Posted on 06/12/2006 6:23:16 AM PDT by conservativecorner
Quietly but systematically, the Bush Administration is advancing the plan to build a huge NAFTA Super Highway, four football-fields-wide, through the heart of the U.S. along Interstate 35, from the Mexican border at Laredo, Tex., to the Canadian border north of Duluth, Minn.
Once complete, the new road will allow containers from the Far East to enter the United States through the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, bypassing the Longshoreman’s Union in the process. The Mexican trucks, without the involvement of the Teamsters Union, will drive on what will be the nation’s most modern highway straight into the heart of America. The Mexican trucks will cross border in FAST lanes, checked only electronically by the new “SENTRI” system. The first customs stop will be a Mexican customs office in Kansas City, their new Smart Port complex, a facility being built for Mexico at a cost of $3 million to the U.S. taxpayers in Kansas City.
As incredible as this plan may seem to some readers, the first Trans-Texas Corridor segment of the NAFTA Super Highway is ready to begin construction next year. Various U.S. government agencies, dozens of state agencies, and scores of private NGOs (non-governmental organizations) have been working behind the scenes to create the NAFTA Super Highway, despite the lack of comment on the plan by President Bush. The American public is largely asleep to this key piece of the coming “North American Union” that government planners in the new trilateral region of United States, Canada and Mexico are about to drive into reality.
Just examine the following websites to get a feel for the magnitude of NAFTA Super Highway planning that has been going on without any new congressional legislation directly authorizing the construction of the planned international corridor through the center of the country.
NASCO, the North America SuperCorridor Coalition Inc., is a “non-profit organization dedicated to developing the world’s first international, integrated and secure, multi-modal transportation system along the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation Corridor to improve both the trade competitiveness and quality of life in North America.” Where does that sentence say anything about the USA? Still, NASCO has received $2.5 million in earmarks from the U.S. Department of Transportation to plan the NAFTA Super Highway as a 10-lane limited-access road (five lanes in each direction) plus passenger and freight rail lines running alongside pipelines laid for oil and natural gas. One glance at the map of the NAFTA Super Highway on the front page of the NASCO website will make clear that the design is to connect Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. into one transportation system.
Kansas City SmartPort Inc. is an “investor based organization supported by the public and private sector” to create the key hub on the NAFTA Super Highway. At the Kansas City SmartPort, the containers from the Far East can be transferred to trucks going east and west, dramatically reducing the ground transportation time dropping the containers off in Los Angeles or Long Beach involves for most of the country. A brochure on the SmartPort website describes the plan in glowing terms: “For those who live in Kansas City, the idea of receiving containers nonstop from the Far East by way of Mexico may sound unlikely, but later this month that seemingly far-fetched notion will become a reality.”
The U.S. government has housed within the Department of Commerce (DOC) an “SPP office” that is dedicated to organizing the many working groups laboring within the executive branches of the U.S., Mexico and Canada to create the regulatory reality for the Security and Prosperity Partnership. The SPP agreement was signed by Bush, President Vicente Fox, and then-Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005. According to the DOC website, a U.S.-Mexico Joint Working Committee on Transportation Planning has finalized a plan such that “(m)ethods for detecting bottlenecks on the U.S.-Mexico border will be developed and low cost/high impact projects identified in bottleneck studies will be constructed or implemented.” The report notes that new SENTRI travel lanes on the Mexican border will be constructed this year. The border at Laredo should be reduced to an electronic speed bump for the Mexican trucks containing goods from the Far East to enter the U.S. on their way to the Kansas City SmartPort.
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is overseeing the Trans-Texas Corridor (TTC) as the first leg of the NAFTA Super Highway. A 4,000-page environmental impact statement has already been completed and public hearings are scheduled for five weeks, beginning next month, in July 2006. The billions involved will be provided by a foreign company, Cintra Concessions de Infraestructuras de Transporte, S.A. of Spain. As a consequence, the TTC will be privately operated, leased to the Cintra consortium to be operated as a toll-road. The details of the NAFTA Super Highway are hidden in plan view. Still, Bush has not given speeches to bring the NAFTA Super Highway plans to the full attention of the American public. Missing in the move toward creating a North American Union is the robust public debate that preceded the decision to form the European Union. All this may be for calculated political reasons on the part of the Bush Administration.
A good reason Bush does not want to secure the border with Mexico may be that the administration is trying to create express lanes for Mexican trucks to bring containers with cheap Far East goods into the heart of the U.S., all without the involvement of any U.S. union workers on the docks or in the trucks.
LOL! So instead your posting talking points from someone else...and not thinking for yourselves at all. LOL!
Ahh poor baby.
Facts have been posted many times...you have ignored them.
What's a fabrication? You post at both sites. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
See, I knew you'd understand if I explained it enough.
Which entire documents did you read?
plus I have the site open in another window
What site do you have open in another window? (I linked to at least 12)
and I agree with each and every point they make.
Which points do you agree with in which documents on which websites? Who's the "they" to whom you refer? (there are over a dozen links to various government and other websites and articles posted concerning different aspects of legislation, banking system, rail transport, border enforcement, corridor information, ports information...oh, you did know that, right?)
Once again, where or what in those documents are a threat to our sovereignty?
