Would You Consider This A Crime/

I have read it many times and you are simply...

wrong.

Being a vet has less than nothing to do with the Constitutional definition of treason.

One question:

Who is the "enemy" that is being "aided and abetted" by any legislator's support of NAFTA?

 

There is no crime, because
1. There is no North American Union in the works
2. There is no NAFTA Superhighway\

CLICK HERE

 

Um...correction. There is no new NAFTA Superhighway.

From the article:

(emphasis on last words mine)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by carpro
I have read it many times and you are simply...

wrong.

Being a vet has less than nothing to do with the Constitutional definition of treason.

One question:

Who is the "enemy" that is being "aided and abetted" by any legislator's support of NAFTA? NAFTA is the only concrete indication you have of the formulation of a North American Union.

I understand your feelings, but this is a question of Constitutional law concerning one of it's most explicit and restrictive provisions, not emotion.

Now try answering the question.

 

:chuckle: .

 

The NAU program is being touted as agreements, not as treaties. It's being done by executive fiat in other words. Maybe we should ask if undermining the USA's sovereignty by executive fiat is a crime.

 

Since you did spell it correctly, what is the purpose of the deliberate misspelling of "chagrin"?

Language Cop, (alter ego of Ed)

 

Um, some corrections on this, Don.

In fact, the future (and existing) I-69 is being dubbed the NAFTA superhighway, that will eventually run from Port Huron, MI on the Canadian border, to the Mexican border, with triple termini at Laredo, TX; Brownsville,TX; and Linn, TX, which is near McAllen, TX. The section from Port Huron, MI to Indianapolis, IN is extant; basically the sections from Evansville, IN to Dyersburg, TN is extant (most of I-164 will become a part of I-69, although the Ohio River bridge near Henderson, KY is not yet really underway), some sections in MS, are extant (near Tunica, MS and the Clarksdale, MS bypass), the Great River (Charles W. Dean) Bridge is (barely) underway at Arkansas City, AR near Benoit, MS, and one bit in AR (some of the Bypass of El Dorado) is extant, and all I have mentioned will be incorporated into I-69. Some of it in TX is extant, some will merely be an upgrade of existing roads, but some of it will also be new roadbed.

There still remains quite a bit of road, probably even the majority of the mileage south of Indianapolis that should be considered new road. In LA, every inch will be new roadway, as will almost all in AR. While generally this route mostly follows or parallels existing routes, most of which are not anywhere near freeway standards, it is incorrect to say it is not mostly new road, IMO, NASCO notwithstanding.

More here: http://www.i69info.com/

here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69

and here: http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-069.html

In addition, this route is part of corridors HPC-18 and HPC-20, as well.

Gonna' happen, although as a diabetic, with known circulatory problems (had four bypasses and carotid surgery two years ago, Nov. 2), and also surviving cancer (surgery last Nov. 30) and already at age 59, I'll probably never live to see all of it finished, even if the rapture doesn't come first. But I have driven or rode on most of the route in KY, half of it in TN and some in TX. although none of those sections are yet I-69, officially, only the "Future I-69 Corridor".

"Road Fan", Ed