Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System would likely include funds from foreign consortiums and be controlled by foreign management, which threatens the sovereignty of the United States
According to this site, http://www.stopthenau.org/index.html#State_Actions
“In 2007, 16 states had Anti-NAU legislation and 3 states passed Anti-NAU or Anti-SPP legislation in both their House and Senate!!!”
The least that you could do is to post the information that the SPP is a signed partnership agreement between the chief executives of the Governments of: U.S., Mexico, and Canada to work together on issues of North American integration, that partnership agreement has grown into as many as twenty Government working groups in each country, the CFR document “Building a North American Community” was specifically offered by Dr. Robert Pastor as a blueprint for the goals of the SPP to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and the North American Competitiveness Council, composed of 30 corporate representatives from some of North America's largest companies was mandated by the SPP to set SPP priorities and maintain the drive for NAU integration through successive changes in government in all three countries in a process without a formal role for public input, citizens’ organizations, labor, and many legislators. Also, the SPP and NAU are meeting opposition in Congress and State Legislatures, where resolutions have been put forward opposing both.
That is clearly what the SPP says, that is clearly what is happening, and that much at least is documented fact, not opinion. These consequences are “tangible outcomes” of the meeting that created the SPP. The working groups, the MOUs, the NACC being solicited for input, the NACC being the only NGO with full access to the SPP ministers and NAFTA leaders at the August 21, 2007, meeting in Quebec, all these things certainly sound like an official Government plan to me, albeit by the Executive Branch.
Although ”FALSE” is technically correct response to the “rumor” as stated, in that the SPP did not specifically include a commitment to a NAU in 2010, the plan to achieve NAU is not a myth, and your explanation of the origin of the myth will likely dissuade people from believing that there are ongoing Government and business plans to achieve the NAU and official opposition as well.
Please update your site. Many people turn to SNOPES for accurate information. I know I've come to rely on SNOPES fairly regularly to separate wheat from chafe, and this was the first time I was disappointed.
I’m waiting on SNOPES reply to my second comment.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
