't fear warmongering chinese communists, or foreign ownership of critical infrastructure, or rampant economic espionage or unlimited illegal immigration. No, those catasatrophes to our sovereignty are how they enrich themselves. Its useless to try to get them to acknowledge any threat, unless its a threat to stop the consolidation of the global economy into something that means the end of America and the complete loss of our sovereign rights as citizesn.
You've only shown examples of fleeing armies being bombed.
Bombs don't work on advancing armies?
Of course bombs work on advancing armies. To presume otherwise is ludicrous. I've never claimed that they don't either, have I? However, an advancing army expects such things and is more apt to try and stop or prevent such attacks.
Now, you can deny that you raised the spectre of an enemy using the US road net as part of an invasion; however, your own words say otherwise.
Where did I say that? What makes you think I said that?
Can you show where I've done that? Others haven't.
Courtesy flag.
Will we be safer if we do?
Do we need to get rid of some of the other roads that an enemy might use?
No, but there is no sense in making it easier for a potential enemy to use our own roads against us, is there?
151 posted on 10/02/2006 6:18:35 PM CDT by philman_36
Maybe you can explain further what you meant in the above post? Will we be safer if we stop the construction of this road?
Got to go for a while, but I'll definitely be back later.
That you see no potential threat from a superhighway, not just "another road", passing for hundreds of miles through another country to eventually connect to the middle of America is...unusual...IMO. I guess where I see military strategy you see...what exactly? Skepticism? Belief in the good nature of your fellow man? Ignoring the possibility will make it not happen?
Do you remember how effeciently German troops were moved on the Autobahn? Do you remember how fast our troops moved on the Autobahn once we controlled it? WWII mobilized forces were turtles compared to today's mechanized warfare.
Did you write the two paragraphs I just quoted from Post #144? Yes or no, please.
The 24th Mechanized drove faster, farther, and with more firepower than General George S. Patton’s entire 3rd Army storming across France.
Had the war gone on one more day as planned, the 24th Mech would not have advanced any further--as it was, they were literally out of gas, and spent the next day resupplying. Remember the difference between tactical and strategic mobility. That one day of zero mobility would've knocked their rate of advance down by 20%.
The Division’s attack has been called, "The Greatest Cavalry Charge in History".
Aptly named. Cavalry charges are purely tactical events.
Also, you didn't discuss Khafji. There, an Iraqi army advanced--and died, mostly on the road, mostly because of American airpower.
| 1rudeboy |
It wasn't, until the NAFTA Superhighway became an invasion route for the Chinese, if I correctly recall.
Charging the Chinese excessive tolls will do the trick. That was a good idea.
Someone will be by shortly to explain that the government's utilization of the power of the free market, even partially, is fascism.
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.