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.
I thought as much.
Since the issue isn't about Jim's posts, I fail to see why you all continue feel the need to point his posts out to me. It certainly doesn't state at the FR homepage that all people must have mind melds before they post, or is it your opinion that I'm supposed to be a Borg, or Borg-like, and am only allowed to post something that's in consensus with his views? Another hint: I'm not a Borg and I obviously don't agree with Jim's opinion on this topic, and will not ever.
If someone posts more than their personal opinions, however, which refutes ALL THE INFORMATION I posted at 263, which refers to articles located at:
The White House, CFR, the U.S. Department of State, SPP.gov, the Commission for Labor Cooperation, the North American Commission on Environmental Cooperation, the North American Development Bank (of which Condi Rice is a Board Member), North America's SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO), the North American Inland Port Network (NAIPN), the Union-Tribune, the Hutchison Ports Holdings Groupand the 2006 Texas Republican Party Platform, among others.and that information is credible, I will take that into consideration. MY POST has much more to do with the topic about which Corsi writes, you're stuck on stupid.
And you don't "get it": you're the one who falsely accused me of hijacking other threads and then claimed that I expect you to hunt down my posts. That's future tense. Your accusations could only mean, if true, that I've already hijacked threads because you've already seen those posts. (That's past tense.) Providing evidence for your claims is all I asked. I asked only for the example from ONE thread. Don't make personal dispersions against others if you can't prove your false comments.
Yes but you cannot tell that to fools who have wrapped themselves so tightly in conspiracy...and large quantities of aluminum foil.
I would think that endorsing the doing away with an American's job in favor of giving it to someone in a Chinese Communist port in Mexico is damned unamerican.
There are several union issues I disagree with but I don't want to see a person lose his job simply because he is a union member.
I disagree that I was insulting. A knee jerk response to any issue is still a knee jerk.
Overlooked in all this is the fact that laws will have to be conformed in all three "nations."
I understand that an overseeing parlimentary system involving all three governments will be implemented similar to the European union which has completely trashed the idea of national sovereignty in Europe. Our laws will have to conform to the union's laws which, of course, will be proposed and implemented by NGO's and corporations. The concept of citizen rule is effectively ended.
It cannot be stopped any more than the Euro union can be stopped.
What about them?
A transfer of sovereignty makes the territory no longer part of America. American law no longer applies within those boundaries. No NGO is sovereign. I suppose they could operate out of an embassy, but they'd be piggybacking on the sovereign status of the embassy.
>>>No NGO is sovereign.
I don't think this is true at all. Unless there is a difference between types of NGOs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_organization
*I suppose they could operate out of an embassy, but they'd be piggybacking on the sovereign status of the embassy.*
Correct.
Yes, just like we have to "understand" why muslim terrorists blow the sh** out of everyone in sight, right? What a liberal thing to say!
A wall will not keep 100 percent of the ILLEGALs out of the country but it sure as hell will stop most of them, making it easier for the border patrol to do their job, allowing apprehension of those the do make across. More importantly it will emphasize to the world that we are a sovereign country and not part of Mexico, something Vicente and President Bush don't seem to grasp.
And it looks like the thepraxisproject.org does partner with Embassies and also does incorporations.
thepraxisproject.org is also an NGO coyote for illegals.
So, the monies thepraxisproject.org touches with their NGO funds makes everything exempt from USA law then, right?
Thanks, I already addressed that point earlier in this thread.
No NGO is sovereign. They may have members that are nations, but that doesn't mean anything.
To the extent that they do anything outside of sovereign territory within our country, they are subject to our laws. That would apply to any telephone conversations, or any other communications or actions.
We're not able to enter a foreign embassy and arrest anyone, but we can certainly arrest them when they leave it, unless they are a credentialed diplomat.
NGO's enjoy no special protection for anything they do.
Then maybe I'm thinking of IGOs?
http://www.uia.org/legal/app35.php
Exactly.
Even IGOs are not sovereign. NATO would be an example.
Well then I'm very confused.
That's correct, but I was referring to the benefits of sovereignty. They do get the advantages of whatever laws they might operate under.
In that regard, they're no different than churches or charities that are tax-exempt.
DG, a sceptical person such as yourself should be made aware of this:
http://www.worldforum.org/Commission-On-Globalisation/homelinks/CommissionFinalReport.htm
STRATEGIC PURPOSE
The purpose of the Commission on Globalisation was to undertake an inclusive and comprehensive multi-stakeholder inquiry into the nature and character of globalization; and to develop integrated thought and action leading to specific recommendations for governance and policy-making at a global level that promoted greater social equity, environmental stability, enhanced security, and sustainable economic growth.
The Commission served as an incubator, catalyst and integrator for innovative leaders and institutions working to bring greater equity, democracy and accountability to globalization and global governance.
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.