North American Union threat gets attention of congressmen

WorldNetdaily.com ^ | October 1, 2006

[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.

[Smartass]

$$$ When you finally get over the fact that you got your butt kicked on this thread, attempt to use the head on shoulders that God gave you, and give me your comments on the proposed legistation below? $$$. And do us all a favor, change that wimpering kids diaper that I hear moaning in the background before he engages his...you know what! 

 

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]

Trust me, I haven’t had so much fun since the CFR threw that bash Friday at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center celebrating the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement.

[Smartass]

"Trust me, I haven’t had so much fun since the CFR threw that bash Friday at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center celebrating the U.S.-Oman Free Trade Agreement."

That's the problem.  I DON'T TRUST YOU.   Quit the insults, dodging, bobbing, weaving and waiting for your thugs to join and further disrupt this thread by answering the questions asked pertaining to discussion.  

ONCE MORE?

 

---

$$$ When you finally get over the fact that you got your butt kicked on this thread, attempt to use the head on shoulders that God gave you, and give me your comments on the proposed legistation below? $$$. And do us all a favor, change that wimpering kids diaper that I hear moaning in the background before he engages his...you know what! 

 

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]

I gave my opinion on this sense of Congress resolution almost 24 hours ago, with my comments 138 & 139. I really have nothing to add, except that the passages devoted to Mexican trucking are populist BS.

Do you understand that the chances of this resolution making it to the floor are slim, and that World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi, and Reps. Goode, Tancredo, Paul and Jones are playing you for a sucker?

[Smartass]

"I gave my opinion on this sense of Congress resolution almost 24 hours ago, with my comments 138 & 139. I really have nothing to add, except that the passages devoted to Mexican trucking are populist BS."

That's not what your pals from the "American Trucking Association," and "Teamsters" have to say. Who's right, they or you? I believe people that have jobs at stake, are more interested and in the know than you, or I!

"Do you understand that the chances of this resolution making it to the floor are slim, and that World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi, and Reps. Goode, Tancredo, Paul and Jones are playing you for a sucker?"

I disagree, I believe this resolution was way overdue, and because of the stakes, will bear watching, of which we, and I'm others will do.   Add, since the worms are out of the can, there won't be a can large enough to re can them.   Also, other then your own CFR overdosed cool aid drinking, provide contradicting links, and/or factual documentation that World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi, and Reps. Goode, Tancredo, Paul and Jones are in fact playing ME, or ANYONE in America for suckers?

 

[1rudeboy]

. . . provide contradicting links, and/or factual documentation that World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi, and Reps. Goode, Tancredo, Paul and Jones are in fact playing ME, or ANYONE in America for suckers?

Gladly . . . not difficult in the least. (As an aside, you may wish to review the International Brotherhood of Teamsters official position on this subject). Let's do a compare and contrast, shall we?

From the resolution:

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 . . . .

From the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Fact Sheet .

North American Free Trade Agreement - U.S. Department of Transportation Regulations

• Mexican-domiciled carriers and U.S. and Canadian carriers are governed by the same safety standards when operating in the U.S.
• Mexican-domiciled carriers applying to operate to and from the United States are required to have a distinctive USDOT number, undergo safety monitoring initially and during an 18-month provisional period.
• During operations under provisional operating authority, and for 36 months after receiving permanent authority, Mexican vehicles operating beyond the border commercial zones into the U.S. must display a valid Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance inspection decal.
• The regulations require all Mexican-domiciled carriers entering the United States to have a drug and alcohol-testing program, a system of compliance with U.S. federal hours-of-service requirements, adequate data and safety management systems, and valid insurance with a U.S. registered insurance company.
• Mexican commercial vehicles with authority to operate beyond the commercial zones will be permitted to enter the United States only at commercial border crossings and only when a certified motor carrier safety inspector is on duty.
• Federal and state safety inspectors will be required to inspect and verify the status and validity of the license of each driver of a long-haul Mexican-domiciled motor carrier (1) when carrying a placardable quantity of hazardous material; (2) when undergoing a full vehicle driver Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance inspection; and (3) 50 percent of other long-haul Mexican drivers engaged in cross-border operations.
• Mexican-domiciled carriers planning to operate solely within the commercial zones along the U.S-Mexico border will be required, within 18 months, to apply for provisional Certificates of Registration, which grant temporary authority to operate in the United States. The provisional Certificate of Registration cannot be made permanent for at least 18 months, until the carrier has successfully completed a safety audit.

