>>You've confused a House Resolution passed in the State of Utah, with one passed in the House of Representatives
 |
Maybe the theory is Elders in red longjohns run America! |
Posted on 07/19/2006 6:04:00 AM PDT by conservativecorner
Author Jerome Corsi filed a Freedom of Information Act request yesterday asking for full disclosure of the activities of an office implementing a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada . . . .
June 20, 2006
ROFLcopter!
It's kind of like writing an FOIA request about the government's pink unicorn breeding program. We shouldn't be suprised if we don't get a response, should we? =)
Harlan Ellison
once speculated somewhere
that there must exist
tramp, slut unicorns
that can only be touched by
non-virgin women . . .
It's good to see that the "conspiracy theory" is being taken seriously by the chairman of a subcommittee. Let me know when we get enough questions by the House Leadership to make this news and not chat. SHEESH!!
I wonder why a Congressional committee passed a joint resolution that would stop something that doesn't exist?
Resolution urges U.S. to withdraw from a North American union
A House committee unanimously passed a joint resolution Tuesday that urges the president and Congress to withdraw from the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. The resolution, sponsored by Rep. Stephen Sandstrom, R-Orem, now moves to the House floor for a vote.
The SPP, while not an institution, is harshly criticized by some Utah groups. Resolution supporters told the committee Tuesday that the purpose of the SPP is to remove sovereignty from the United States and give it to a North American union, similar to the European Union. The SPP involves the United States, Mexico and Canada.
I wonder why a Congressional committee passed a joint resolution that would stop something that doesn't exist?
You'll have to remind me of the Congressional Resolution. I know nothing about it. I know Mr. Corsi received the documents he requested (albeit late) sometime in 2006. He hasn't mentioned it since.
Actually, it's a Resolution passed out of committee in Utah, and waiting for a floor vote in Utah.
|
Maybe the theory is Elders in red longjohns run America! |
I wonder why a (State) Congressional committee passed a joint resolution that would stop something that doesn't exist?
House resolution opposes North American Union
Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has introduced a House resolution expressing congressional opposition to construction of a NAFTA Super Highway System or entry into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.
Goode said the goal behind House Concurrent Resolution 40, introduced Monday, is "to block a NAFTA Superhighway System and to indicate the opposition of the Congress to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America that was declared by President Bush, Mexico's then-President Vicente Fox, and Canada's then-Prime Minister Paul Martin, at the conclusion of their summit meeting in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005."
I wonder why Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Va., has introduced a House resolution that would stop something that doesn't exist?
If by "something" you mean the NAU, I'll note that even Rep. Goode's H.CON.RES.40, now languishing in committee, mentions it only twice and begs the question1 whether it exists in both cases. I have to post the text below because for some reason the Library of Congress won't let me link directly to it:
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 the United States Departments of State, Commerce, and Homeland Security participated in the formation of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) on March 23, 2005, representing a tri-lateral agreement between the United States, Canada, and Mexico designed, among other things, to facilitate common regulatory schemes between these countries; Whereas reports issued by the SPP indicate that it has implemented regulatory changes among the three countries that circumvent United States trade, transportation, homeland security, and border security functions and that the SPP will continue to do so in the future; Whereas the actions taken by the SPP to coordinate border security by eliminating obstacles to migration between Mexico and the United States actually makes the United States-Mexico border less secure because Mexico is the primary source country of illegal immigrants into the United States; Whereas according to the Department of Commerce, United States trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have significantly increased 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 and the SPP; Whereas the regulatory and border security changes implemented and proposed by the SPP violate and threaten United States sovereignty; 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 to facilitate trade between the SPP countries; Whereas the State of Texas has already begun planning of the Trans-Texas Corridor, a major multi-modal transportation project beginning at the United States-Mexico border, which would serve as an initial section of a NAFTA Superhighway System; Whereas it could be particularly difficult for Americans to collect insurance from Mexican companies which employ Mexican drivers involved in accidents in the United States, which would likely 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 likely include funds from foreign consortiums and be controlled by foreign management, which threatens the sovereignty of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--
(1) the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System;
(2) the United States should not allow the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) to implement further regulations that would create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and
(3) the President of the United States should indicate strong opposition to these acts or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the United States.
It's really a shame about Rep. Goode, a stalwart conservative in other matters. Perhaps he'd have greater success introducing a resolution declaring the bald eagle not worthy of being our national symbol, because its habitat includes Canada and Mexico?
_____
1If writers assume as evidence for their argument the very conclusion they are attempting to prove, they engage in the fallacy of begging the question.
I guess it's now a "conservative" value to give up United States sovereignty?
I learn so much from this site.
You bore me.
Maybe there's a "Rudy is the Second Coming" thread you would be more interested in.
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.