Skip to comments.North American Union threat gets attention of congressmen
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.
Thanks for posting this!
Release of the FOIA information and now a Resolution being requested by Congress certainly ought to warrant that these discussions on North American Union / SPP be taken seriously and remain in 'news' rather than the usual immediate move to 'chat'?
Beware of the Stonecutters...
I saw that you posted this within a thread, but was glad to see that someone designated a thread for it. It is a HUGE step forward!
There was a time in the USA when borders, language, and culture mattered. The very idea of a North American Union is anathema to me! It is nothing more than another step toward one world government IMO. Our country has already lost its identity; we should be working on legislation to recover our culture, our language, and protect our borders!
This is starting to get my attention- need to study to get some facts.
Hey, doubters and skeptics: Congress is moving against something you said didn't exist.
Unfortunately, you cannot pass a law which binds future Congresses, or even the current Congress... Unless it is a Constitutional Amendment, and even that might not work, given the predilection of judges to rewrite the Constitution to suit their fancy.
Virgil Goode is a lightweight in terms of clout. This is a calculated sop to the outcry.
"Hey, doubters and skeptics: Congress is moving against something you said didn't exist"
It was all a well organized game they played to silence any discussion on the subject, I suspect for the same reason all information about this seems to have been kept secret.
Perfectly stated. My voice is hoarse from arguing with FReepers who constantly pull out the tinfoil hat slam against those of us who have been warning about this for months.
Their next line will be...'WorldNutDaily' reported this story, blah, blah, blah.
Those guys won't be able to approve zoning for a new gravel driveway if this keeps up.
Rather than "stopping a conspiracy", you all are engaged in a conspiracy.
It's time to stop this in Texas.
"What is least understandable about this is why so many Freepers can be sucked into something that's simply a transparent attempt to force a cut in Interstate Highway funds for Indiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, Illinois, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Texas."
Which one of us do you think is going to fall for THAT explanation? LMAO
"I'm glad this is coming to the forefront. No doubt this will shake the psyche of some here on the FR."
I doubt it. They've made a much too well-organized attempt to silence all discussion on this issue, including being permitted to make personal attacks against anyone involved on the threads. My guess is that with this news, they are re-grouping or looking for direction on what to do next.
Perhaps they will come clean about being in AGREEMENT with what's being proposed instead of denying what's being proposed exists?
It's reassuring to know that Dr. Jerome Corsi is on the case. But where is Dr. Paul Craig Roberts?
That would be my guess as well.
The merits of the project aside, my initial objection is the anti-democratic nature of having something that affects the country so much not being the subject of congressional oversight, or even free and open discussion of the plans, goals, and participants in the plan. No matter what the project, we the people should have government in the sunshine, with a chance to see what it is we are paying for, and what will affect our lives.
I don't believe that the private organizations involved are sufficient to keep the faith with anything other than their own interests. I would prefer that the administration not force people to beg for information. All it does is creates suspician when no suspician is warranted, or it creates confidence that the government can do know wrong, when in fact it certainly can.
Where is the opportunity for public imput into what is at least being alleged as one of the most significant policies to affect American commerce in many years?
Private organizations, no matter what they publish for or against, are not a protection of the public. There is no guarantee that what is published by them is true, accurtate and complete, and being private, they have no oversight.
I don't think web sites by private organizations constitues public involvement in the decision making process at all.
I don't trust any government that says,, "Hey, if you nwant to know what's going on, demand a hearing in congress!" Maybe we'll hold a hearing before this all becomes a fait accompli. Yeah, right...government in the sunshine by true men of the people...
After all, we're all to stupid to vote and run the country, right?
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.