North American Union threat gets attention of congressmen

WorldNetdaily.com ^ | October 1, 2006

[1rudeboy]

So in essence, even though you're trying to use it to your advantage you don't want to show it.

That would be CFR Rule 113(12)(e).

[AmishDude]

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.

[AmishDude]

That's 113(12)(f)

[philman_36]

Since you're obviously not going to do anything but bluster, and for edification and clarification, I give you where your talking point comes from...
Bush Administration Quitely Plans NAFTA Super Highway
My reply in the thread...
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.
Control the highway, just like a river, and you cut America in two. The Mississippi pretty much did that for years. Now a road will.
Sorry, Bro, scoff all you want, I've gotta express it. It looks bad from a defensive aspect.

And would you just look at who else was on that thread!
Why, it's...YOU!

[Smartass]

Thanks JustPiper, but this made my weekend...the rest here is irrelevant!

 

---

 

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... (Introduced in House)

HCON 487 IH

109th CONGRESS

2d Session

H. CON. RES. 487

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.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 28, 2006

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

---

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

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

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 enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and

(3) the President should indicate strong opposition to these or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the United States.

[1rudeboy]

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

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?

[philman_36]

And your image means...what...exactly?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are we allowed to do that on a road built by a foreign company? Can someone post the contract? Oh, right, that's why they won't release the details, someone would see the, "You can't bomb or strafe the road" clause. Sneaky.

[1rudeboy]

Just consider it my attempt to bring your military knowledge out of the 1940's.

[philman_36]

If we stop this road, will we be safe?
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?

[1rudeboy]

Funny quote from that thread. Sadly, it is not one of mine.

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.

[Toddsterpatriot]

LOL!

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, but there is no sense in making it easier for a potential enemy to use our own roads against us, is there?

Maybe we need more tollbooths, to slow down enemy troop movements?

[Smartass]

Excerpt. Full story link

 

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.

 

[philman_36]

Just consider it my attempt to bring your military knowledge out of the 1940's.
Well, since I did made the observation that...WWII mobilized forces were turtles compared to today's mechanized warfare...
I'd say you have no need to do such a thing.
Warfare isn't just air campaigns and you don't always get stupid opponents, like we did in that particular bombing campaign.
What competent military leader would allow such a travesty to happen?

[1rudeboy]

There was one member here who argued that Spain might not allow our Army to travel on a Cintra tollroad . . . why would it allow the Chinese army to do so?

Hey, philman_36, want to know more?

[philman_36]

Maybe we need more tollbooths, to slow down enemy troop movements?
As I said before...If that's what you conclude then don't let me stop you.

[mthom]

Wait, so this hypothetical "NAU" would be fine with you as long as there was congressional oversight?

[Man50D]

Maybe we need more tollbooths, to slow down enemy troop movements?

Or more D.O.T road crews.