FOLLOW THE YELLOWBRICK ROAD - aka the NAFTA Super Highway


PDA






longeyes
June 14, 2006, 11:27 AM
Did somebody Up There forget to tell us something...? Wait, they only needed to when we were still a Republic, I forgot. Onward goes the New World Plantation.


Bush Administration Quietly Plans NAFTA Super Highway

by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted Jun 12, 2006

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.

Copyright © 2006 HUMAN EVENTS. All Rights Reserved.

If you enjoyed reading about "FOLLOW THE YELLOWBRICK ROAD - aka the NAFTA Super Highway" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Biker
June 14, 2006, 11:33 AM
I wonder how many WMD can can fit in a Mexican truck that flies by in the "fast lane" without stopping? Words fail me...

Biker

seeker_two
June 14, 2006, 11:45 AM
Nonstop across the border from Nuevo Laredo to Kansas City before the first customs stop.... :what:


Why don't we just bomb ourselves and save Osama the trouble.... :banghead:

wingman
June 14, 2006, 11:50 AM
Corporate America after buying our government leaders will sell Ameica to the
highest bidder. The bottom line is the end game and nothing and I mean nothing else matters.

Biker
June 14, 2006, 11:51 AM
Fox has to be doing a hat dance and coyotes throughout Mexico are swilling the takillya and counting their future pesos. Let's see how imminent domain plays into this big ol' highway too.

Biker

Nightfa11
June 14, 2006, 11:54 AM
I live about 100 yards west of I-35 about 15 miles north of Kansas City....

hmmm


:scrutiny:

carterbeauford
June 14, 2006, 11:59 AM
It couldn't be any worse to drive than I95.

Good thing I spent some time learning Spanish, now it's going to be "diez-quatro, amigo bueno" on the CB.

longeyes
June 14, 2006, 12:01 PM
Biker graciously pointed me to this story. I admit when I read it I was a bit stunned. No, they can't be serious...that sort of thing. And then I was angry at the way we are just being PLANNED AROUND, flagrantly, blatantly, arrogantly IGNORED. This used to be a Republic and we used to be "consulted," right? Why isn't the MSM talking about this? Why isn't Bush? Why isn't he being asked about this? Congress? You read this stuff and you think it's GOT to be science-fiction. But it's not. It's not.

And, well, something's gotta give here.

Biker
June 14, 2006, 12:08 PM
Well Nightfa11, you were planning on moving anyway, weren't you?:uhoh:

Biker

sm
June 14, 2006, 12:15 PM
Frank L. Baum , the author of Wizard of Oz ,and other parodies must be shaking his head.

Someone send .gov the explanation of that book/ movie - they missed the whole meaning.

Sam Adams
June 14, 2006, 02:29 PM
Someone send .gov the explanation of that book/ movie - they missed the whole meaning.

OK, so what IS the meaning? Seriously!

dracphelan
June 14, 2006, 02:35 PM
The Trans-Texas Corridor is going to be a toll road ran by foreign nationals. Luckiily (for the Dallas Fort Worth area) they are planning on running this mostrosity well to the east of the area. So, when Al Queda releases biologicals or chemicals, it won't affect us that much. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

longeyes
June 14, 2006, 02:39 PM
Perhaps he means the view that The Wizard of Oz was intended as an angry populist fable, born of the turmoil in late 19th century America?

Here's one slant:

http://www.wccusd.k12.ca.us/elcerrito/history/oz.htm

Bartholomew Roberts
June 14, 2006, 02:49 PM
Biker graciously pointed me to this story. I admit when I read it I was a bit stunned. No, they can't be serious...that sort of thing. And then I was angry at the way we are just being PLANNED AROUND, flagrantly, blatantly, arrogantly IGNORED. This used to be a Republic and we used to be "consulted," right? Why isn't the MSM talking about this? Why isn't Bush? Why isn't he being asked about this? Congress?

This has been discussed openly for the past several years. There are stories about it in the Dallas Morning News, Congressional committee reports, Congressional funding etc. Here is a local speech mentioning the issue from June 2005 (http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/news/IntermodalTransportationChallenges.pdf)

Last time I looked, a Republic meant you elected your representative and if you didn't like the job he was doing, you replaced him. It didn't mean the representative consulted with you on everything he did or was obliged to keep you informed about all the bills he read or voted on. I know that you of all people recognize that we have to get involved in government if we want it to go our way, same principle here.

bigdaddyb
June 14, 2006, 03:01 PM
He's giving us back to Mexico!! :cuss: :banghead: :banghead: :cuss:

We're gonna be butt deep in illegals!! :what:

Who is this clown and what did he do with the guy we elected Governor of Texas for two terms?!?!

longeyes
June 14, 2006, 03:02 PM
Well, I don't live in Texas, I do read a lot, and, yeah, the full scope of this is news to me. I'll bet it would be news to 95 per cent (or more) of the American people. We can ascribe some of that to the American people not being interested but not all of it. This story, given its importance, should be the lead piece on MSM broadcasts--but where is it? It's in an on-line journal, where else?

Let me get this straight: my political representatives don't have to apprize me of something of this magnitude, with its obvious repercussions?

And wouldn't it be loverly if our representatives really paid attention to what we said and acted accordingly? What has people incensed of late is their growing realization that Congress thinks it doesn't have to listen any more. I think the recent behavior of our Senate in the illegal immigration hijinx underscores that pretty clearly. Bush himself, with his statements implying a divine right to ignore both general input and criticism, also qualifies.

Thefabulousfink
June 14, 2006, 03:14 PM
Regardless of the obvious border security problem that this creates, the other factor involved here is something that has been bothering me more and more. The American economy is being sold overseas. A large percentage of our national debt has been bought up by China. The Republicans have sold out to Big Business by making it easier and cheaper to outsource production and import it back to sell to us. The Democrats are to busy squabbling over Iraq, gay marriage, and abortion to look out for their base (the working class).

The result is we are (and have been for a while) shifting from an economy based on production to one based on consumerism. The result I predict will be increased economic turmoil while the middle class shrinks into the Rich and the Poor.

It is possible to turn this around, but it would cost too many people too much money (initially) for our current gov (Reps and Dems) to even try it.

Ira Aten
June 14, 2006, 03:14 PM
Yeah Longeyes, its all your fault. You didn't forsee that the Texas Dept. of Transportation (deciding, in total defiance of the U.S. Constitutional ban on States entering into treaties or agreements with foreign powers without the consent of Congress) would enter into an agreement with a company owned and controlled, by the King of Spain to condemn, and then cede private property over to a tollroad controlled by a foreign power.

And now I find out from the post above that it is all your fault. Why, you lazy, no foresight having miscreant! Have you no shame man?

How could you let this happen? :)


On a more serious note, I have been screaming about it ever since we petitioned Rick Perry and TEXDOT to cease it. Of course they immediately went about disregarding it, exactly like Perry did when we petitioned him and the Texas Animal Health Commission to repeal HB 1361 (to try and halt the microchip in every head of livestock lunacy)

Regardless of the will, or of the loyalty of their supporters and the voters, once in office, the powerful will do whatever they want.

It is just astounding though to see the results of their lunatic actions blamed upon the folks totally powerless to halt it.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 14, 2006, 03:42 PM
Regardless of the will, or of the loyalty of their supporters and the voters, once in office, the powerful will do whatever they want.

Then why are they still in office and what are you doing to change it?

It is just astounding though to see the results of their lunatic actions blamed upon the folks totally powerless to halt it.

Is is just astounding though to see gun owners acknowledge that their self-defense is their own responsibility; but believe they will get good government from voting once every four years.

I don't mean folks like you or longeyes. I know both of you are a lot more involved than most people. That is why I don't understand why you take out your frustration on the system instead of directing it where it belongs - on the people who are counting on you to carry the burden for them because they have better things to do today.

The problem isn't the system. The problem is too many people expect to have the system work their way without doing their fair share of the work to make that happen.

GrizzlyGraves
June 14, 2006, 03:50 PM
What this boils down to is the elimination of our borders and our sovereignty. Based on this plan, how many years do we have left as the United States of America before we become the SPP or the North American Union?

Who can ball-park it? 10 years? 20 maybe?

What will we do once our Republic is dissolved and we relinquish power to a North American regional governing body?

I'm glad my ammo arrived today.

wingman
June 14, 2006, 04:18 PM
The result is we are (and have been for a while) shifting from an economy based on production to one based on consumerism. The result I predict will be increased economic turmoil while the middle class shrinks into the Rich and the Poor.

Our business leaders and government have taken us down this path for reasons unknown, it cannot end well.:banghead:

Art Eatman
June 14, 2006, 04:52 PM
I don't have to be a proponent or oppoonent to observe the following:

1. The tax money does not exist in sufficient quantities to relieve the congestion on some highways. Notably, I-35 from Laredo to points north and I-10 from Houston to the New Orleans area. I've not driven I-45, lately. The alternative to a tax-paid "free" highway is a toll road.

2. The volume of truck traffic is a function of the demand for products by all of us consuming types, and of the need to haul export goods to shipping termini. Yeah, we consume, but we're also the world's largest exporter.

3. The history of ownership and construction in the US of public-use/benefit facilities is that anybody with a big-enough billfold can do it. E.g., auto assembly plants (Toyota, Mercedes, BMW) and port facilities (China, Japan). Beyond the money, the permitting process operates under existing laws--and whoever is approved can build and operate.

Now, if you believe the population will remain static or decline; or if you believe that trade will remain static or decline, such corridors won't be needed. But I can probably find you a good cash deal on a bridge, somewhere...

Absolute fact: The better the transportation system, the greater the economic activity.

:), Art

CAnnoneer
June 14, 2006, 05:22 PM
Come on, Art, that's not the point. Only the staunchest environmentalists would oppose building new highways in an age of endemic congestion.

What the worry is the way in which these "entities" are operating, the lack of congressional oversight, and the repercussions on our border security and illegal alien problems. Most importantly, this is another piece in the brickwork of a NAA, which virtually nobody in the USA wants or would like. Last time I checked we still are a constitutional republic with elected government. I for one am sick and tired of watching the President and his "base" act like King Jorge Dos, Head of the Church, Defender of the Faith, and His Esteemed Courtiers. "Trust me" can get you only that far, and that's far enough.

Art Eatman
June 14, 2006, 06:24 PM
CAnnoneer, no argument. Problem is, a lot of the opposition doesn't understand that it's the WAY the deal is being rammed down folks' throats, and the apparent sleaziness of the proposed operator. So, much of the opposition winds up objecting to much-needed expansion of transportation capacity.

The rock-and-a-hard-place part of the deal is that you can't have a more efficient transportation system and free-ish trade without having more opportunities for illegal entry and for terrorism.

At the same time, the more efficient ransportation system is needed for the greater amount of trade of all sorts that is going to occur whether or not we like it.

I don't pretend to have answers for all the objections I could raise, much less for others' objections...

The Interstate System started in the 1950s and served well for some 30+ years. It's now way under what's needed, ten to twenty years behind. Adding a lane or two might work for five or ten years. And for the next fifty years?

Art

308win
June 14, 2006, 06:30 PM
I thought I read a lot and was informed but this is news to me too. I am writing my congressman as soon as I post.

Thefabulousfink
June 14, 2006, 06:35 PM
Well Art, in the last 6 months the cost of shipping (full truckloads) has risen roughly 30%. I think if something is not done soon, freight might go back to being moved by rail. If gas prices continue to rise, I dont think that trucks will have the cost/efficency advantage over trains for much longer.

That would ease the stress on the highways a little.

Art Eatman
June 14, 2006, 07:18 PM
Trucks haul stuff where railroads aren't, among other variables. Another factor which keeps semis viable is the turnaround time for loading and unloading of break-bullk cargo.

If you can fill a container, and there's no particular hurry, trains do the job. If is's pallets of break-bulk, and there's any sort of time factor, semis.

What hasn't hit, yet, as much as it will, is extra consumer costs due to fuel costs. Some, yeah, on the more local level. UPS, for instance, has raised it's fuel add-on, I forget their specific term.

Back to "corridors" for a moment: I've read that semis crossing into the US at Laredo for I-35 north are at some 30,000 per day.