[Toddsterpatriot]

[1rudeboy]

[Smartass]

All of your arguments, as well as mine and others on these threads are blown to the wind, because H. CON. RES. 487, not only confirms our discussions as being true, and trumps yours as being bogus anti American sovereignty drivel . Yes, the bill is in committee. However, when and if (I believe it will) it ever reaches the floor, there could be pro and con amendments, and maybe not to everyones liking. Are you saying that these four Republican Congressmen are "tin foil hat" liars. If so, that's DU troll talk! Other then being a self admitted CFR lobbyist, I don't want to believe you're a DU mole too!

Now back to the question you avoided, where's the beef (links/documentation)?
"I disagree, I believe this resolution was way overdue, and because of the stakes, will bear watching, of which we, and I'm others will do. Add, since the worms are out of the can, there won't be a can large enough to re can them. Also, other then your own CFR overdosed cool aid drinking, provide contradicting links, and/or factual documentation that World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi, and Reps. Goode, Tancredo, Paul and Jones are in fact playing ME, or ANYONE in America for suckers?"
WAITING.

 

[1rudeboy]

Are you saying that these four Republican Congressmen are "tin foil hat" liars[?]

No, I'm saying that they either are not familiar with FMCSA regulations that date back to 2002 if not earlier (which is embarrassing for them), or they are cynically manipulating an unknowing public (which is embarrassing for you).

[Smartass]

"Are you saying that these four Republican Congressmen are "tin foil hat" liars[?]

No, I'm saying that they either are not familiar with FMCSA regulations that date back to 2002 if not earlier (which is embarrassing for them), or they are cynically manipulating an unknowing public (which is embarrassing for you).

Your "tin foil hat" just zapped out with that answer. How do you actually know what these Congressmen/women are, or are not familiar with? You don't know that! Get a grip and try to relax by having another glass of CFR furnished cool aid.

Once more 1rudeboy, other then reciting from a NAFTA policy agreement booklet that have no bearing on the thread's topic, quit spinning and go back to my question.

Now back to the question you avoided, where's the beef (links/documentation)?
"I disagree, I believe this resolution was way overdue, and because of the stakes, will bear watching, of which we, and I'm others will do. Add, since the worms are out of the can, there won't be a can large enough to re can them. Also, other then your own CFR overdosed cool aid drinking, provide contradicting links, and/or factual documentation that World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi, and Reps. Goode, Tancredo, Paul and Jones are in fact playing ME, or ANYONE in America for suckers?" WAITING.

 

[1rudeboy]

How do you actually know what these Congressmen/women are, or are not familiar with?

Is that a philosophical question? Why does this thread keep returning to philosophy?

Let me spell it out for you: when someone claims, say, in the text of a proposed House resolution that he is concerned about the difficulty of collecting an insurance payment from a Mexican trucking company, and it is pointed out that Federal regulations require that Mexican trucking companies hold U.S. insurance policies, then it is permissible to make the inference that he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

That's not what your pals from the "American Trucking Association," and "Teamsters" have to say. Who's right, they or you? I believe people that have jobs at stake, are more interested and in the know than you, or I!

Are you siding with the organization that assaulted a fellow FReeper back in 1998? Is that your idea of who to side with?

[Smartass]

Your chance of once more just ended...
Ahh, you know rude, I'd like to stay here and play kick sand in each others face, but since you're fact less, and can't provide ANY documentation supporting your rant that these U.S. Congressmen/woman and Jerome Corsi have played me and all other Americans for suckers, the conversation is useless.   I didn't know you were so easy to defeat in debate.   Meet you again on another thread...maybe!
Yeah, you're a fun guy alright,
Cheers$$$

 

[Smartass]

I said no such statement in my post.
The conversation was between 1rudeboy and me, and not you.
Read the thread. Your a lost Johnny come lately.

 

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

I said no such statement in my post.

Were you wagging your finger at me while you typed that?

[1rudeboy]

Ah ha! It's the old "accuse others of not answering when you don't get the answer you want" trick!

[Smartass]

"Were you wagging your finger at me while you typed that?"

Hmmm, you'll never know now, will you!

 

[1rudeboy]

I think he seriously believes that the Teamsters are in favor of opening our roads to Mexican trucks. That's the way I read it . . . .