North American Union threat gets attention of congressmen

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.

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.

Want Mass Amnesty? Vote for Democrats

by James R. Edwards, Jr.
Posted Oct 02, 2006The only thing standing between the country and mass amnesty is the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives.

Yet, the House is the body of the federal government most in danger of falling to Democrat control this year.

Political analyst Charlie Cook now has about 35 House Republicans in serious races. Democrats need a net gain of less than half of those seats to win control.

Disaster for the U.S.

For Republicans to lose control of the House in the fall elections would mark a disaster for America. House and Senate Democrats, some Senate Republicans, and the Bush Administration will then be able to force alien legalization on America—four times greater than the supposedly one-time-only mass amnesty of 1986.

Understandably, many voters feel frustration over the failure to act to control runaway immigration. Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House, they reason, so why hasn’t the border been secured? Why has legal immigration continued apace? Why haven’t the immigration laws on the books been faithfully enforced?

The reason: Republicans agree that immigration presents problems, but there’s no agreement on the solutions.

Bottom line, as in medicine, policymakers should first do no harm. Thanks to the House GOP, harmful policy has been stalled.

As pathetic as President Bush’s approval rating is (deservedly on immigration issues), the public approves of Congress’s job performance even less. And immigration has continued to rise as a top-priority issue, poll after poll shows. Conservatives name immigration as the chief issue facing the country in a GOPUSA poll—cited by half of respondents, from a list of 19 issues.

While the House passed a strong enforcement-only bill last year, many senators proved themselves out of touch with political reality. This spring, the Senate passed a bill pushing mass amnesty, a guest-worker program bringing in hundreds of thousands more cheap foreign laborers and a near-tripling of already-too-high legal immigration levels.

Some Republican apostates favor amnesty. They call it “guest-worker” or “comprehensive reform” or some other euphemism. Disappointingly, otherwise conservative Rep. Mike Pence (R.-Ind.) has been hawking an amnesty/guest-worker plan almost as bad as the Senate bill.

The Bush Administration has wasted five years combing the dictionary and finding new words to distort and redefine as amnesty—while doing precious little to enforce the laws on the books.

But the fact is that a majority of GOP senators and the overwhelming majority of House Republicans faithfully oppose amnesty—no matter what it’s labeled. The House’s immigration enforcement bill (H.R. 4437) passed with 203 GOP votes. Only 36 House Democrats voted for tough enforcement, and just 17 Republicans opposed it.

A majority of Senate Republicans opposed the amnesty/guest-worker bill (S. 2611), while 23 GOP senators voted for it. Only four Democrat Senators cast “no” votes.

Enforcement Held Hostage

So why hasn’t Congress enacted a tough immigration bill yet? Because the pro-amnesty senators and White House have held hostage the enforcement measures that are widely agreed upon. These apostate Republicans (and Teddy Kennedy’s clones across the aisle) have refused to follow the most reasonable, rational route widely advocated by House Republicans: enforcement-only, first and foremost.

The House GOP has stood firm against the intense pressure of the open-borders crowd, both in and out of government. House hearings this summer served to highlight the terrible, injurious measures the White House and Senate are pushing. Alone, House Republicans have dug in.

Only now have Senate GOP leaders come to the right side of the issue. Their last-second efforts have tried to move some modest House measures such as a border fence and alien gang deportation.

If voters abandon House Republicans come Election Day, amnesty advocates will claim victory. They’ll allege the enforcement-only strategy backfired on the House GOP. They’ll claim the American public really wants millions more foreigners flooding the country, bringing in distant relatives, undercutting American wages and getting taxpayer-funded health care, education, welfare and the like.

If Democrats win control, that means their most liberal members will chair committees, set the legislative agenda, stack hearings with liberal “witnesses,” micromanage the economy, overregulate business, raise taxes, spend red ink, undo the Reagan-Republican Revolution, use “oversight” as a weapon and cozy up to business lobbyists who, at the end of the day, are “friends” and bankrollers of whoever is in charge in Washington.

The country’s future rests in the balance this election. If someone cares about the problems of mass immigration, cheap foreign labor, the threat of amnesty and having Spanish forced down America’s throat, then he must keep the U.S. House Republican.

Let's put on out George S. Patton School of Armored Warfare helmets, shall we?
I would never be so presumptuous. You apparently don't seem to have a problem doing so.
If you wanted to attack the lower 48, why would you maneuver your forces to the center of the continent and then attack north (from Mexico) or south (from Canada)?
Where have I said I would do something so foolish as that?
Anyway...to start with, I don't want to attack the lower 48.
Secondly, if I did you imply that I would follow your scenario...why would you...which I wouldn't.
Your scenario is impossible as the troops would not be in a position to attack from either Mexico or Cananda as they would already be in the central US from such a mad dash and would be unable to attack in the manner you suggest. (that would lead to your touted image and the rout of my forces)
The most logical process, IMO, if attacking from the south, or the north, would be to gain footholds and defensive positions/strongholds at the outset of engagments and bring in reinforcements to support further attacks and to control the territory already gained, as well as to supress insurgents that are bound to spring up, in a leapfrog process.

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.