Economic shifts with technology: The Port of Galveston used to make a bunch of income from warehousing cotton for export. With the advent of containers, and the import of stuff from Asia, the railroads gave good prices to ship cotton via container to the west coast. Better that the containers not be sent back empty. So, no more warehousing in Galveston.

I dunno. If you look at the growth in tonnage numbers over the last twenty or so years, you wonder who's buying all that stuff. Obviously, of course, it's all of us. And it's gotta get shipped and folks ain't happy with slow shipments or with traffic congestion and driving hazards.

TANSTAAFL...

Art

longeyes
June 14, 2006, 07:46 PM
The rock-and-a-hard-place part of the deal is that you can't have a more efficient transportation system and free-ish trade without having more opportunities for illegal entry and for terrorism.

We need new infrastruture, new energy facilities, new transportation systems. Do we have any of that? We can build a superhighway to benefit China and Mexico, but where is the national highspeed railway system that might trim a lot of our energy usage? Where is the new generation of fuel-efficient trucks? Are we waiting for Toyota to build those for us?

A nation that becomes "consumer-driven" while losing its manufacturing base has a problem. That same nation, with the world's most powerful military, is likely to turn its frustrations outward.

Joey2
June 14, 2006, 11:19 PM
The bottom line is we have lost our souvernity. A meeting took place in Crawford, Tx. Bush, Fox and the PM of Canada.

The South-North route is financed by Spain and managed by Spain. The rest of the corridor I don't know.

American truckers have ceased to exist. Our national soverignty has ceased to exist.

Comming soon will be world government. The UN is testing the wates on 4Julkk06 with disarmament of the US.

All of the dots connect to the distruction of the US. Planned years ago and comming to

longeyes
June 15, 2006, 12:49 AM
No, I think we 're just at the beginning of this story, not the end. Many surprises ahead of us. The American people are beginning to wake up, not all but enough. And the boys will be coming home soon. It's a long way to 2008, a very long way.

Biker
June 15, 2006, 06:42 AM
Man, this new highway is gonna create a lot of new jobs I imagine. Take ten, maybe twenty or more years to build. I can now fully understand why Bush is pressing so hard to give 20 million illegals amnesty. I mean, under his guest worker program, an illegal works here for six years, he's a citizen.
I'm not sure that I've ever used the word "diabolical" before, but that's the only word that I can think of to describe this plan.

Folks, if you've never contacted a politician before, now's the time. I'm not sure if it's too late or not, but it rasps the soul to give up without a fight. I'm not much of a cheerleader, but if you *ever* loved this country, fight for it now. Tomorrow may be too late.

Biker

Waitone
June 15, 2006, 10:45 AM
Bush does nothing on illegal immigration for 5 years. Then suddenly the CFR puts out a plan for north american unification. Thereabouts we see trilateral meetings where all kinds of promises are made. Then we see mysterous govt website spring up talking about security and prosperity agreements and working groups. We have no legislative authority cited but we have all kinds governmental activities. Now our attention is directed to a long planned super transportation corridor This thing has been on the works for a long time.

This site has lots of pictures and information
http://www.nascocorridor.com/
Gotta hand it to 'em, they plan big.

US national sovereignty is decidedly in play. :scrutiny:

longeyes
June 15, 2006, 10:49 AM
Was that nascocorridor or narcocorridor?:evil:

It feels these days as if The Invisible Hand has America by the throat.

Biker
June 15, 2006, 10:56 AM
My God, the implications are staggering. Look at that map. How did they manage to keep it quiet so long? The media has to be complicit in this. It's a huge story.

Biker

longeyes
June 15, 2006, 11:06 AM
What is staggering is that this could be underway in the post-9/11 era--without pulbic exposure and debate.

But not one major media story, not one direct question at a press conference. Bush would be doing a fumble-and-mumble job trying to explain and justify this one. Of course I realize this is to benefit "our friends" to the south and provide jobs for the new "hard-working moms and dads" he wants us to absorb.

Why do we need to use MEXICAN PORTS to facilitate the transportation of CHINESE goods? What happened to our American ports and our American port workers? What happened to our American truckers? This project encompasses everything that the dark side of globalism is accused of.

This isn't economic progress, it's a way of mainlining consumerism while destroying American sovereignty and labor rights.

If we don't get the word out and stop this, we are done.

Biker
June 15, 2006, 11:11 AM
Well, this is a start Longeyes, but the project is due to start next year. The chances of derailing this nation killer are slim to none, and I'm afraid that slim just left town. Gotta try. I'm starting today by notifying the local media. Maybe all the Limbaugh fans can try to get through on his show, but I've no doubt that he's aware of it already and is turning a blind eye to the story.
Other ideas?

Biker

Waitone
June 15, 2006, 11:17 AM
Gordon Liddy at this moment has on his show Jerome Corsi, Jim Gilchrist, and Tom Tancredo talking about Bush's north american union.

Get at it through Liddy's website.

ebd10
June 15, 2006, 11:19 AM
Why do we need to use MEXICAN PORTS to facilitate the transportation of CHINESE goods? What happened to our American ports and our American port workers? What happened to our American truckers?

What happened was that the cost of paying the Longshoremen's Union and the Teamsters drove the prices of transportation above what can be competitive. The intractibility of the union reps, combined with the availability of cheap labor caused the big corporations to look elsewhere for a solution. Remember, the CEO's across this nation are loyal only to money. They figure that if we get nuked or end up on the wrong end of a bio-weapon, it won't effect them, just the great unwashed that stand between them and the money and power they wish to accumulate.

Biker
June 15, 2006, 11:21 AM
Thanks Waitone. I'll check it out.

Biker

Roadwild17
June 15, 2006, 11:24 AM
This make me sick :barf:

wingman
June 15, 2006, 11:30 AM
Remember, the CEO's across this nation are loyal only to money. They figure that if we get nuked or end up on the wrong end of a bio-weapon, it won't effect them, just the great unwashed that stand between them and the money and power they wish to accumulate.

I believe that statement sums it up.

longeyes
June 15, 2006, 11:38 AM
What happened was that the cost of paying the Longshoremen's Union and the Teamsters drove the prices of transportation above what can be competitive. The intractibility of the union reps, combined with the availability of cheap labor caused the big corporations to look elsewhere for a solution. Remember, the CEO's across this nation are loyal only to money. They figure that if we get nuked or end up on the wrong end of a bio-weapon, it won't effect them, just the great unwashed that stand between them and the money and power they wish to accumulate.

Competitive with whom exactly? I hold no brief for unchecked unionism but this is a "solution" that is no solution at all, just a knife through the heart of American sovereignty, citizenship, and the rights of the American worker.

Somehow, in the last decade or two, capitalism morphed from an engine of progress to a cancer. That may be the result of the transformation of business priorities from local to international. At the same time that we have seen a healthy explosion of entrepreneurism, the real background to that story has been the triumph of the huge trans-national corporations.

I've said this before: at this point in our national history what we have to sell, above anything else, is our consumer market. If we don't take advantage of that and turn it to our advantage, if we don't use our ability to exploit that to change our situation while we still can, we will end as a second- or third-rate power. And it won't take that long.

Sindawe
June 15, 2006, 11:39 AM
How did they manage to keep it quiet so long? The media has to be complicit in this.The Balkans.
Athletes & Roid Rage.
Dayton Peace.
Cigars & stained dresses.
Survivor.
Impeachment.
Hanging chads.
Tax cuts "for the rich".
9-11-01.
Osama & Afghanistan.
Plastic sheets & Duct tape.
Iraq.
Wardrobe Malfunctions.

No conspiracy or complicity needed. Just a habit of "Instant News" and short attention spans. Trade corridors and N.A. Union? "Bhaaa, thats just delusions of the Black Helicopter crowd. Anyways, MAN did I take a bath in the market last week, how are your inv..."

Thefabulousfink
June 15, 2006, 11:50 AM
I am curious what the Minutemen and other like minded residents of border states will say when they wake up and find a super highway runing through where Bush had promissed them a fence? If this issue doesn't have more public debate and input before they try and implement it, Bush is going to see protests that will make the immigration ones look like a tea party.

Biker called this a "Nation Killer" and I think he's right. Not only could this project massively disrupt our curent economy, it might be the issue that further divides the American people and possibly spark a civil war. Americans have become more polarized of late, and while I don't think that we are beyond healing yet, a massive decisive issue like this could fracture us.

I just pray that before this project begins, there is some kind of national discourse. People are allready wary of this administration being shady and underhanded.

longeyes
June 15, 2006, 11:50 AM
We have managed, through media inundation, and probably by design, to create an entire culture afflicted by Attention Deficit Disorder. Too many stimuli, too short attention span. Everything is given the same weight, its 30 seconds or one minute--and then we move on. That, at least, is the delusional state all too many Americans live in.

I've run this story by a number of my friends, across the political spectrum, and have been underwhelmed by their concern or interest. Either they don't care or they think there's nothing they can do.

You can't run or keep a Republic that way.

longeyes
June 15, 2006, 11:55 AM
Biker called this a "Nation Killer" and I think he's right. Not only could this project massively disrupt our curent economy, it might be the issue that further divides the American people and possibly spark a civil war. Americans have become more polarized of late, and while I don't think that we are beyond healing yet, a massive decisive issue like this could fracture us.

The illegal alien problem has been a stealth nation-killer; this is going to be right out in the open and huge, an overt national program of cultural self-destruction. Does it have the potential to spark upheaval? It does. And this may be exactly why it is being kept quiet until it is already underway and "too late to do anything about." As we've heard you "can't deport 11 million people;" next year we will hear "you can't stop a massive multi-billion dollar 'public works' project."

Waitone
June 15, 2006, 11:59 AM
When congress finally decided to take up illegal immigration I said to whoever cares that illegal immigration debate would open up other issues for view and debate. At the time I was specifically refering to the issue of national sovereignty in an ultimate sense. I knew CAFTA passed only because spinelessrepublicans kept the vote open long after it expired to twist arms until they got the one vote they needed. What I didn't understand was why CAFTA was so important. According to Corsi the masters needed CAFTA as the second step in a three step process to accomplish economic union. NAFTA, CAFTA, and finally FTAA. Looks to me like Bush is implementing the bureaucratic integration off the books and with no legislative authority. Listening to Liddy now, Tancredo claims no one in congress is aware of what is happening. Maybe on the house side that is true, but looking at the senate's version of immigration reform it looks like at least 2/3's of the senate is well aware of north american union. Is it coincidental senate legislation permits the importation of 70+ million immgrants? Seems to me a lot of wierd stuff can be explained by looking at them through the glasses of north american union.

Thefabulousfink
June 15, 2006, 12:15 PM
next year we will hear "you can't stop a massive multi-billion dollar 'public works' project."

You can stop a multi-billion dollar public works project, it just involves using tactics that shouldn't be discussed on THR and would be harmful to the unity of our nation. As angry as many in the border states are, I wouldn't be suprised if poject started having a string of "accidents" as soon as it broke ground on American soil.

I would also find it hard to believe that no one in DC has given thought to the risk and possible consequences given the curent public atmosphere in much of the effected parts of America.

wingman
June 15, 2006, 12:17 PM
Somehow, in the last decade or two, capitalism morphed from an engine of progress to a cancer.

I think the process begin in the 70's, even capitalism must have standards,
morals, limits, otherwise it will die. In my opinion it is out of control and at
a rapid pace killing off our middleclass.

longeyes
June 15, 2006, 12:25 PM
When congress finally decided to take up illegal immigration I said to whoever cares that illegal immigration debate would open up other issues for view and debate. At the time I was specifically refering to the issue of national sovereignty in an ultimate sense. I knew CAFTA passed only because spinelessrepublicans kept the vote open long after it expired to twist arms until they got the one vote they needed. What I didn't understand was why CAFTA was so important. According to Corsi the masters needed CAFTA as the second step in a three step process to accomplish economic union. NAFTA, CAFTA, and finally FTAA. Looks to me like Bush is implementing the bureaucratic integration off the books and with no legislative authority. Listening to Liddy now, Tancredo claims no one in congress is aware of what is happening. Maybe on the house side that is true, but looking at the senate's version of immigration reform it looks like at least 2/3's of the senate is well aware of north american union. Is it coincidental senate legislation permits the importation of 70+ million immgrants? Seems to me a lot of wierd stuff can be explained by looking at them through the glasses of north american union.

Off the books and out of sight. Yep.