To which documents do you refer concerning American sovereignty?
We're in luck...there's been another Big Foot sighting...in New York.
Well I see a lot of opinions and interpretations but as to FACTS that is something that has not been established. Once again, what FACTS point to a loss of sovereignty?
Sorry. Ain't that simple.
Some push free trade agreements regardless of which administration supports them, and they do it because they think it's in the BEST interests of this country.
You're free to disagree with the concept, but it has nothing to do with either loyalty to the country or partisanship.
I'm frankly insulted by the comments made by your side. We may not agree, but I wouldn't challenge your patriotism. You can't say the same.
And it's a poor reflection on your arguments.
by John Hawkins
Because I regularly read through offbeat websites in order to compile new editions of "Anyone can post on the internet", I get a lot of opportunities to peruse the latest crackpot conspiracy theories. During any given week I may read about Planet X, the Illuminati / Free Mason / Jewish / (take your pick) plot to rule the world, concentration camps being prepared across America by the military, the "Bush Family Evil Empire", and even lizard people who rule world. If some raving moonbat has come up with it, I've probably run across it at one point or another.
Now if these ridiculous beliefs were relegated to the fringes of society I probably wouldn't bother with writing an editorial to shoot down the thinking behind these theories. However, this sort of bizarre paranoia has crept into "mainstream thinking". Things like the "Jewish Conservatives manipulating the President", "The Republicans rigged the 2002 elections", & "Bush knew (about 9/11)" have been tossed around by people many see as more credible than the average fruit loop writing for these conspiracy websites. That's why I thought it would be worth tossing out a few questions that anyone who starts to buy into these sorts of theories should consider. To begin with…
How many people know about this conspiracy?: It's very difficult to keep any sort of newsworthy conspiracy that hundreds or thousands of people are supposedly involved in out of the mainstream press. Keep in mind that we live in a world where the President can't even get a BJ from an intern without it becoming public knowledge. Even things as sensitive as battle plans for upcoming invasions get into the papers. That's why you should certainly be skeptical of any sort of vast conspiracy that requires people keeping quiet about it indefinitely.
How reliable is your source?: As the ongoing saga with the New York Times has illustrated, the mainstream media is not always completely reliable. However, they're infinitely more trustworthy than people who post anonymously on the net. I'm often surprised to see that people who don't trust one thing that Fox News or the New York Times says will blindly lap up whatever some conspiracy website or moonbat radio talk show host like Art Bell has to say. Yet, even though these sources burn them again and again, their readers still buy into what they have to say. It makes no sense.
Do you have ready answers for the obvious questions?: Let's look at a conspiracy that was floating around after 9/11 -- that the Pentagon was hit by a truck bomb, not a plane. Well in that case, what happened to the plane that was hijacked? How could it be that various people WATCHED the plane flying towards the Pentagon? Is it possible that the hundreds of firefighters and military personnel who must have known the truth were somehow silenced? Why would anyone go through such an elaborate charade? If you can't convincingly answer the most basic questions about a conspiracy, then it's tough for the theory you're supporting to hold any water.
Are you acting as if commonly held beliefs are unique?: This is one question that a lot of the more "mainstream" conspiracy theorists should ask themselves more often. For example, over the last year and a half we've constantly heard people asserting that beliefs held by a large majority of Republicans are really unique to a handful of Conservative Jews who somehow manipulated Bush into going to war to help Israel. Who the conspiracy theories pick out of the bunch and try to assign sinister motives to in situations like that usually says more about the conspiracy theorist than the person or group they target.
Are you relying too much on a handful of contrary facts?: Rarely do you ever see a story where every fact, "falls into place". By that I mean people's memories are faulty, perceptions differ, politicians spin issues, press biases creep in, things are taken out of context, & typos and factual errors come into play as well. When these things inevitably happen, conspiracy theorists tend to seize a handful of inconsistencies and try to prove that there's a cover-up or conspiracy happening. But, this is just how life works. If you don't believe me, leave a couple of kids alone in a room full of breakables with a football, come back a few minutes after you hear something break, and then separate the kids and ask what happened.
Are you being too cynical about the government?: There's only one thing worse than believing that your government always tells the truth and that's believing that they always lie. If you're willing to buy into any sort of claptrap because you won't put anything past your government, then you're apt to be proven wrong over and over again.
Shouldn't you be a little more skeptical about those conspiracy theories?: I've heard some variation of the following from conspiracy theorists, "How can you just dismiss this conspiracy theory out of hand? There have been conspiracies that have turned to be true before so this one could be true as well!" Yes, there have been conspiracy theories that panned out, but very, very, few of them. In fact, if you simply blew off every conspiracy theory that came down the pike you'd rarely ever be wrong. Because of that, conspiracy theories merit a lot of skepticism.
Before you buy into a conspiracy theory, ask yourself these questions and generally -- actually, in almost every case -- you'll find that it doesn't hold water.
Land that was once privately owned and paying taxes will be turned over to a company that will ship the profits overseas. How's that for a tax revenue plan?
And use the same graphics that you do as well. Now what are the odds of that?
This one
http://www.spp.gov/
Never mind, I forgot...GW Bush is still President.
Loss of American Sovreignty would never happen on his watch.
What the heck was I thinking?
He's already here.
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.