Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

North American Union threat gets attention of congressmen
WorldNetdaily.com ^ | October 1, 2006

Posted on 10/02/2006 3:55:59 AM PDT by 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.


TOPICS: Conspiracy; Gardening; UFO's
KEYWORDS: aliens; bush; buyspamrightaway; canada; cuespookymusic; gardening; globalism; highwaytohell; icecreammandrake; illegal; immigration; kookmagnetthread; mexico; morethorazineplease; nafta; nations; nau; northamerica; northamericanunion; philipcorsi; preciousbodilyfluids; prozacchewables; purityofessence; richardcorsi; robertapastor; sapandimpurify; spp; theboogeyman; trade; transtinfoilcorridor; wnd
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-357 next last
To: Ben Ficklin
I did some checking, and there's little or no difference between a Bill, or a Resolution. When they go through committee, debated and voted on, are in affect, binding. Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

321 posted on 10/03/2006 5:00:45 PM PDT by Smartass (The stars rule men but God rules the stars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
My definition of "weapons free" is "free to fire on any target not positively identified as friendly."

Short of having an out-and-out liberal Democrat (or hard-core libertarian, but I digress) in office at the time, the landing of a Chinese force large enough to attack the lower 48 in Mexico would result in U.S. forces crossing the Mexican frontier to meet them.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "my threat." Whatever you think it was, I'm sure I acted on it a good while ago.

322 posted on 10/03/2006 5:09:34 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: Smartass

"I did some checking", and you're full of it.


323 posted on 10/03/2006 5:22:56 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Short of having an out-and-out liberal Democrat (or hard-core libertarian, but I digress) in office at the time, the landing of a Chinese force large enough to attack the lower 48 in Mexico would result in U.S. forces crossing the Mexican frontier to meet them.

What of a small holding force, gradually increased over time? "Nothing overt" they could claim, so we couldn't go after them; and then, when they were ready, a surprise attack in conjunction with a financial attack, cyber attack, activation of sleeper cells (including Chinese students in the sciences killing as many other University people as they could reach), and whatever else the Chinese could dream up.

No, I'm not *demanding* they're going to do these things--but if they are going to attack us, then the above would be the worst case scenario short of nukes...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "my threat." Whatever you think it was, I'm sure I acted on it a good while ago.

Threat of "weapons-free" -- which I took to mean a flame war unleashed on anyone who suggested that the corridors might be used by China to facilitate an attack on the US.

324 posted on 10/03/2006 5:27:58 PM PDT by grey_whiskers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin

I'm not willing to teach Civics tonight, either. I'm sure even Wikipedia can tackle it . . . .


325 posted on 10/03/2006 5:30:07 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
"easier for the Chinese to land in force in Mexico and drive their forces up the highway"

It is possible that the Chinese could circle the tip of S America and invade Mexico from the Gulf of Mexico, but it is more likely that they would land on the Pacific coast. They would then have to cross the continental divide to reach the Texas border and come up "the highway"

326 posted on 10/03/2006 5:34:10 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: grey_whiskers
Incrementally would be the way I'd do it . . . but that doesn't speak toward the issue of opposing the NAFTA Superhighway on the basis of national security. Interstate 35 already exists, so short of tearing it up and mining the route, there is little that can be done to make the ChiComs' (hypothetical) job any harder.

In other words, observing that an invader can use the route is either noting the obvious (witness the backpedaling that happened), or simple anti-[fill in the blank] demagoguery masked as concern for national security.

327 posted on 10/03/2006 5:46:03 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 324 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; Smartass
World Net Daily, Jerome Corsi, and Reps. Goode, Tancredo, Paul and Jones are playing you for a sucker?

Yes they are. They made the "free trade" deal with communist china that enabled them to send their industrial spies to the silicon valley to "Rob America blind", in the words of the Heritage foundation, a group YOU are fond of quoting. Yep, they sure are responsible for the massive wealth transfer out of this country that funds COMMUNIST SLAVE LABOR, and makes mockery of the American way. Yes, they are playing us for suckers, a'yuh, uhuh. You shore did nail it.
328 posted on 10/03/2006 6:41:33 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; Smartass

I doubt it. If you were at CFR headquarters, they wouldn't let you wear tinfoil, it might interfere the signals they are transmitting to you LOLOLOLOL.


