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.
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. |
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.
"I did some checking", and you're full of it.
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.
I'm not willing to teach Civics tonight, either. I'm sure even Wikipedia can tackle it . . . .
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.