'NAFTA Superhighway stops here,' says Okla. senator

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | October 1, 2007 | Jerome R. Corsi

[Man50D]

"The NAFTA Superhighway stops here, at the border with Oklahoma," Randy Brogdon, a Republican state senator who has championed the fight to keep the Trans-Texas Corridor out of Oklahoma, told a packed 300-person audience at the first public meeting of OK-SAFE in Tulsa on Saturday.

Oklahomans for Sovereignty and Free Enterprise, Inc. is a non-profit, Oklahoma corporation set up to oppose the NAFTA Superhighway and the North American Union, as threats to the sovereignty of the United States.

Brogdon objected to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America www.spp.gov, arguing that President Bush had entered the agreement after secret discussions with Mexico's then-president Vicente Fox and Canada's then-prime minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, on March 23, 2005.

"President Bush has proven that he is more than willing to over-step his executive authority when it came to trade policy," Brogdon told the group.

"Ariticle 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says, 'Congress shall have the Power to Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,' not the president," Brogdon pointed out. "Yet President Bush has entered into an agreement with Mexico and Canada called SPP that seeks to eliminate our trade and security borders and he has failed to get the explicit approval of Congress

[wtc911]

What has already happened:

• SPP: Official effort began at a summit in Waco, TX March 23, 2005 • Three summits have been held, attended by those listed above and others not announced. Only privately invited media were allowed. Details released can be found on the website www.spp.gov • The concept is being sold as a trade and security framework. The term “North American Union” is not officially being used. • 20 “tri-national working groups” have already been established and have worked out agreements in the policy areas listed above. • Kansas City has designated $2.5m of taxpayers money to establish the inland port • April 18, 2007: Montana Senate passed an anti-NAU bill by an overwhelming vote 32-18. • Pres. Bush has authorized a “pilot test” allowing Mexican trucks to operate freely across the U.S. beginning in May 2007.

Nope, nothing happening here. The two referenced freepers are either idiots or quislings. Ignore them. I will.

[1rudeboy]

We seem to have a couple of "globalists" who see nothing wrong with turning over our country's sovreignty to an international, non-accountable, un-elected, multi-national, agency that will institute many far-reaching changes in the way Americans live and work forever.

I thought we were talking about I-35, and I'm still having difficulty imagining how it impacts our sovereignty. I mean, it was constructed decades ago. It connects to Mexico.

I agree we sidetracked on the "no inspections until KC" issue but I'll remind you that no one, including this author, says that will be the case. Thus, it is "reasonable to surmise" nothing . . . you are simply entitled to your opinion.

This discussion always ends with one side screaming "globalist" (whatever that means--it's definition is as loose as the evidentiary standard on this thread), yet I don't think I'm necessarily being a "globalist" by directing everyone's attention to (and ridiculing) what some knuckle-dragging idiot from Oklahoma said about international traffic laws. Nor is it "reasonable to surmise" anything I feel about the dissolution of the United States from the above. He's just an idiot, plain and simple . . . and he gave me a good laugh.

[1rudeboy]

The two referenced freepers are either idiots or quislings. Ignore them. I will.

So will you just shut up and ignore me? You've been promising for months! Quit whining.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Since there is planned a "port of entry" in KCMO, and that port of entry is well within the (soon to be former) boundaries of the U.S., it is reasonable to surmise that is where the inspections will occur.

Prove it. You said this proof was on their own website. I guess you were lying. Thanks for playing. Thanks for the laughs. Now run away.

[wtc911]

So will you just shut up and ignore me? You've been promising for months! Quit whining.

__________________________________

Shut up? Not likely.

Ignore you? Easy, just like walking past a bum on the street who is rambling about UFOs.

Months? Well, that's just a lie.

Whining? Nice try.

You may reply (I'll bet you can't stop yourself). I won't.

[1rudeboy]

That's my point. I don't care if you reply or not. But when you whine to someone else that I'm a "traitor," or "quisling," then you are not ignoring me by definition.

So ignore me if you feel like it, just don't claim you are ignoring me when you are not. Get it?

[Designer]

"..you are simply entitled to your opinion"

And you as well.

[1rudeboy]

I just read your FReepmail. I thought you were trying to ignore me? In any case, if you don’t have the balls to respond to me in public, don’t bother.