I think your reasoning is right-on: this is about going beyond sovereignty to a trade zone. It's probably less about crushing sovereignty, per se and by design, and just about profits. For the money people, the "America" issues are a sideline distraction.

Thefabulousfink
June 15, 2006, 12:30 PM
You are right wingman,

It is getting to the point where you will need a college degree just to get a job above minimum wage. The skilled trades are disappearing and being replaced by cheap, mass-produced stuff made in China or Mexico. Soon only the wealthy or educated will be able to move up because the typical jobes that allow the poor to advance will be gone.

longeyes
June 15, 2006, 12:32 PM
I would also find it hard to believe that no one in DC has given thought to the risk and possible consequences given the curent public atmosphere in much of the effected parts of America.

I think it is a bit hard to put ourselves in the minds of people who have learned, over many years, the fine art of repressing common sense when expediency rears its ugly head. Some may be stupid enough not to see the dangers; others appear to be able to ignore, willfully, whatever is inconvenient. I think many of the D.C. crowd have convinced themselves that "It's Not Going to Happen, or If It Is, It Won't Happen to Me and Mine." Self-delusion, micro and macro, is what makes the world go 'round, no?

Wingman, you're probably right. It took a while after WW II for the trans-national corporations to develop and gain ascendancy. With the end of allegiance to America and the control of American big business by MBAs, marketing mavens, and computer geeks, the whole picture of capitalism changed.

BFWE
June 15, 2006, 12:53 PM
This is exactly the route I would follow to physically invade and split a country. Pacification would then be the only thing left and easily handled with a culturally Balkanized and disarmed population.

Of course -- why invade when your enemy is giving you everything including your real estate?

longeyes
June 15, 2006, 01:03 PM
This is exactly the route I would follow to physically invade and split a country. Pacification would then be the only thing left and easily handled with a culturally Balkanized and disarmed population.

Of course -- why invade when your enemy is giving you everything including your real estate?


Yes, China, are you listening? We already know of course that the Chinese are making serious inroads in Latin America. Who knows what they are really planning long-term?

Then again the battle zones today seem to be our shopping malls.

As for the real estate, just wait. The Chinese aren't going to take paper forever.

Art Eatman
June 15, 2006, 01:05 PM
longeyes, it's less the cost of labor at US ports than it is the volume of shipping. The west coast ports are overloaded. From what I've read, freighters sometimes circle for days, offshore, waiting for a dock.

If you look at a map, you find that San Francisco/Oakland are not good waypoints from which to move cargo eastward. You have Seattle and San Diego, basically. So, Mexico's west coast. Mexico is improving its rail network, and has already rebuilt the highway from Chihuahua City to Ojinaga (across from Presidio, Texas).

Add to this the dozen or so new LNG ports that are to be built. The known US reserves where drilling is allowed are estimated at 8.4 years at present use rates (USCE estimate).

Art

TallPine
June 15, 2006, 01:10 PM
Mexico is improving its rail network, and has already rebuilt the highway from Chihuahua City to Ojinaga (across from Presidio, Texas).
Just out of curiosity, just where did poor disadvantaged Mexico get the money for these projects...? And doing all that building, how come they can't keep their people employed down there:confused:

Biker
June 15, 2006, 01:30 PM
Well, last year, illegals in the USA sent 20 billion U.S. dollars back to Mexico. That'll build a lot of highways. We're financing our own demise. Cool, ain't it?

Biker

longeyes
June 15, 2006, 01:57 PM
Well, maybe we can learn something from Mexico regarding our national priorities? Mexico is improving its rail network and ports, what are we improving? We have an annual Federal budget of $2.5 trillion and we are slowly decomposing? What does that teach us?

Biker
June 15, 2006, 02:01 PM
It teaches us that excessive self-indulgance leads to obesity and obesity kills, Longeyes.

Biker

wingman
June 15, 2006, 03:13 PM
Just out of curiosity, just where did poor disadvantaged Mexico get the money for these projects...? And doing all that building, how come they can't keep their people employed down there


Most of the money in mexico is in hands of 4% of the population, and if we
do regain control of our government that is our future.

308win
June 15, 2006, 04:20 PM
Most of the money in mexico is in hands of 4% of the population, and if we
do regain control of our government that is our future.

Most of the wealth of this country is in the hands of 1% of the population, the Mexicans are pikers.

JohnBT
June 15, 2006, 04:43 PM
Anybody read FUTURE SHOCK by Alvin Toffler? It's been around for 36 years.

Here's the first sentence:

"In the three short decades between now and the twenty-first century, millions of ordinary, psychologically normal people will face an abrupt collision with the future."

One reviewer summarized it pretty well:

"Thus the 'future shock' thesis provided a particular sort of thesis about social change, economic development, the role of technology and, overall, the ways that organisations and individuals might begin to come to grips with them."

There is little that is new under the sun.

Zedicus
June 15, 2006, 06:06 PM
*Drops Coffee Mug* *Shakes head & Rubs eyes* Am I Seeing things, or did Our Gooberment just turn the USA on it's head.....:scrutiny: :barf:

longeyes
June 15, 2006, 10:02 PM
Most of the wealth of this country is in the hands of 1% of the population, the Mexicans are pikers.

Well, we're on the same path, but Mexico lacks our extensive middle-class. Let's not exaggerate. Mexico's famed 47 Families pull all the strings down there. Certainly we're getting more stratified but power is still much more widely disseminated here.

hayseed
June 16, 2006, 08:26 AM
Maybe all the Limbaugh fans can try to get through on his show,

He'll be all for it.

I can hear it now, don't get excited about this. Bush is so cunning he has something up his sleeve here, it's a rope-a-dope.:barf: I'm so sick of him anymore, and sick of the whole Dem vs Repub WWF wraslin' show.

Enough. I am awake now.

If you want to tell a radio guy who will be properly outraged, call Micheal Savage. You're wasting time with the Bushbots.

What are we going to do people? Seriously, what? All the talk about when will we know when we are no longer free, it's happening now, right in front of us, snowballing by the hour. I'm a young guy with young kids, and I fear for my children. More now than ever before.

For all the 'it's easy, vote em out' crowd: Politico X gets voted in, has 2-4 years to persue his globalist agenda, opens all kinds of Pandoras boxes. Now not reelcting him will do what exactly? If politicians in the founders days blatantly ignored the constitution and sold out our soverignty, they would not sit around and say "gee, how do we vote this guy out?" THE WORD IS T-R-E-A-S-O-N. Of course, polititians then were not super-citizens who were exempt from whatever bilge they pumped out of congress or the white house.

This is the real deal folks. No more speculation, it's happening and happening N O W, now! What do we do?

ApexinM3
June 16, 2006, 08:45 AM
Hayseed raises a very good point: What ARE we going to do about this? I'm a young person as well, no kids (irrelevent, though) and fear that there may come a time where nothing CAN be done about it. I've always voted since I turned 18, but as has been mentioned before, power corrupts & those that get into office just seam to run amok.:banghead:

so now what?

wingman
June 16, 2006, 08:50 AM
Somewhat OT but another give away by this administration.

Return of the Great Social Security Giveaway

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD




Last year around this time I wrote about a serious threat to Social Security that was moving ever closer – a threat so great that it could truly break the bank of our already dangerously fragile Social Security system. The threat is the ongoing "totalization" negotiations between the US and Mexican governments. An agreement on "totalization" would make hundreds of thousands of Mexican citizens eligible for American Social Security. Press reports just last month reminded us that these talks are continuing and will likely be completed this year.

As I wrote last year, under such a "totalization" agreement, even if a Mexican citizen did not work in the United States long enough to qualify for Social Security, the number of years worked in Mexico would be added to bring up the total and thus make the Mexican worker eligible for cash transfers from the United States. To qualify for American Social Security, a Mexican citizen would need to work in the US as short as just 18 months!

Totalization is nothing new. The first such agreements were made in the late 1970s between the United States and several foreign governments to help American citizens who were sent abroad by their companies. From there we have come, nearly 30 years later, to the point where an estimated 160,000 Mexican citizens would be eligible for US Social Security in the next five years.

Ultimately, the bill for Mexicans working legally in the US could reach one billion dollars by 2050, when the estimated Mexican beneficiaries could reach 300,000. Worse still, an estimated five million Mexicans working illegally in the United States could be eligible for the program. According to press reports, a provision in the Social Security Act allows illegal immigrants to receive Social Security benefits if the United States and another country have a totalization agreement.

Those in favor of sending US Social Security benefits to Mexican citizens argue that the crushing poverty in Mexico demands some form of US assistance to that country's aged. While the poverty in Mexico is truly deplorable and saddening, the fact remains that the US Congress has no Constitutional authority to enact what is essentially another foreign aid program. I would applaud any private citizen who wishes to help his fellow man living in poverty, whether in the US or Mexico or wherever he wishes. But for the US government to force this kind of "charity" is both immoral and illegal.

When Congress returns late this month, it should take the opportunity to re-affirm that Social Security is an American program designed to benefit American retired workers. That is why I introduced HR 489, the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act, in the current Congress. This act forbids the federal government from providing Social Security benefits to non-citizens. It also ends the practice of totalization.

Bringing hundreds of thousands of impoverished foreign workers into the Social Security system will surely break the bank, depriving millions of our seniors who contributed to the system all their working lives of that which is rightly theirs. That is no way to treat our seniors, be they from this generation or coming generations. As I said last year, we should be shoring up the system for those Americans who have paid in for decades, not expanding it to cover foreigners who have not.

Biker
June 16, 2006, 09:03 AM
I dunno, Hayseed, Apex. Our elected representitives refuse to represent us. They're pretty much looking us in the eye and saying "What're *you* gonna do about it?" They have the power and our vote doesn't appear to influence them at all.
I contacted my House Reps yesterday and was told by their underlings that they were unaware of this plan as was most of the rest of Congress.
What the hell...

Biker

Waitone
June 16, 2006, 09:13 AM
One thing you can do is stand back and breathe deeply. De-focus and look at the trends evident across the land. Across the land because if you focus on the idiocy oozing out of DC you'll get a distorted picture of reality.

I personally am optimistic. The reason is simple. For the first time in my political kubbutzing I'm seeing push back. Push back is possible because we are now finding out about the nonsense much earlier in the public policy cycle. The alternative media is the reason. We can now see issues forming long before the talking heads tell us about it. I picked up on the north american union about 2 years ago after first meeting of the three amigos. Then when the CFR's document came out I was all ears.

Altermative media is now allowing Joe and Martha Sixpack to take action. Example? Minutemen on the border. Minutemen moving to the border kicked the public policy cycle into the second phase long before the ruling class wanted to deal with it.

Another example was the Dubai Ports fiasco. Alternative media blew the whistle and Joe and Martha went to work and the ruling class backed off temporarily. We'll ignore the economic debate for now.

Bush made an incomprehensible nomination to the supreme court and was promptly bitchslapped by Joe and Martha. He back down. We'll see if his nominees pan out as expected.

Congress acts on immigration with two radically different approaches. The house goes with enforcement first. The senate goes with amnesty. The alternative media lights up congressional fax and email. The senate persists in its amnesty and the house effectively kills the senate bill. What happened? Joe and Martha threatened house and senate. The house bill provided cover to the senate so it could pass what the ruling class really wanted to happen. Bottom line is immigration will be the issue in the November election as well it should be. The senate wants a bill, any bill, and the house ain't falling for it.

Shift to NA union. Debate is following the pattern established by the Minutemen. Alternative print media outlets give it play (HE, WND). investigators like Corsi and Alden do the scholarly work. Alternative media pushes the scholarly work and provides an electronic platform (Liddy so far, but Savage will pile on quickly, then Quinn and Hannity will pile on). Talk radio will inform Joe and Martha who will go to work demanding of congress an explanation. At some point establishment media will notice the food fight and begin to publish. Once establishment media begins snooping around elements congress will begin to nose around which will propel the debate into the second state of policy formation.

What are the stages of policy formation?
Stage 1--do we have a problem? 2-4 years.
Stage 2--OK, we have a problem but what do we do about. 2-4 years. Congress acts
Stage 3--Great, we think we fixed the problem. Did the solution work. Revisit as necessary.

Typically it takes 7 years. We're in stage 2 of illegal immigration and stage 1 of NA union. What hasn't been determined reliably is if the different stages can be sped up because of the availability in information.

LAK
June 16, 2006, 09:14 AM
As mentioned in another thread concerning a side issue linked from the posted article, all this was planned a long time ago (as was the establishing of regional nation states; ours being a new Pan-America).

Pan-American Highway, system of roads, c.16,000 mi (25,750 km) long, linking the nations of the Western Hemisphere. It was suggested at the Fifth International Conference of American States (1923) and supported and financed by the United States during the 1940s and 1950s
http://www.answers.com/topic/pan-american-highway

The Pan American Union was established April 14, 1890, and is now known as the Organization of American States (OAS).
WHEREAS, It would be desirable to recommend the designation of a date which should be observed as "Pan American Day" in all the Republics of America and which should be established as a commemorative symbol of the sovereignty of the American nations and the voluntary union of all in one continental communityhttp://www.oas.org/columbus/PanAmericanDay.asp
Minutes of the Permanent Council - Protocolary Sessions to Commemorate the Pan American Day 2001
http://www.oas.org/consejo/sp/actas/acta1271.pdf
Woops! It's in spanish. How inconvenient for concerned and inquiring gringos ;)

Not to worry, here's an address in english from 1933 that sets the mood for change. This guy even had the nerve to invoke the Monroe Doctrine in a regional context:
http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/7-2-188/188-01.html

For that matter just go to:

http://www.archives.gov/

And search (top right) for "Pan American Union" using the quotation marks.

The Pan-American highway is "just about trade" on the surface; it is also the vehicle for political union. One step at a time of course ;)

------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

dracphelan
June 16, 2006, 09:24 AM
They have the power and our vote doesn't appear to influence them at all.

You know why? They have arranged things so that it is nearly impossible to elect anyone but a Republicrat or a Democan. I think there is only one peaceful thing to do. Join one of these parties and do your best to change it. :(

CAnnoneer
June 16, 2006, 10:26 AM
They have the power and our vote doesn't appear to influence them at all.

On this point, I disagree. They still do care what we think or do, because if enough voters want them out of office, it would still happen. That is a lever of control. While the trends are negative, there still is much that can be done legally and peacefully.

Talk to people you know; raise the awareness. Remind people of what the incumbents did when their election is up. Of all people, politicians understand self-preservation and personal interest. If a few incumbents get kicked out of office, the others will pay attention.

The way to think about it is that politicians are pressed by voters on the one side and their PAC masters on the other. They cannot displease either severely, because it would be the end of their career. Since they care about their career more than anything else, that is a lever of control. The masters have moved boldly towards perpetual incumbency, but they are not there yet and they cannot be without blatant electoral fraud and/or dismantling the entire system of representative government.

longeyes
June 16, 2006, 10:41 AM
Many brave men searched for the Northwest Passage. It took George W. Bush, in that great tradition, to find the NorthSouth Passage! Bravo, President Bush!

Okay...

I'm optimistic too, only because it doesn't really pay, in any sense, to be anything but. Stare into the abyss too long, quoth Nietzsche, and the abyss stares back into you. So be it.

The only problem I see with being optimistic about the fact that we have far better communication tools than we did in the past and the subsequent ability to turn the knowledge received thereby into votes is...

a) If we don't retain a Republican majority, and maybe even if we do, there is going to be pressure to crack down on both conservative talk radio and "maverick" web sites. Various Dems have already snorted loudly, many times, about "The Fairness Doctrine." You can assume we will hear far more about that in the times ahead. The Left understands that one big reason Bush won was talk radio. Another big issue is the continuing consolidation of media power. So far that hasn't scuttled the Web, but there are subterranean currents to turn the Web into "tv" down the pike and the 800-lb. gorilla of talk radio is not immune from either political or commercial pressure to start zipping its lip. We will need to vigilant about this, that's all.

b) A big part of what's going down with the pro-immigration push, in my opinion, is the attempt to wrest suffrage, once and for all, from anyone and anything "on the right." Current demographic trends are not favorable to those of us who adhere to the old (small r) republican values and virtues. Voting the bastards out of office may work short-term...but longer-term?

wingman
June 16, 2006, 11:24 AM
While I hope those of you who are optimistic are correct I find myself very concerned about the future of this country, I and members of my family have served in the military and law enforcement for years and unless we have change in a not too distant future we will lose what freedom we have left.

I do not see our current two party system working for us and while I'm not a big fan of street protest(peaceful) I think it may be required however it will take large numbers and I don't see the current working class willing.

longeyes
June 16, 2006, 11:48 AM
I think a lot of us are still waiting to see if we can do it from our armchairs or our fax machines. We'll know soon enough if we can't. I think this November will make very clear what the next level of commitment is going to be if we're to keep the America we were given.

longeyes
June 16, 2006, 02:01 PM
Bush declines to meet with border officials
Sara A. Carter, Staff Writer
San Bernardino County Sun
President Bush has refused to meet with border law-enforcement officials from Texas for a second time. His response to their request came in the form of a letter Monday, angering both lawmakers and sheriffs.

In fact, some Republican members of the House, upset by what they call the administration's seeming lack of concern for border security, are preparing to hold investigative hearings in San Diego and Laredo, Texas, early next month.

Members of the House Subcommittee on International Terrorism and Nonproliferation hope to expose serious security flaws that could potentially lead to terrorist attacks in the country, said Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, who is a member of the panel and has pushed for the hearings.

"The next terrorist is not going to come in through (Transportation Security Administration) screening at Kennedy airport," Poe said. "We already have information that people from the Middle East have come through the border from Mexico. They assimilate in Mexico learning to speak Spanish and adopt customs and then they cross the border into the United States."

Poe requested the meeting for members of the Southwestern Sheriffs' Border Coalition a group that includes all 26 border-county sheriffs from California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. The sheriffs wanted to speak to the president about the increasing dangers in their communities and along the border.

"The president is the busiest man in the world but he needs to take the time to talk to the border sheriffs and learn what's happening in the real world from them," Poe said. "We can't understand why he refuses to meet with them."

In May, all of the Republican House members from Texas traveled to Washington to meet the president regarding border security. Bush did not meet with them, however, and former White House spokesman Scott McClellan was sent in his stead.

Poe said the White House letter dated Monday showed the disconnect between the administration and the American people who want the border secured.

"The president would appreciate the opportunity to visit with border sheriffs," said the White House letter written by La Rhonda M. Houston, deputy director of the Office of Appointments and Scheduling. "Regrettably, it will not be possible for us to arrange such a meeting. I know that you understand with the tremendous demands of the president's time, he must often miss special opportunities, as is the case this time."

Rick Glancey, spokesman for the sheriffs coalition, said its members are angry and disappointed in the president's response. Glancey said Bush's recent tour of the border with Border Patrol spokesmen did not reflect the reality of what locals live with every day.

"It's a slap in the face to the hardworking men and women on the front lines of rural America who every day engage in border-security issues," Glancey said. "He missed the opportunity to take off his White House cowboy boots and put some real cowboy boots on and walk in our shoes for a few minutes."

The border hearings will expose the truth to the American public and force the administration to take a serious look at the border, said Allan Knapp, Poe's legislative director.

Knapp and Poe have traveled twice to the border this year, spending time along barren stretches where they witnessed no security and numerous migrants crossing into the United States, they said.

"We need to expose the lack of border security before it is too late," Poe said. "We're fighting a war on terror in Iraq and we're winning, but we're losing our own border war. These hearings will be a necessary step in the right direction."

Andy Ramirez, chairman of the Chino-based Friends of the Border Patrol, said he has been called to testify before the panel in San Diego. Ramirez said he has turned in two years of Border Patrol documents and memos, which he will discuss before the committee.

"The president has basically pushed his whole administration's agenda toward the war on terror, yet he can't find the time to meet with law-enforcement leaders responsible for border security," Ramirez said. "It is appalling and outrageous that the war on terror and border security does not extend to the U.S. border."

The Real Hawkeye
June 16, 2006, 02:11 PM
Longeyes, what you say in the starting post cannot possibly be true, because (a) we are a representative republic, and (b) the American people were never given an opportunity to evaluate such a proposal and contact their representatives to tell them whether or not they wish such a thing to be authorized. Therefore, (c) by the irrestistable force of Aristotelian logic, you are making the whole thing up. Nice try, though.

The Real Hawkeye
June 16, 2006, 02:26 PM
Well, I don't live in Texas, I do read a lot, and, yeah, the full scope of this is news to me. I'll bet it would be news to 95 per cent (or more) of the American people. We can ascribe some of that to the American people not being interested but not all of it. This story, given its importance, should be the lead piece on MSM broadcasts--but where is it? It's in an on-line journal, where else?

Let me get this straight: my political representatives don't have to apprize me of something of this magnitude, with its obvious repercussions?

And wouldn't it be loverly if our representatives really paid attention to what we said and acted accordingly? What has people incensed of late is their growing realization that Congress thinks it doesn't have to listen any more. I think the recent behavior of our Senate in the illegal immigration hijinx underscores that pretty clearly. Bush himself, with his statements implying a divine right to ignore both general input and criticism, also qualifies.Absolutely! The fix is obviously in on this thing. As someone here said, we are being "planned around." Isn't it obvious that decision makers in the msm are in on this deception of the American people, or is our moderator suggesting that it would not be news worthy?

I like to think I follow national events pretty closely, but when I first heard mention of this stuff last month on this site, I assumed it was untrue because (a) I had not heard it anywhere else, and (b) it just seems impossible for something that big to be in the works and for me not to have heard about it on the msm. Only now am I beginning to actually believe it's true, and I have yet to hear or read about it in the msm.

NineseveN
June 16, 2006, 02:30 PM
"Every normal man must, at times, be tempted to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and begin slitting throats."

H.L. Menken

longeyes
June 16, 2006, 03:09 PM
All I can say is the living room is getting mighty crowded with elephants.

TallPine
June 16, 2006, 04:10 PM
Okay ... I have some technical questions for Art Eatman and anyone else who thinks this is just "progress"

Let's say this all comes about, a "corridor" from Mexico to Canada, with a "Port of Entry" at Kansas City. So then...

1) How is the access to this corridor going to be controlled? We are in effect going to be adding about 4000 miles (both sides) to our already porous national borders.

2) How are the foreign trucks going to be fueled, and the drivers sustenanced along the way? Are they going to build truck stops only for the use of corridor traffic, or do the foreign trucks just exit and and use normal services? If so, then what keeps them from exiting and just not getting back on the corridor? If there are special corridor truck stops, then where are the people to run those services going to come from - commuting from nearby towns in the "USA" ....? Whose going to run all those checkpoints?

3) What's going to keep a foreign truck from stopping alongside the hiway at night and off-loading a bunch of illegal immigrants to scatter about the countryside?

4) Is there going to be any kind of physical barrier between the corridor and the land on both sides? (remember we don't even have a fence on most of the existing Mexican border)

5) How is normal traffic going to be kept from using the corridor hiway?

:confused:

longeyes
June 16, 2006, 04:29 PM
What this whole project is a "syringe" into a main artery of our body politic. It will further our addictions to cheap Asian consumer goods and cheap Mexican labor. It will keep Americans--or, rather, North Americans--well-sedated with creature comforts as their nation is dismembered by outsiders.

It's called a corridor but all the travel seems to one-way: INTO the United States. Where is the entrepreneurial traffic INTO MEXICO?

We are a fat sow being fed off by any foreign state that can find the right American politicians to pimp for them.

Art Eatman
June 16, 2006, 05:03 PM
I don't recall I've ever even intimated that the deal is no more than "just progress". What I've said is that our existing transportation systems are already overloaded in some areas.

However:

"1) How is the access to this corridor going to be controlled? We are in effect going to be adding about 4000 miles (both sides) to our already porous national borders."

At the borders? I'd have to think we're gonna have the same sort of Port of Entry as now. Just more people working there.

"2) How are the foreign trucks going to be fueled, and the drivers sustenanced along the way? Are they going to build truck stops only for the use of corridor traffic, or do the foreign trucks just exit and and use normal services? If so, then what keeps them from exiting and just not getting back on the corridor? If there are special corridor truck stops, then where are the people to run those services going to come from - commuting from nearby towns in the "USA" ....? Whose going to run all those checkpoints?"

I dunno who's really thought that far ahead. It seems logical that all trucks will do in a corridor what they do now on the various highways they travel. We have long-haul trucks from Mexico, now. Checkpoints? Why? They've been approved at the border by US Customs, and meet US standards for safety.

"3) What's going to keep a foreign truck from stopping alongside the hiway at night and off-loading a bunch of illegal immigrants to scatter about the countryside?"

Same as now.

"4) Is there going to be any kind of physical barrier between the corridor and the land on both sides? (remember we don't even have a fence on most of the existing Mexican border)"

I don't know, beyond the usual barbed-wire fence. Nor do I know why there should be.

"5) How is normal traffic going to be kept from using the corridor hiway?"

Since it's all been described as "toll road", I guess you or I can cruise along just like anybody else.

Art

Thin Black Line
June 16, 2006, 05:42 PM
Waitone,

The nasco website is not the only "North American" corridor that is planned.
The other is an expansion of I-69 that will run from the Mexico-Texas border
to the Michigan-Canadian border.

Here is the TX portion:

http://www.i69texas.org/

However, this project is calling for a brand new stretch to be constructed
through IN:

http://www.i69indyevn.org/index.html

There is no highway there and there are a lot of people in south central
IN who feel they weren't properly represented when it came to making
this decision to basically declare eminent domain across a number of
counties and small towns and then tax them a few billion $'s to build it!

The toll road that runs across northern IN was leased to a multinational
corp from Spain and Australia. This toll road already exists, but again
there was some concern about leasing the property to a foreign entity
for 75 years. The money from this deal has already been spent in
advance for various projects over the next 10 years. Of course, this
leaves nothing for future generations.

Ironically, the Congressional representative for the northern part of IN was in
Spain recently on other business.....I'll see if he's a consultant for the
toll road after he leaves office.

TallPine
June 16, 2006, 06:43 PM
At the borders? I'd have to think we're gonna have the same sort of Port of Entry as now. Just more people working there.
My understanding from earlier in the thread was that the Mexican trucks would just breeze across the border and not face any POE until KC. So how do they keep the trucks from just turning off somewhere else before the POE?

Checkpoints? Why?
What I meant was - if the corridor is to be controlled access, and Americans are working at a service facility (truck stop) within that corridor, are those folks going to have to go in and out through a border type checkpoint when they commute?

#3 & #4: refer back to the issue in #1

#5: well, if it's a public toll road, then the trucks can get off where-ever anyone else can get off. Again, sort of defeats the POE in KC :rolleyes:


I just don't understand how we can have a POE over a 1000 miles in from the border, and expect to be able to enforce any sort of customs or immigration control over that? :confused:

Maybe the reason that I don't understand is that no one in the govt intends to enforce any sort of customs or immigration control over our so-called borders anymore ..... :(

Waitone
June 16, 2006, 06:58 PM
Control points is a pipe dream. The whole purpose of the exercise is facilitate internal movement of goods (and drugs, immigrants, WMD, etc).

longeyes
June 16, 2006, 08:28 PM
I guess like Peter the Great our President is going to drag us ignorant peons kicking and screaming into a brave new age. I imagine he'll be shaving our beards next. Only foolish heathens would resist the New World Order.

If a project like this had popular support it wouldn't have to be sprung on us. They know very well that explaining something like this, at this time in our history, would far exceed the combined intellectual powers of luminaries like Bush, Rove, and Snow.

longeyes
June 16, 2006, 08:33 PM
You've heard of the narco-corrida?

You can call this the narco-corridor.

:fire:

308win
June 16, 2006, 08:34 PM
If a project like this had popular support it wouldn't have to be sprung on us. They know very well that explaining something like this, at this time in our history, would far exceed the combined intellectual powers of luminaries like Bush, Rove, and Snow.

Rove is far from stupid, how else would you explain Bush's success? He obviously didn't get where he is using his mental acuity.

longeyes
June 16, 2006, 08:40 PM
Managing the career of a puppet prince, with the aid of rich and powerful allies, doesn't require the cold genius of a Machiavelli, just someone with animal cunning and an empty space where some of us keep our morality. A fairly run-of-the-mill courtier and intriguer in other words who confuses demography with democracy. Rove's one goal as W. political nursemaid has been been to get George elected. Bravo, Karl. Some of us have more profound visions of America than as the private plaything of the Bush dynasty.

wingman
June 16, 2006, 08:54 PM
an empty space where some of us keep our morality

Worth repeating!!!

longeyes
June 16, 2006, 09:58 PM
I see Michael Savage is featuring this story on his website. Well, that's ten million pairs of ears. A beginning.

NineseveN
June 16, 2006, 10:01 PM
I see Michael Savage is featuring this story on his website. Well, that's ten million pairs of ears. A beginning.


I used to think Savage was an entertaining nutcase, now I realize that I was simply an entertained fool.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 16, 2006, 10:02 PM
Isn't it obvious that decision makers in the msm are in on this deception of the American people, or is our moderator suggesting that it would not be news worthy?

For a group that continually expresses such skepticism about government, I'm shocked that so many of you are shocked to learn that it didn't deliver reports to your door on what it was doing or that the MSM didn't adequately inform you. Just like any other citizen, it is your responsibility to be informed.

As far as not knowing about it:
Here is the July 2002 Summary of the plan (http://www.keeptexasmoving.com/publications/files/ttc_report_summary.pdf)
The 2004 Press Release on the plan (http://www.keeptexasmoving.com/publications/files/whatsnew_cintra.pdf)
The current website (http://www.keeptexasmoving.com/default.aspx)
The old TXDOT website (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/ttc/ttc_home.htm)
Press statements from Governor Perry announcing his plans to implement this from 2002-2005 (http://www.governor.state.tx.us/priorities/transportation/ttc)

And for those non-Texans amongst us:
Free Republic discussion from April 2005 (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1380436/posts)
Wall Street Journal article from this April on TTC (reprinted in Portsmouth Herald (http://www.yorkweekly.com/news/04192006/biz_nati/98531.htm)
New York Times story from April 2005 (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/28/national/28toll.html?ex=1272340800&en=76eab2a304477b93&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss)
Los Angeles Times from January 2006 (http://www.planetizen.com/node/18554)
Washington Post from February 2005 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6370-2005Feb7?language=printer)
National Public Radio from May 2005 (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4629059)

So given that, how would you improve coverage by MSM and government to the point that it satisfied you?

longeyes
June 16, 2006, 10:06 PM
Well, we're getting there, Boss, we're getting there.

But since when is it the responsibility of the Government to spread disinformation?

*******

Like Savage or no, he's got listeners. And this story needs dissemination regardless of the sower.

Byron Quick
June 16, 2006, 10:44 PM
Uh, guys? I haven't heard about this on any of the mainstream media either. However, it's definitely not a great, big, hush-hush secret. Do a google search on Nafta superhighway. Count the hits. Look at the dates. There are citizen groups both pro and con. Environmentalists against it.

There are plenty of regular people who know about this and have joined organizations for and against. Apparently there's people paying closer attention.

longeyes
June 17, 2006, 01:22 AM
Well, it's good to know the peasants are rising. I can see that anyone who is in the swath of The New World Expressway might have strong views about this, especially if you are a toad beneath the harrow.

The fact that something of this magnitude in terms of construction and with such palpable political repercussions has so far been off the radar screens of Mainstream Media is, well, perplexing and rather curious. I'm sure the significance hasn't been lost on the bright minds that work the news like a pretzel machine.

Thin Black Line
June 17, 2006, 08:25 AM
For a group that continually expresses such skepticism about government, I'm shocked that so many of you are shocked to learn that it didn't deliver reports to your door on what it was doing or that the MSM didn't adequately inform you. Just like any other citizen, it is your responsibility to be informed.

I agree to a certain extent in that people have the choice to read the
Federal Register or watch the Simpsons in their free time. However,
this is the system in place as what we now have it: people can show up
at the public interest meetings when this or that is being proposed
and speak their minds (or write letters to their elected reps). After all
is said and done, it really doesn't matter what the people want if those
in charge feel "it's for our own good" anyway. They go ahead with the
projects anyway, and, yes, most of the time if they're in an ELECTED
position, they get voted out. If they're at the federal level they get a
new job as a highly paid "consultant." If they're an unelected government
employee or NGO, they continue to make their recommendations and perform
their functions unabated as the new cycle of elected reps show up. After
all, they are still performing under the rules as established by the out-going
crowd.

The cycle repeats itself as the new reps learn there will be good so-called
private sector "consultant" jobs for them after they leave office. Likewise,
the direct hire state and federal beaurocrats can leave government service
and work for the same companies they once had to regulate. The money
buys them out over the interests of We The People. Incestuous? Yes, and
this is the system that has inbred itself deformed stupid offspring that can't
function properly in the social envrionment. They're blind, aggressive, and
selfish and therefore take advantage of their passive peers.

longeyes
June 17, 2006, 11:14 AM
For a group that continually expresses such skepticism about government, I'm shocked that so many of you are shocked to learn that it didn't deliver reports to your door on what it was doing or that the MSM didn't adequately inform you. Just like any other citizen, it is your responsibility to be informed.

The Feds are very good at getting out there what they want to get out there. The mainstream media are very good at barraging us with what they consider important. Draw your own conclusions. We should not have to "dig" to get information about something like this, it should have been and should be front-page news. That it isn't leads us to certain obvious conclusions. Is it "paranoid" to think information critical to our national future is being deliberately withheld or buried? Empathically not. I don't recall a single mainstream story discussing the "totalization" schemes designed to put Mexico on the U.S. dole. I think this is something the American people would want to know about and, more importantly, have a say about.

The general feeling today in America is one of distrust and disconnection. And rightly so. Right now the American people are trying to figure out the proper response to an awkward situation.

wingman
June 17, 2006, 11:20 AM
The money
buys them out over the interests of We The People. Incestuous? Yes, and
this is the system that has inbred itself deformed stupid offspring that can't
function properly in the social envrionment. They're blind, aggressive, and
selfish and therefore take advantage of their passive peers.


Possible we are attempting to be as corrupt in our government as Mexico.:(

longeyes
June 17, 2006, 11:31 AM
The Founding Fathers knew what men are. They gave us the tools, both legislative and moral, to hold man's worst impulses in check and construct a viable form of self-governance. "Mexico" is just another word for unbridled human nature, unreined by reason and law and honor. One of the gravest mistakes of "liberalism" is to see innate goodness everywhere, in everyone, and not recognize that we advance through discipline and self-control.

wingman
June 17, 2006, 11:53 AM
One of the gravest mistakes of "liberalism" is to see innate goodness everywhere, in everyone, and not recognize that we advance through discipline and self-control.

Once again well put, our public schools have failed miserably on this issue for
35 years and now we pay the price.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 17, 2006, 12:05 PM
We should not have to "dig" to get information about something like this, it should have been and should be front-page news. That it isn't leads us to certain obvious conclusions. Is it "paranoid" to think information critical to our national future is being deliberately withheld or buried?

Raise your hands if on your most optimistic, sunny, pro-government day you trust the government to make absolutely clear to you (say evening news every night for a week) what you need to know in order to make informed decisions.

If your hand isn't raised, then you probably believe like I do that the government will use every legitimate excuse it can to bury or hide information that will cause those representing us to become unelected. To me, this means that if I want to protect my rights, I have the responsibility of informing myself on the issues that are important to me - just like I have the responsibility of protecting my family, even though the government may occasionally be able to help out in either case.

JohnBT
June 17, 2006, 12:30 PM
They've been talking about this in one form or another since at least 1995. Maybe they'll build it one of these days.

From the 1995 Congressional Record:

"Mr. PETE GEREN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2274, legislation designating the National Highway System [NHS]. This legislation not only designates the NHS as established as part of ISTEA, but it makes a number of important policy changes. I am particularly supportive of this legislation because it recognizes the importance of Interstate 35 as a high priority corridor. I-35 is the only interstate in our Nation that connects Canada, Mexico, and the United States. I-35 is particularly vital to my district of Fort Worth and my home State of Texas because it serves as our main corridor of trade with Mexico. In 1993, our country ratified the North American Free Trade Agreement. This was the first step in improving our economy and strengthening our trading relationship with our neighbors to the North and South. However, the passage of NAFTA was only the first step. The responsibility of the Congress did not end with that historic vote. We must now act collectively to make the most of NAFTA by developing an infrastructure that maximizes the benefits of this agreement.

One of the ways that we can accomplish this is to create a NAFTA Superhighway System. This concept continues to gain momentum around our Nation as an alternative to effectively and efficiently move cargo from point to point and from country to country. By recognizing the key arteries of trade in our Nation and utilizing the latest transportation technologies available, we can make great strides in ensuring that products manufactured in the United States reach their destinations in Mexico and Canada as quickly and as cheaply as possible. The system that I and a number of my colleagues envision as providing the greatest economic benefit is one that uses I-35, from Laredo, TX to Duluth, MN as the trunk of a NAFTA superhighway system tree. From this trunk, the system will reach out like branches to the North and South, East and West. This option would tie together the major economic centers of our Nation with Canada and Mexico and ensure that all parts of our country benefit from international trade and NAFTA. Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud our colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee for recognizing the importance of I-35 to the continued economic growth of the United States. I look forward to continuing to work with them and all the Members of the House on doing all that we can to realize the benefits of international trade and NAFTA."

longeyes
June 17, 2006, 12:40 PM
If your hand isn't raised, then you probably believe like I do that the government will use every legitimate excuse it can to bury or hide information that will cause those representing us to become unelected. To me, this means that if I want to protect my rights, I have the responsibility of informing myself on the issues that are important to me - just like I have the responsibility of protecting my family, even though the government may occasionally be able to help out in either case.

Which is precisely why I launched this thread. I try to learn things and I try to pass along anything I deem important.

Bartholomew Roberts
June 17, 2006, 01:05 PM
Which is precisely why I launched this thread. I try to learn things and I try to pass along anything I deem important.

Yeah, it is ironic you and I are often discussing these issues since you are one of the more involved people I talk with.

The Real Hawkeye
June 17, 2006, 01:06 PM
Which is precisely why I launched this thread. I try to learn things and I try to pass along anything I deem important.I, for one, knew nothing about this until Longeye's original post in the thread. That says something, since I tend to be more informed than about 90% of the people I come across. Someone has made a decision to keep this one off the front pages. This suggests to me an alliance between the "powers behind the throne" and those who make the big decisions in the news industry. Scary stuff. :uhoh:

Waitone
June 17, 2006, 03:46 PM
I'd love to have access to Lexus-Nexus database. That way I could see how a story is told and developed over time. Totalization as a story was out there but IIRC it was a series of 3 liners in wire coverage. There was precious little ANALYSIS of its meaning. Same with the developing smuggling pipline. I'd love to be able to see how the story developed, what was said, and who said it.

JohnBT
June 17, 2006, 07:53 PM
I suppose it's just hidden in plain sight. John

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6370-2005Feb7.html

February 2005 <<== Washington Post article, 3rd page of the A section, too.

And a selected quote - "Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) first proposed the Trans-Texas Corridor project in his 2002 reelection campaign. (Eric Gay -- AP) "
________________________________________________________

Texans Are Divided Over Plan for Miles Of Wide Toll Roads
Funding, Property Issues Debated

By Sylvia Moreno
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 8, 2005; Page A03

AUSTIN -- Everything's big in the Lone Star State, but the term "superhighway" barely begins to describe Texas's transportation plan for the 21st century.

Called the Trans-Texas Corridor, it is the most ambitious highway project since the Eisenhower administration introduced the interstate system in the 1950s. The $184 billion, 50-year plan calls for building 4,000 miles of roadways up to a quarter-mile wide. Each corridor would contain six high-speed toll lanes for cars and trucks; six rail lines and easements for petroleum, natural gas and water pipelines, as well as electric, broadband and other telecommunications lines.


Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) first proposed the Trans-Texas Corridor project in his 2002 reelection campaign. (Eric Gay -- AP)

With Texas's population expected to double to 50 million in the next few decades and NAFTA-fueled cross-border trade increasing, the new corridor would move people and goods on these mega-highways from the Mexican border to Oklahoma and from the piney woods of East Texas to the El Paso desert. Cars and trucks could zip along at 85 mph. Oil could be piped out of Mexico across the country. Water from the Louisiana border could flow into drought-stricken West Texas. And hazardous materials could be routed out of Houston and Dallas, improving the state's ability to prevent terrorist attacks or other disasters.

The price would be minimal to taxpayers, say state officials, who are seeking private companies to finance, develop, build and maintain the corridor in exchange for the right to charge tolls for half a century.

Gov. Rick Perry (R) calls the corridor a "vision," and transportation experts are watching to see whether the Texas plan will work in other states that are contending with clogged roads and scarce highway funding. The project's reliance on tolls would mean a significant shift in how road construction is paid for and might not easily translate to such states as Ohio, Washington and Indiana that recently decided a gasoline tax increase to pay for highway construction was more palatable than creating more toll roads.

"The Texas concept has great potential that the rest of the country could benefit from looking at," said John Horsley, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. "Is this a panacea? . . . I think the jury is out on that."

Opponents have lined up against the plan, worried about the environmental impact, the trampling of property rights, the expense of tolls and the loss of business along already established interstate routes.

"What's going to happen when they come across our farms and ranches that have been in some families for generations?" said cotton farmer and Texas Farm Bureau President Kenneth Dierschke. "You could be sitting on your back porch looking at this corridor and looking at your property on the other side."

In December, the Texas Transportation Commission chose a private consortium led by a Madrid-based toll road operator to construct the first segment of the corridor. Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte SA, in conjunction with a San Antonio construction company, will build 316 miles of four-lane turnpike, with substantial room for expansion, from north of Dallas to east of San Antonio. The cities are connected by the most congested portion of Interstate 35 in Texas -- a stretch of road packed with commuters at rush hour and freight trucks round-the-clock. The "Trans-Texas Corridor 35" will be built east of and parallel to I-35 and construction will begin, subject to environmental approval, in the next five years.

Cintra will spend $6 billion to build the highway and will give the state an additional $1.2 billion to fund other road-improvement projects along I-35, Texas's primary NAFTA truck route. In exchange, Cintra will get the right to charge state-approved tolls on the road for 50 years. The Texas Transportation Department will spend $3.5 million to develop the master plan for the turnpike, but other details are still being worked out. Officials expect to sign a contract with Cintra this month.

Private-public transportation contracts make some analysts wary. The Southern Environmental Law Center, which monitors transportation projects in six states, found that similar agreements in Virginia, for example, are costing taxpayers millions through the subsidies or tax-exempt bonds the state has provided to private road contractors.

"With tighter transportation dollars, there's an obvious appeal" to private-public projects, said Trip Pollard, the center's director of land and community projects. "But people have to realize, it comes out of the public's pocket, whether it's taxes or tolls. . . . There's no free lunch with these projects."

For now, Texas officials are touting the first phase of their new superhighway.

"To Texans stuck in traffic now, know that help is on the way," Perry said last week in his State of the State address. "This toll project will allow us to build the needed corridors sooner and cheaper."



CONTINUED 1 2 Next >

Sergeant Bob
June 17, 2006, 08:11 PM
It doesn't matter how well informed a very small percentage of the people are cause "Nobody else gives a damn until the crap hits the fan".
By then it's a little late.

Thin Black Line
June 18, 2006, 08:02 AM
The cycle repeats itself as the new reps learn there will be good so-called
private sector "consultant" jobs for them after they leave office. Likewise,
the direct hire state and federal beaurocrats can leave government service
and work for the same companies they once had to regulate. The money
buys them out over the interests of We The People. Incestuous? Yes, and
this is the system that has inbred itself deformed stupid offspring that can't
function properly in the social envrionment. They're blind, aggressive, and
selfish and therefore take advantage of their passive peers.

Once again I only had to "open the paper" the next morning to find yet
another article clearly illustrating the problem. Keep in mind this is just
one agency:

http://www.newsobserver.com/110/story/452063.html


Homeland Security bigwigs rush to profit as lobbyists

THE NEW YORK TIMES

Eric Lipton, The New York Times

WASHINGTON - Dozens of members of the Bush administration's domestic security team, assembled after the 2001 terrorist attacks, are now collecting bigger paychecks in different roles: working on behalf of companies that sell domestic security products, many directly to the federal agencies the officials once helped run.

At least 90 officials at the Department of Homeland Security or the White House Office of Homeland Security -- including the department's former secretary, Tom Ridge -- are executives, consultants or lobbyists for companies that collectively do billions of dollars' worth of domestic security business.

More than two-thirds of the department's most senior executives in its first years have moved through the revolving door. That pattern raises questions for some former officials.

Federal law prohibits senior executive branch officials from lobbying former government colleagues or subordinates for at least a year after leaving public service. ***But by exploiting loopholes in the law -- including one provision drawn up by department executives to facilitate their entry into the business world -- it is often easy for former officials to do just that.***

Doncha love how "loopholes" are used by a select few who pretty much just
wrote it in for themselves in the first place? :barf: So how's that for
"representative" government?


The shift to the private sector is hardly without precedent in Washington, where generations of former administration officials have sought higher-paying jobs in industries they once regulated. But veteran Washington lobbyists and watchdog groups say the exodus of such a sizable share of an agency's senior management before the end of an administration has few modern parallels.

"It is almost like an initial public offering in the stock market," Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, based in Washington, said of the booming domestic security market. "Everyone wants a piece of it."

What troubles Amey is not the lucrative paychecks earned by former officials, but what he sees as an effort to disregard the spirit of the lobbying ban in pursuit of those rewards.

"It is a dirty way to get around the conflict-of-interest and ethics rules," Amey said. "It is legal. But is it appropriate? I don't think so."

FAST-REVOLVING DOOR Examples of former Homeland Security workers who became lobbyists for companies that do business with the department shortly after their departure:

MICHAEL J. PETRUCELLI: Once acting director of citizenship and immigration services, he moved within months of leaving his post in July 2005 to a job in which he lobbied the Coast Guard, another unit of the department, to test a power-supply device made by his new employer, GridPoint.

VICTOR X. CERDA: Within a few months of his 2005 departure as acting director of the agency that handles the detention of illegal immigrants, he was hired by a company that is a top contractor for that agency. With Cerda's help, the company is now seeking millions of dollars in new agency business.


What also happens is that people "revolve" back into the government
beaurocracy again....this is true of both Democrats or Republicans. I
see little difference between the two.

The Real Hawkeye
June 18, 2006, 08:36 AM
Thin Black Line, you make an excellent point illustrating the uselessness of electing members of either major party. The only way out of this revolving door is a third party made up of true believers. I won't waste any more of my votes on Republicans.

308win
June 18, 2006, 08:45 AM
a third party made up of true believers

What exactly do these 'true believers' believe? If it weren't for their positions on drugs and immigration (with some minor niggling with their positions on economic policy) I could bring myself to vote for a Libertarian.

The Real Hawkeye
June 18, 2006, 09:15 AM
What exactly do these 'true believers' believe? If it weren't for their positions on drugs and immigration (with some minor niggling with their positions on economic policy) I could bring myself to vote for a Libertarian.I'm with you on immigration (with an explanation to follow), but not on the drug issue. The only drugs I use are by prescription, other than the occasional beer, class of wine or mixed drink, but I am opposed to any law that says people cannot put whatever chemical or substance they wish into their system. That whole concept seems insane to me.

Now, as for immigration, if we lived in a truly free country, where one person wasn't required to work for the particular benefit of others, and absent any aspects of the nanny state, there'd be no particular danger in open borders. I'd still probably be against open borders, but if an immigrant would gain no particular benefit by immigrating, unless he had the ability to benefit the society he is immigrating to, then there wouldn't be any huge mass of people seeking to immigrate into the US. Only those who speak the language we speak, and who have skills actually in demand here would be motivated to come. I.e., it would be the way it was back in the 18th and 19th Centuries. They'd come for opportunity, not for an easier life at the expense of others. That would be a much smaller and more manageable number. I think this is what the libertarian party means when it states that it generally favors open boarders. I don't think they intend, as soon as they are in power, to open the borders up before they are successful in eliminating the nanny state.

Sergeant Bob
June 18, 2006, 11:13 AM
a third party made up of true believers
And once they got into power they'd be lining their pockets just like the rest of the criminals in government.
People are people, That's never going to change.

ravencon
June 18, 2006, 11:19 AM
In discussing this story a friend of mine made this spot on comment:

Bush is seeming more and more like the villain in a James Bond movie.

TallPine
June 18, 2006, 11:25 AM
Only those who speak the language we speak, and who have skills actually in demand here would be motivated to come. I.e., it would be the way it was back in the 18th Century.

I know what you're getting at, but that's not exactly true. A lot of people have landed on our shores with nothing but a willingness (or necessity) to work hard. In fact it is somewhat sad to me that my own ancestors were so good at assimilating and being successful that the native language was discarded very quickly and not handed down at least as a second language.

If it weren't for their positions on drugs and immigration (with some minor niggling with their positions on economic policy) I could bring myself to vote for a Libertarian.
I'm having a hard time figuring out what is the difference in position on immigration between the Libertarians and Republicans :confused:

One says that we should allow unlimited legal immigration while the other says that we should allow unlimited illegal immigration :rolleyes:

longeyes
June 18, 2006, 12:51 PM
Size matters. A nation-state built on The Individual and on individual rights, such as our Republic, is, in purely practical terms, going to be more and more bent out of shape as it increases in size, especially if membership in that society is unselective. The idea of unlimited immigration, whether legal or illegal, is folly. The bigger America gets the more it pads its welfare state and the more it drifts toward socialism.

Reason matters. The predicates of liberty, rooted in the Enlightenment, require rational citizens. A society built on opiates, of any kind, is a society that respects pleasure more than freedom.

The Real Hawkeye
June 18, 2006, 01:07 PM
Reason matters. The predicates of liberty, rooted in the Enlightenment, require rational citizens. A society built on opiates, of any kind, is a society that respects pleasure more than freedom.Wow! Longeyes, I hate to point this out to a guy I agree with on most things, but there is a gaping hole in your analysis here. A free society would not in any way shape or form be "built on opiates," which were perfectly legal when this really was a free country, and didn't cause serious large scale problems. It is our present day politically corrupted American society that is built on opiates. Opiates are a major corrupting factor on all levels of government. What gives it such power to corrupt? It's illegality. Take that away, and it's corrupting powers fade into the background. People who choose to ruin their lives will do so whether or not it's illegal.

Those who would use government power in corrupt ways love for substances and objects to be illegal. This gives them the power to destroy their rivals and to make a huge "under the table" profit, indirectly, from the sale of those substances. The potential to use their illegality to their own advantage is too huge a temptation for mere human beings, elected to political office, to resist.

Think about it. Why is the government so willing to kill anyone who might flush a bag of dope down the drain? Do you think its because they desperately don't want that person to ruin his life? No. They don't care if that person ruins his life. They are defending their turf, i.e., the profits associated with illegal drugs. They are not profiting when small scale operators are allowed to do their own thing, and the violent reaction to the sale and use of drugs also helps keep prices up, thus more profits for them by way of the increased merketability of their potential to use government power in a corrupt fashion.

longeyes
June 18, 2006, 01:23 PM
I'm not arguing for another Prohibition or a nastier War on Drugs, I am really saying that Government itself has become an opiate to go along with the opiate of conspicuous consumerism and the obsessive mental distractions of "mass media." Now I understand that Natty Bumppo threw back with the best of them--though I don't recall the chapter and verse--but he was already a free man whose mind-altering was in the interests of greater, not lesser, liberty.

longeyes
June 18, 2006, 01:29 PM
Hawkeye, I don't know that we disagree. I'm saying: Take the money out of "opiates." Take the desperation out of them too. And the addiction. Zorba said that unless a man could get in touch with his "madness" and "cut the cord" he would never really be free. How we get to that "madness"--or is it higher Reason?--should be up to us.

The Real Hawkeye
June 18, 2006, 01:33 PM
Ok. Guess I misunderstood your earlier comment.

longeyes
June 18, 2006, 01:45 PM
Problems surround us, but we should try to keep Government out of our solutions as much as we can.

I certainly concur that we are evolving a narco-economy, both literally and figuratively, and it appears to be global in scope.

wingman
June 18, 2006, 02:42 PM
The idea of unlimited immigration, whether legal or illegal, is folly. The bigger America gets the more it pads its welfare state and the more it drifts toward socialism.




More people=more crime=more laws+police=less freedom.

mcosman
June 18, 2006, 05:55 PM
I say build it, Probably never happen. But I have read what others have posted here and I disagree on what it means for this country. I do not see the downside. I say bypassing the Unionized ports of the east and left coast are a good thing. I am tired of paying more for stuff because dome guys want to be paid more than I get for doing less work.

I am a dyed in the wool capitolist guys and I believe that free markets are a solution not a problem. NAFTA and CAFTA are good things for the US, and more specifically good things for other countries too. This is the man I elected President and I am glad that some of these ideas are being kicked around.

Matt

Shweboner
June 18, 2006, 06:57 PM
makes you wonder if opposition groups will sabotage the construction of the road? I wonder what kind of security you might find there to deter a little 'domestic terrorism'???


Just a thought that crossed my mind as I see this being viewed as a threat to US sovereignty, etc.


could be interesting times.

longeyes
June 18, 2006, 10:37 PM
If the "free market" guys want to set themselves against America, so be it. National survival trumps any economic system. Either Government will come down on illegal alien employers or someone else will, that's my prediction.

Art Eatman
June 18, 2006, 10:57 PM
longeyes, just what in the world is common between expanded transportation systems and illegal aliens?

Separately, a true Liberttarian oughta be in favor of this deal. After all, it's putting a public use facility into the private sector, removing it from Guvmint.

:), Art

Waitone
June 18, 2006, 11:28 PM
Separately, a true Libertarian oughta be in favor of this deal. After all, it's putting a public use facility into the private sector, removing it from Guvmint.As much as I really, really try I can't quite convince myself that treaties like NAFTA, CAFTA, and FTAA are expressions of free market capitalism. I would love to just swallow the concept and free up mental disc space for other concerns. I just can't. I can't quite convince myself that the progeny of the trade agreements are true expressions of capitalism. I instead keep telling myself we are seeing the latest variation of foreign aide. Be a good little country and do what we, the benevolent US, wants done and we will reward the good little country will grant preferrential access to our markets. Don't do what we want and all kinds of unpleasantness will descend upon you.

Another little issue getting NO play is the sovereignty limiting provisions of all the "free trade" agreements we sign. If we are looking at free market capitalism we have no need for tens of thousands of bureaucrats to enforce trade agreements. We have no need for sovereignty limiting courts, panels, boards, commissions, etc. In free market capitalism a willing buyer and a willing seller enter into an agreement. Instead we the anthesis of free. We see rules and regulation. It all seems pointed in one direction and that being limitation on individual life, liberty, and property and the magnification of the state and political clients of the state.

I welcome the evident appearance of "free market" principals in international trade. I have real questions about the ultimate purpose.

longeyes
June 18, 2006, 11:35 PM
Perhaps this mega-highway was predicated on the concept that by the time it was completed there would be no illegal aliens because there would be no borders? How do we know what those Mexican trucks will be transporting?

The illegal alien problem has many aspects. One, of course, is the elimination of the concept of national sovereignty. That's how this program presents itself to me. I say put it up for public scrutiny and let America decide how good an idea it really is, especially right now.

And you don't find disturbing a "protected" highway that cuts your country in half like a DMZ? Built by a foreign contractor?

I don't think this is about "expanded transportation." Why not enlarge our existing ports and improve our own existing highways from both coasts?

longeyes
June 18, 2006, 11:42 PM
In most things I am a libertarian, true, but I interpret libertarianism as a political system that has for its highest priority the empowerment of the individual. That is emphatically not what we are seeing with the ascendacy of the trans-national corporation and its unholy alliance with ever-growing and increasingly less representative governments. There is nothing individualistic or democratic about modern, large-scale corporations. They are no more accountable than the deaf politicians, blind justices, and dumb bureaucrats that have seized so much of American life.

LAK
June 19, 2006, 07:38 AM
Regarding the issue of gov responsibility and public awareness.

Firstly, the gov - in general - is all too aware of what many think of this project and why, taking into account all the related subjects involved. They are also aware of the fact that this is just a part of a larger agenda. They do what they must and only what they must; go through the legal steps, and it all get's recorded in the register as required. There are a couple of press releases, and they issue their usual [downplaying] "I appreciate your concerns .." replies to those who collar them in writing over the matter.

The gov does not have to do anymore in order to "conceal" this, and there is a standard pattern of m.o. They have their priimary level of the control of information in the form of the mainstream mass media - who will dutyfully fail to make the subject a major and continuing story. This is how the game is played, and the m.o. can be applied to any subject they please, and has been evident so many times before.

Those citizens or groups who followup on subjects like this either directly through their gov channels, or via the internet through persistant research - are not going to see the subject dissected and continually hammered on CNN or FOX. They are not going to get a chance to challenge an elected gov official on primetime national TV, or with Larry King.

Thus a major portion of citizens will not even be aware of it at all; and of those that note the limited press news stories, a good portion will think it's "a great way to boost trade, tourism and boost the community spirit north and south". And swallow it wholesale.

In the meantime, the usual mysteriously organized and funded "pro Pan-America Highway Citizens" groups will suddenly appear. Now the major media will pick up on it, and treat it in the usual "pro and con" [subjective] fashion, and air the more obvious arguements of both "sides".

And ultimately, the project will roll forward - with of course the ubiquitous "checks and safeguards" to placate those contrary folk and their [mere] "concerns". Both gov and media mouthpieces can sit there smugly and say, "What do you mean "coverup" .. ?"

Seeing it played on TV is all very much like watching a kangaroo court in progress; where you are muzzled as a member of the public gallery. Whether you have jumped into the letter writing and protesting etc - or not.

------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

The Real Hawkeye
June 19, 2006, 08:42 AM
LAK, that's an excellent analysis.

Waitone
June 19, 2006, 09:08 AM
Another little issue getting NO play is the sovereignty limiting provisions of all the "free trade" agreements we sign.Sorry about quoting myself. To the point of sovereignty limiting provisions of "trade agreements" I find the following (highlighting added) http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15623
North American Union Would Trump U.S. Supreme Court

by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted Jun 19, 2006

The Bush Administration is pushing to create a North American Union out of the work on-going in the Department of Commerce under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America in the NAFTA office headed by Geri Word. A key part of the plan is to expand the NAFTA tribunals into a North American Union court system that would have supremacy over all U.S. law, even over the U.S. Supreme Court, in any matter related to the trilateral political and economic integration of the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Right now, Chapter 11 of the NAFTA agreement allows a private NAFTA foreign investor to sue the U.S. government if the investor believes a state or federal law damages the investor’s NAFTA business.

Under Chapter 11, NAFTA establishes a tribunal that conducts a behind closed-doors “trial” to decide the case according to the legal principals established by either the World Bank’s International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes or the UN’s Commission for International Trade Law. If the decision is adverse to the U.S., the NAFTA tribunal can impose its decision as final, trumping U.S. law, even as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. laws can be effectively overturned and the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunal can impose millions or billions of dollars in fines on the U.S. government, to be paid ultimately by the U.S. taxpayer.

On Aug. 9, 2005, a three-member NAFTA tribunal dismissed a $970 million claim filed by Methanex Corp., a Canadian methanol producer challenging California laws that regulate against the gasoline additive MTBE. The additive MTBE was introduced into gasoline to reduce air pollution from motor vehicle emissions. California regulations restricted the use of MTBE after the additive was found to contaminate drinking water and produce a health hazard. Had the case been decided differently, California’s MTBE regulations would have been overturned and U.S. taxpayers forced to pay Methanex millions in damages.

While this case was decided favorably to U.S. laws, we can rest assured that sooner or later a U.S. law will be overruled by the NAFTA Chapter 11 adjudicative procedure, as long as the determinant law adjudicated by the NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals continues to derive from World Court or UN law. Once a North American Union court structure is in place can almost certainly predict that a 2nd Amendment challenge to the right to bear arms is as inevitable under a North American Union court structure as is a challenge to our 1st Amendment free speech laws. Citizens of both Canada and Mexico cannot freely own firearms. Nor can Canadians or Mexicans speak out freely without worrying about “hate crimes” legislation or other political restrictions on what they may choose to say.

Like it or not, NAFTA Chapter 11 tribunals already empower foreign NAFTA investors and corporations to challenge the sovereignty of U.S. law in the United States. Sen. John Kerry (D.-Mass.) has been quoted as saying, “When we debated NAFTA, not a single word was uttered in discussing Chapter 11. Why? Because we didn’t know how this provision would play out. No one really knew just how high the stakes would get.” Again, we have abundant proof that Congress is unbelievably lax when it comes to something as fundamental as reading or understanding the complex laws our elected legislators typically pass.

Under the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) plan expressed in May 2005 for building NAFTA into a North American Union, the stakes are about to get even higher. A task force report titled “Building a North American Community” was written to provide a blueprint for the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America agreement signed by President Bush in his meeting with President Fox and Canada’s then-Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005.

The CFR plan clearly calls for the establishment of a “permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution” as part of the new regional North American Union (NAU) governmental structure that is proposed to go into place in 2010. As the CFR report details on page 22:

The current NAFTA dispute-resolution process is founded on ad hoc panels that are not capable of building institutional memory or establishing precedent, may be subject to conflicts of interest, and are appointed by authorities who may have an incentive to delay a given proceeding. As demonstrated by the efficiency of the World Trade Organization (WTO) appeal process, a permanent tribunal would likely encourage faster, more consistent and more predictable resolution of disputes. In addition, there is a need to review the workings of NAFTA’s dispute-settlement mechanism to make it more efficient, transparent, and effective.

Robert Pastor of American University, the vice chairman of the CFR task force report, provided much of the intellectual justification for the formation of the North American Union. He has repeatedly argued for the creation of a North American Union “Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment.” Pastor understands that a “permanent court would permit the accumulation of precedent and lay the groundwork for North American business law.” Notice, Pastor says nothing about U.S. business law or the U.S. Supreme Court. In the view of the globalists pushing toward the formation of the North American Union, the U.S. is a partisan nation-state whose limitations of economic protectionism and provincial self-interest are outdated and as such must be transcended, even if the price involves sacrificing U.S. national sovereignty.

When it comes to the question of illegal immigrants, Pastor’s solution is to erase our borders with Mexico and Canada so we can issue North American Union passports to all citizens. In his testimony to the Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 9, 2005, Pastor made this exact argument: “Instead of stopping North Americans on the borders, we ought to provide them with a secure, biometric Border Pass that would ease transit across the border like an E-Z pass permits our cars to speed though toll booths.”

Even Pastor worries about the potential for North American Unions to overturn U.S. laws that he likes. Regarding environmental laws, Pastor’s testimony to the Trilateral Commission in November 2002 was clear on this point: “Some narrowing or clarification of the scope of Chapter 11 panels on foreign investment is also needed to permit the erosion of environmental rules.” Evidently it did not occur to Pastor that the way to achieve the protection he sought was to leave the sovereignty of U.S. and the supremacy of the U.S. Supreme Court intact.

The executive branch under the Bush Administration is quietly putting in place a behind-the-scenes trilateral regulatory scheme, evidently without any direct congressional input, that should provide the rules by which any NAFTA or NAU court would examine when adjudicating NAU trade disputes. The June 2005 report by the SPP working groups organized in the U.S. Department of Commerce, clearly states the goal:

We will develop a trilateral Regulatory Cooperative Framework by 2007 to support and enhance existing, as well as encourage new cooperation among regulators, including at the outset of the regulatory process.

We wonder if the Bush Administration intends to present the Trilateral Regulatory Cooperative Framework now being constructed by SPP.gov to Congress for review in 2007, or will the administration simply continue along the path of knitting together the new NAU regional governmental structure behind closed doors by executive fiat? Ms. Word affirms that the membership of the various SPP working group committees has not been published. Nor have the many memorandums of understanding and other trilateral agreements created by these SPP working groups been published, not even on the Internet.

longeyes
June 19, 2006, 10:58 AM
Well, there it is. Props to Corsi.

This is not just highway improvement, folks.

Art Eatman
June 19, 2006, 11:17 AM
I don't argue about the Nafta notions or the illegal alien problem with any of the previous pages' worth of postings. The way all this is being "sold" and the possible bad-guy-ness of the possible owner/operator may well be all wrong.

But I don't think Nafta will go away.

So lemme ask this: Does anybody think that the US population, and the Texas population, will not grow? Similarly for the volume of business, and the volume of transportation of all sorts?

I've said that I believe--and I ain't alone--that parts of our Interstate system are overloaded. Same for some parts of our rail systems.

So what's the alternative? And, which is better? A coordinated, planned expansion to deal with the next fifty years? Or a sorta hodge-podge "every man for himself" build here, build there, whatever?

IOW, there are somewhere around three different arguments going on, and the present structure of the opposition is creating a situation of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

If public opposition kills this Corridor-concept project, about all I could advise is to stay way away from I-35...

Damfino,

Art

Biker
June 19, 2006, 11:27 AM
The population is growing so rapidly precisely *because* of immigration, illegal in particular. The strains are showing up everywhere, including our infrastructure. The solution, at least a big part of it, seems obvious to me.
Again from the Bush administration comes the Problem-Reaction-Solution plan.
Hegel would be proud.

Biker

longeyes
June 19, 2006, 11:27 AM
If we have labor problems at our ports, let's address those. If we need to revamp our interstate highway system, let's do that. Hey, we might even need an energy-independence program. Who's against progress?

But this? This is not a solution to a "problem" that exists anywhere except in the minds of a globalist cabal. We can forge good long-term relations with Mexico and Canada without expunging our precious two-century political legacy and radically undoing our own sovereignty and culture. Turning over our future to a small group of unelected bureaucrats? This is a profanation.

More than anything I am struck by the hubris evinced by this plan. Next comes the Greek tragedy.

wingman
June 19, 2006, 12:35 PM
If public opposition kills this Corridor-concept project, about all I could advise is to stay way away from I-35...

Art i do that now 1-35 in my opinion is a death trap, too much drug traffic
with drivers using their product and an overall lack of common sense on
the part of all drivers. I do not see the "corridor-concept" providing any
relief for this state other then to increase crime.


Hey, we might even need an energy-independence program. Who's against progress?

Longeyes I believe I am against some progress that benefits a small segment of society, as I age a controlled population growth with less change "may" in many cases bring a better quality of life rather then simply change to add bucks to a few pockets or an increase in the stock market.

longeyes
June 19, 2006, 12:41 PM
Longeyes I believe I am against some progress that benefits a small segment of society, as I age a controlled population growth with less change "may" in many cases bring a better quality of life rather then simply change to add bucks to a few pockets or an increase in the stock market.

I agree with you. Certainly we need to look carefully at who really benefits and at what price.

"Progress" that de facto nullifies our Bill of Rights isn't progress.

JohnBT
June 19, 2006, 08:53 PM
Art, these sorts of projects are popping up lots of places. There's a serious proposal floating around to build a toll road for trucks next to I-81 in Virginia.

""They're going to put down eight acres per mile of new pavement in a project 325 miles long..."

The projected toll is estimated at $100 per truck and most of the trucks will pay that much because they're just passing through Virginia. They could always go cross country and go up I-95. :)

The folks in the Shennandoah Valley are pitching a fit. Of course, I-81 is a nightmare now and it isn't getting any better.

http://www.taxpayer.net/road2ruin/images/maps/i-81.gif

John

Art Eatman
June 19, 2006, 09:43 PM
Well, whether I-81, I-35 or parts of I-10 (and others), if you wait long enough to "fix" a problem, it just gets worster and worster. :)

I diagnosed my cancer in time for successful surgery. A buddy of mine didn't; same kind of cancer--but he's dead. Just like with highways, ya gotta keep an eye on the future, or problems will really mess you up.

You can't rationally blame all this on illegals or Mexico or Canada. We buy from and sell to those countries. And the illegals, 8% of our population, are
only a small part of our growth.

Hey, some of it is 'cause Old Farts like me won't die off early enough, and we buy stuff. My parents made it into their nineties, and I'm only 72 (come July).

Art

longeyes
June 19, 2006, 10:30 PM
Illegal aliens may be only eight per cent of our population but MOST of our population growth is currently being accounted for their offspring.

Of course The Rest of Us have something to do about that. One is reminded of the famous quote:

"Vivre? les serviteurs feront cela pour nous" ("Living? Our servants will do that for us")
~Auguste Villiers de L'isle-Adam

George Bush is Hegel in a cowboy hat.

longeyes
June 20, 2006, 08:47 PM
There are many forms of coups d'etat. We're watching one slowly unfold right now, all in the name of "progress."

The Real Hawkeye
June 20, 2006, 09:20 PM
There are many forms of coups d'etat. We're watching one slowly unfold right now, all in the name of "progress."Sadly, there has been at least one other coups d'etat, i.e., that of Honest Abe. By the end of the Civil War, Lincoln had succeeded in transforming our nation into one wholly different from that established by the Founders. The component parts of that new nation have been falling into place piece by piece ever since.

LAK
June 21, 2006, 07:26 AM
What Biker and The Real Hawkeye said.

It is not just illegal immigration though; we are way past the day when this country actually benefited from immigration and rapid growth. We have passed the point where we had plenty of room for an expanding homegrown population, and a gradual process of managable growth.

Houston Texas is a prime example. Whereas about thirty years ago it was a pretty healthy growing city it has since undergone a rapid and uncontrolled expansion to where it is now a chaotic mess in about all aspects. Illegal immigration and very lax legal immigration has all but finished the job.

The fact is, we do not need any more immigration into this country or "growth for growth's sake". We need a thorough housecleaning and consolidation.

The new highway coupled with CAFTA and it's next stages will only compound the current state of the problems we have. It is a destructive insanity.

We can trade with Canada and Mexico or any other country that has anything we can not produce ourselves and need, and via versa. A balance of trade goes beyond the simple monetary exchange for goods traded, it must maintain a business and employment environment that is conducive to an expanding middle class - not destroying it in preference to foreign countries. Unrestricted trade is folly.

------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

longeyes
June 21, 2006, 11:51 AM
+1

Obviously.

longeyes
June 22, 2006, 02:38 PM
3 Officers Among 4 Decapitated in Mexico
Police were responding to a kidnapping report when met by 100 armed men, witnesses say.
By Richard Marosi, Times Staff Writer
June 22, 2006

SAN DIEGO — Mexican authorities discovered the decapitated bodies of three police officers and a fourth man Wednesday near an empty lot in the seaside town of Rosarito Beach, about 15 miles south of the border.

The officers had gone missing Tuesday after responding to a report of a kidnapping. Witnesses said that the officers were intercepted by about 100 heavily armed, masked men dressed as Mexican federal agents, said a spokesman for the Baja California state attorney general's office.

The men's bodies showed signs of torture. Their heads were found in Tijuana, several miles away. Authorities said the men were the victims of an organized crime hit, the latest in a string of killings or attempted killings of law enforcement officials in Baja California.

Rosarito Beach, a popular weekend destination for Southern Californians, is also a heavily contested transshipment point for drug traffickers.

One of the victims — Benjamin Fabian Ventura, was the bodyguard of Rosarito Beach's former police chief, Carlos Bowser Miret, who was killed in an ambush slaying last year.

The other dead police officers are Jesus Hernandez Ballesteros and Ismael Arellano Torres. The fourth man was not identified.

Sergeant Bob
June 22, 2006, 05:10 PM
Rosarito Beach used to be such a nice place. :(

longeyes
June 22, 2006, 07:34 PM
Well, that's right, idyllic, absolutely.

Narco-economies exacerbate the worst aspects of tribalism. And that's what we are busy importing.

LAK
June 23, 2006, 09:39 AM
100 heavily armed, masked men dressed as Mexican federal agents
Hm; this m.o. again; wear the right clothes, cover the face, say the magic words - and those who meet you must prostrate themselves.

But 100 organized and professional thugs roaming around with impunity is a good illustration of just what kind of gov is running Mexico. Our suthun partna' that is going to be part of our "common security perimeter" in the new Pan-America.

--------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

longeyes
June 23, 2006, 01:47 PM
Precisely. A country where stuff like that happens is a country that has reverted to tribalism and savagery. And it doesn't matter if a lot of the savages wear thousand-dollar suits. Point is, Bush doesn't want to see this or hear this, too much money involved in just pushing the throttle of one big happy market forward.

If you enjoyed reading about "FOLLOW THE YELLOWBRICK ROAD - aka the NAFTA Super Highway" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!