329 posted on 10/03/2006 6:43:30 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
You are entitled to your opinion that "free traders" are playing us for suckers, but I would've liked to see you address my contention that the group I mentioned is playing you for a sucker. In other words, "yeah I know I'm a sucker but so are you" isn't much of an argument.
330 posted on 10/03/2006 6:56:43 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
OK, have it your way.
Have a good day.

 

331 posted on 10/03/2006 7:10:33 PM PDT by Smartass (The stars rule men but God rules the stars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: Smartass

BTW, the enviros filed suit against the Indiana portion of the I69 NAFTA Highway. TSR started a thread on it today, but it died quickly.


332 posted on 10/03/2006 7:34:20 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: Smartass
"OK, have it your way." [emphasis added]

The fact that a House resolution, even if passed by both the House and the Senate (making it a joint resolution--but I digress), does not have the force of law is not subject to anyone's interpretation.

333 posted on 10/03/2006 7:51:14 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
You are entitled to your opinion that "free traders" are playing us for suckers

YOU are not 'us'. You have explicity camped with the "free traders". In fact you have done so for years.
334 posted on 10/03/2006 8:12:23 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; Smartass

Don't spin. The fact that a HOUSE RESOLUTION exists is because the NAU isn't fiction, it is FACT. And that is the topic of this thread.


335 posted on 10/03/2006 8:14:44 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Globalism is like communism, in that it subtly and stealthily permeates and burrows into a government, first not with guns and bullets, but with handshakes and smiles, and then grows to menacing power from within. Like hypertension, it is indeed, a "silent killer." The permeating of globalism into the US government not only exists, but also prospers on both sides of the partisan aisle, and in many back-room deals within the allegedly hallowed halls of our nation's Capitol. Our government created the NAU.

Through "free trade" by free traitors.
336 posted on 10/03/2006 8:19:11 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer

I cannot imagine a comment that has less to do with mine (#333) than yours. Are you sure you didn't wish to direct it elsewhere? Another thread? Another forum, perhaps?


337 posted on 10/03/2006 8:24:25 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer; Smartass
Don't spin.

Let me try to walk you through this one (I tried with Smartass on a related issue, but it was beyond his capacity). I stated a fact in my comment #333. A fact is not "spin" except to the most depraved Liberal Democrat mind.

338 posted on 10/03/2006 8:30:45 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; hedgetrimmer
We really have to quit meeting like this...I mean two times in one day is to much for me to handle. I don't get paid for this, and you do!

I probably made an error by calling the Resolution a Bill. I stand corrected. On further research, I found the following at:
Glossary

HCON 487 IH

Concurrent Resolutions

H.Con.Res   House Concurrent Resolution
S.Con.Res.   Senate Concurrent Resolution

A concurrent resolution is a legislative proposal that requires the approval of both houses but does not require the signature of the President and does not have the force of law. Concurrent resolutions generally are used to make or amend rules that apply to both houses. They are also used to express the sentiments of both of the houses. For example, a concurrent resolution is used to set the time of Congress' adjournment. It may also be used by Congress to convey congratulations to another country on the anniversary of its independence."

More or less, a notice of a prelude to tougher legislation.

 

339 posted on 10/03/2006 8:50:27 PM PDT by Smartass (The stars rule men but God rules the stars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: Smartass
We really have to quit meeting like this . . . I mean two times in one day is to much for me to handle. I don't get paid for this, and you do!

No doubt. I was working at CFR HQ and posting until 2:00am, and back at the office (and posting) at 9:45am. Now, it's almost 11:00pm and I'm still here. I get overtime, but Mr. Pastor insists on paying me in Ameros. What a bitch.

340 posted on 10/03/2006 8:58:34 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 339 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-357 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson