North American Union Already Starting to Replace USA

HumanEventsOnline ^ | May 30, 2006 | Jerome R. Corsi

[NapkinUser]

In March 2005 at their summit meeting in Waco, Tex., President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin issued a joint statement announced the creation of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The creation of this new agreement was never submitted to Congress for debate and decision. Instead, the U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division under the same title to implement working groups to advance a North American Union working agenda in a wide range of areas, including: manufactured goods, movement of goods, energy, environment, e-commerce, financial services, business facilitation, food and agriculture, transportation, and health.

SPP is headed by three top cabinet level officers of each country. Representing the United States are Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Representing Mexico are Secretario de Econom�Fernando Canales, Secretario de Gobernaci󮠃arlos Abascal, and Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores, Luis Ernesto Derbéz. Representing Canada are Minister of Industry David L. Emerson, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety, Anne McLellan, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Stewart Pettigrew.

Reporting in June 2005 to the heads of state of the three countries, the trilateral SPP emphasized the extensive working group structure that had been established to pursue an ambitious agenda:

In carrying out your instructions, we established working groups under both agendas of the Partnership – Security and Prosperity. We held roundtables with stakeholders, meetings with business groups and briefing sessions with Legislatures, as well as with other relevant political jurisdictions. The result is a detailed series of actions and recommendations designed to increase the competitiveness of North America and the security of our people.

This is not a theoretical exercise being prepared so it can be submitted for review. Instead, SPP is producing an action agreement to be implemented directly by regulations, without any envisioned direct Congressional oversight.

Upon your review and approval, we will once again meet with stakeholders and work with them to implement the workplans that we have developed.

And again, the June 2005 SPP report stresses:

The success of our efforts will be defined less by the contents of the work plans than by the actual implementation of initiatives and strategies that will make North America more prosperous and more secure.

Reviewing the specific working agenda initiatives, the goal to implement directly is apparent. Nearly every work plan is characterized by action steps described variously as “our three countries signed a Framework of Common Principles …” or “we have signed a Memorandum of Understanding …,” or “we have signed a declaration of intent …” etc. Once again, none of the 30 or so working agendas makes any mention of submitting decisions to the U.S. Congress for review and approval. No new U.S. laws are contemplated for the Bush administration to submit to Congress. Instead, the plan is obviously to knit together the North American Union completely under the radar, through a process of regulations and directives issued by various U.S. government agencies.

What we have here is an executive branch plan being implemented by the Bush administration to construct a new super-regional structure completely by fiat. Yet, we can find no single speech in which President Bush has ever openly expressed to the American people his intention to create a North American Union by evolving NAFTA into this NAFTA-Plus as a first, implementing step.

Anyone who has wondered why President Bush has not bothered to secure our borders is advised to spend some time examining the SPP working groups’ agenda. In every area of activity, the SPP agenda stresses free and open movement of people, trade, and capital within the North American Union. Once the SPP agenda is implemented with appropriate departmental regulations, there will be no area of immigration policy, trade rules, environmental regulations, capital flows, public health, plus dozens of other key policy areas countries that the U.S. government will be able to decide alone, or without first consulting with some appropriate North American Union regulatory body. At best, our border with Mexico will become a speed bump, largely erased, with little remaining to restrict the essentially free movement of people, trade, and capital.

Canada has established an SPP working group within their Foreign Affairs department. Mexico has placed the SPP within the office of the Secretaria de Economia and created and extensive website for the Alianza Para La Securidad y La Prosperidad de Améica del Norte (ASPAN). On this Mexican website, ASPAN is described as “a permanent, tri-lateral process to create a major integration of North America.”

The extensive working group activity being implemented right now by the government of Mexico, Canada, and the United States is consistent with the blueprint laid out in the May 2005 report of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), titled “Building a North American Community.”

The Task Force’s central recommendation is the establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter. (page xvii)

The only borders or tariffs which would remain would be those around the continent, not those between the countries within:

Its (the North American Community’s) boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America. (page 3)

What will happen to the sovereignty of the United States? The model is the European Community. While the United States would supposedly remain as a country, many of our nation-state prerogatives would ultimately be superseded by the authority of a North American court and parliamentary body, just as the U.S. dollar would have to be surrendered for the “Amero,” the envisioned surviving currency of the North American Union. The CFR report left no doubt that the North American Union was intended to evolve through a series of regulatory decisions:

While each country must retain its right to impose and maintain unique regulations consonant with its national priorities and income level, the three countries should make a concerted effort to encourage regulatory convergence.

The three leaders highlighted the importance of addressing this issue at their March 2005 summit in Texas. The Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America they signed recognizes the need for a stronger focus on building the economic strength of the continent in addition to ensuring its security. To this end, it emphasizes regulatory issues. Officials in all three countries have formed a series of working groups under designated lead cabinet ministers. These working groups have been ordered to produce an action plan for approval by the leaders within ninety days, by late June 2005, and to report regularly thereafter. (pages 23-24)

Again, the CFR report says nothing about reporting to Congress or to the American people. What we have underway here with the SPP could arguably be termed a bureaucratic coup d’etat. If that is not the intent, then President Bush should rein in the bureaucracy until the American people have been fully informed of the true nature of our government’s desire to create a North American Union. Otherwise, the North American Union will become a reality in 2010 as planned. Right now, the only check or balance being exercised is arguably Congressional oversight of the executive bureaucracy, even though Congress itself might not fully appreciate what is happening.

Mr. Corsi is the author of several books, including "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (along with John O'Neill), "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" (along with Craig R. Smith), and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." He is a frequent guest on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show. He will soon co-author a new book with Jim Gilchrist on the Minuteman Project.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Possibly. But in any case the meaning should be clear enough.

[joanie-f]

Thanks for the recent pings to this travesty that is remaining pretty much unreported in the mainstream media.

To my mind, there are two types of people promoting the North American Union/CFR/NWO agenda:

(1) those whose low economic circumstances (a result of either government-imposed or sloth-imposed poverty) will cause them, and their progeny, to benefit from the ‘sharing’ of the current wealth of the continent, the largest portion of which has been created, and maintained for centuries, on the backs of pioneering, inventive, hard-working, prosperous Americans, and

(2) those who seek to gain immense ideological or personal power as a result of the socialization of America – a definite, deliberate by-product of the establishment of a North American economic and security community.

And the two most horrific goals that will need to be attained if George Bush’s and Vicente Fox’s ‘utopia’ is to become a reality are:

(1) America’s existence as a sovereign nation must cease to exist.

Nowhere does the Constitution specifically state that America’s sovereignty must be protected. But virtually every word in that magnificent blueprint implies and assumes so.

Our Founders did not envision a time when American leadership at the highest levels would allow unelected, unaccountable international policymakers to create global policy that affects the lives and liberties of the American people, and the sovereignty of the republic. The omnipotent, nebulous oligarchy that inevitably results from such policymaking is inherently inconsistent with the Constitution.

Sovereignty is founded upon the idea of the consent of the governed, and the protection of the governed from outside interference or unsolicited outside influence. If global policymakers (or our own leaders, working in tandem with the leaders of other countries or international organizations) are allowed to make policy that reaches within the borders of America, they are simply ‘legislating’ without our Constitutional guarantee of representation.

Over the past fifty-plus years, our Constitution, our national sovereignty, and the Founders’ allegiance to limited government have been eroded beyond recognition … in large part because of the mishandling of international treaties/agreements/declarations (the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America among the most recent egregious example), and insistently characterizing them as legitimate surrogates for the American legislative process.

(2) The idea must be promoted that self-interest, self-protection and personal success is wicked and intolerant, and that a ‘we-are-the-world/equality-of-outcome’ mindset is a sign of a compassionate, highly advanced culture

The report of the Security and Prosperity Partnership Task Force simply reeks of both (1) and (2) above. It speaks, over and over again, of the fact that ‘we’ (the citizens of the U.S., Canada and Mexico) must strive to reach two ultimate goals:

(1) making our ‘continent’ less vulnerable to a terrorist attack, and

(2) addressing the ‘uneven economic development’ within the continent.

I am concerned about protecting America from the threat of terrorism. Once my country is secure, then, and only then, will my concern expand to the protection of the continent on North America.

Strangely enough, one of the three participants in the Prosperity Partnership has done nothing at all to diminish threats to U.S. security – and has, in fact, bent over backwards regarding illegal immigration across our southern border to see to it that that border remains porous, not only for its own citizens to cross northward into the U.S., but for Islamic terrorists to gain unfettered access as well. Vicente Fox’s signature is ludicrous on a document, one of whose two primary goals is to make America less vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

Vicente Fox has everything to gain in the realization of a North American Union. No sacrifice or deprivation involved, and mountains of political and economic benefits to reap through the sacrifice of others.

As regards the addressing of ‘uneven economic development’ … since when is it the responsibility of the American working man to make certain that a man living several thousand miles north or south of him enjoys comparable ‘economic development’? More importantly, where in the Constitutional definition of the powers of the federal government does the state have the power to demand such ‘concern’ from its citizens?

The average working American has been forced, unconstitutionally, to provide for other Americans who are ‘economically disadvantaged’ for decades. Gargantuan socialist entitlement programs (some of which our current president himself has authored) have succeeded in bleeding the American worker dry in an attempt to even the playing field, when much of the time those who benefit from such programs have been voluntarily sitting on the sidelines and refusing to take part in the risk, effort and exertion involved in achieving economic success.

Now our leadership has decided to expand the field upon which the American worker must play. We are now not only responsible for attaining ‘economic fairness’ within our own borders. We must now (non-voluntarily) share the fruits of our labors (and the ingenuity and industry of our ancestors) with the citizens of other countries. And these citizens of other countries have a right to ‘share’ in our economic success simply by virtue of the fact that they happen to inhabit the same continent.

Not only is the American citizen expected to continue to invent, produce, design, manufacture, and inspire others to do so … as he has done successfully for more than two centuries. Not only is he now ordered by the state to donate a large portion of the fruits of his labors to his ‘less economically advantaged’ countrymen. But now he is expected to (again, non-voluntarily) broaden his ‘compassion horizon’ and work for the economic betterment of the citizens of neighboring countries as well.

Why are Americans’ lives and liberties hanging in the balance? And why is the sovereignty of the American republic threatened more than at any time in her history?

Because, for the first time in our history, leadership at the highest levels of our government has abandoned the vision of the American republic, and has instead sworn allegiance to an elitist, one-world ideology in which the borders of this nation are perceived as an inconvenient roadblock to the realization of the globalist agenda.

There will be no ‘wall’ (physical or otherwise) built along our southern border. Mexicans by the thousands will daily continue to stream into our country. Islamo-fascists will cross that border as well. And I don’t know which threat is worse … the dissolution of America’s borders as we are swallowed up by the North American Union, or the prospect of a worse-than-9/11 attack by madmen from the Middle East.

By leaving our southern border virtually unattended, our leadership is purposefully engineering one, or both.

~ joanie
(Allegiance and Duty Betrayed)

[TAdams8591]

"Vicente Fox has everything to gain in the realization of a North American Union. No sacrifice or deprivation involved, and mountains of political and economic benefits to reap through the sacrifice of others."

Replace Vecente Fox with Mexico and fuly agreed.

"By leaving our southern border virtually unattended, our leadership is purposefully engineering one, or both."

It is hard to conclude this reckless neglect isn't purposeful. But purposely or not it's being done, and must be stopped!

Nice blog, joanie! Well done! : )

[TigersEye]

And I don’t know which threat is worse … the dissolution of America’s borders as we are swallowed up by the North American Union, or the prospect of a worse-than-9/11 attack by madmen from the Middle East.

By leaving our southern border virtually unattended, our leadership is purposefully engineering one, or both.

The consequences of actions are inevitable whether intended or not. As usual your vision is clear and acute as regards the outcome of current events.

What still amazes me (and probably shouldn't) is that these Engineers of a Brave New World act is if they were working in a vacuum. Do they really think they can usurp the authority of the people without an opposite and equal reaction?

Whether the government actually uses violence or not it is still using force to achieve its ends. And therein lies the fault that will hang them and bring us all to ruin. They seek their own ends not the will of the people.

That force is backed up with the threat of violence which is not only implied by statute it is regularly exerted when its authority is resisted. And rightly so when, for example, someone robs a liquor store and then tries to evade arrest. But it is far from right when their coercions demand that we surrender our consent to be governed.

Such will not stand and the backlash will be as furious as anything the would-be architects of our NWO have ever imagined imposing on those who resist them. No amount of intimidation, muscle or slick indoctrination can or will prevent, circumvent or purify the inexorable fruition of their actions. The divine law of cause and effect will play out regardless of their efforts or their intentions whether good or bad.

Whether by God or by the enlightened minds of our Founders we were given a government "of the people, by the people and for the people." As a people we have known it, embraced it and lived it. The human mind and heart once freed and having tasted liberty cannot be easily chained again. It is the nature of mind to be free and however far we have to go to be completely God-like in freedom and wisdom we will not be walking backwards.

Nor will we, as a people, forget our previous achievements. We can only be forced to abandon our liberty through intimidation or deceit and by the very nature of the human mind their attempts to do so will be held in contempt and disgust.

Being less than God-like in our current form and circumstance the American people will manifest their resistance with something less than divine wisdom and compassion. But we will only be at fault for our excesses as we are not the cause of the arrogance in DC that now seeks to impose its will on us. That the human spirit will resist their tyranny with strength and conviction is not in itself an excess. These would-be rulers have made their own bed. They intend to use us as the flowers to soften and perfume it and it is also by their own willful ignorance that they will find these roses full of thorns as well.

[TigersEye]

It is hard to conclude this reckless neglect isn't purposeful.

They may not intend "reckless neglect" but I think it's easy to say that they are acting purposefully. Regardless of their intentions the result will be the same.

But purposely or not it's being done, ...

That it is.

... and must be stopped!

It should be.

[TAdams8591]

"It is hard to conclude this reckless neglect isn't purposeful."

"They may not intend "reckless neglect" but I think it's easy to say that they are acting purposefully."

If you read the above carefully you will see we are making the same point.

"Regardless of their intentions the result will be the same."

Agreed. I made the above comment because I believe it is pointless to argue intentions. Discussing results is more persuasive and thus the better strategy.

[joanie-f]

Nor will we, as a people, forget our previous achievements. We can only be forced to abandon our liberty through intimidation or deceit and by the very nature of the human mind their attempts to do so will be held in contempt and disgust.

TE, I have read your posts for quite a while now, and always admire your insight and eloquence. Of all of your writing that I have read, this is the only opinion of yours with which I disagree.

I believe that, with each succeeding year, the American populace becomes less informed and more special-interest oriented. Combining the ongoing illegal alien problem (whose solution is nowhere in sight) with the ‘education’ that our children are receiving in our public schools (placing less emphasis on our proud heritage, and civics in general, every year – focusing instead on phony, leftist multicultural philosophies), the effect that general affluence and materialism have had on the strength of the nuclear family, and the Marxist influence in virtually every institution of higher education, exactly what kind of optimistic view can we embrace of the intelligence/knowledge/allegiance of the new (both alien and youth) voters coming down the pike? Where is there a reason to believe that future disingenuous, un-American, anti-liberty candidates and programs will be held accountable by a citizenry that is even more apathetic, disinterested, special-interest-oriented, or leftist-indoctrinated than today’s voters?

Patriotism requires allegiance, education, strength, endurance, courage, resolve, and action. Until our leadership addresses the illegal alien problem, until the number of voters who feed at the government socialist welfare/entitlement trough (as forewarned by deTocqueville) can be dramatically reduced, and until we determine to educate our children as to their proud heritage and the dangers posed by relinquishing it, election results will continue to fall in favor of powerful liars who can voice the biggest promises to the host of least informed minds.

I believe we are fighting a losing battle. But, unless and until the battle is lost, we are called to continue to do our part to keep the enemies (both foreign and domestic) at bay. To do any less would hold us just as accountable as those passive, 'sideline Americans' who choose not to be a part of the crusade to reclaim this republic from the scoundrels who call themselves leaders, but who bear no allegiance to our Founders and their vision.

I’ve had to stop discussing politics with some of my friends, sensing that they are made uncomfortable by my continued pessimism. And I understand that. So I leave politics aside when in their company, and we invariably enjoy our time together. I figure it’s better to temporarily shelve my political opinions altogether than to don rose-colored glasses and verbalize an optimism that I don’t honestly embrace. Can’t pretend to feelings I don’t have, and never did look good in pink anyway. :)

Thanks for the kind words, and excellent analysis (especially, 'The consequences of actions are inevitable whether intended or not.' … a seemingly simple sentence containing a mountain of significance.) It appears that we may have to agree to disagree on the willingness of our countrymen to stand up to the tyrants, though I pray that you are right.

~ joanie ….

[nicmarlo]

Vicente Fox has everything to gain in the realization of a North American Union. No sacrifice or deprivation involved, and mountains of political and economic benefits to reap through the sacrifice of others.

As regards the addressing of ‘uneven economic development’ … since when is it the responsibility of the American working man to make certain that a man living several thousand miles north or south of him enjoys comparable ‘economic development’? More importantly, where in the Constitutional definition of the powers of the federal government does the state have the power to demand such ‘concern’ from its citizens?

Excellent synopsis of the major flaws, problems, and unConstitutional legislation by fiat. This agenda is no friend to America or Americans, or its language, culture, values, and borders.

[La Enchiladita]

I can't believe no one responded on the link you gave. That is one CREEPY speech! "The Century of the Americas!" He could not have telegraphed his mission more clearly. I read halfway and had to stop. Out of the horse's mouth, it cannot be denied.

Candidate George W. Bush's "Century of the Americas" Speech: August 25, 2000

Is this a wondrous vision of a thoroughly democratic Americas-North and South, or a commitment to a socialist quagmire?

Nearly 40 years ago, a visitor returned from a trip to Latin America, convinced it was poised for change. It would be, said Robert Kennedy, "peaceful if we are wise enough ... compassionate if we care enough... successful if we are fortunate enough.” That change, he believed, was coming if we willed it or not. We could "affect its character," but we could not "alter its inevitability."

George W. Bush quoting RFK.

[B4Ranch]

The answer to all of your comments is located in the American people understanding the purpose for the United Nations and just how powerful a body they represent in our legislators offices. Every Democrat worships the UN Charter.

Most Republican legislators don't seem to have any qualms about supporting the UN or the treaties and international agreements that originate from the UN.

Have your read your "Local Agenda 21 Plan? Your City Manager has a copy.

(Carry Okie is an expert on this subject) Take a peak here.

Here's a preview:

"...current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable. A shift is necessary. which will require a vast strengthening of the multilateral system, including the United Nations..." [1] Maurice Strong , opening speech at the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

PREAMBLE

WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and

to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and

to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and

to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS

Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

---

Charter of the United Nations - Preamble

full screen version
Return to UN Home Page

Table of Contents:

Introductory Note
Preamble
Chapter I:
Chapter II:
Chapter III:
Chapter IV:
Chapter V:
Chapter VI:
Chapter VII:
Chapter VIII:
Chapter IX:
Chapter X:
Chapter XI:
Chapter XII:
Chapter XIII:
Chapter XIV:
Chapter XV:
Chapter XVI:
Chapter XVII:
Chapter XVIII:
Chapter XIX:

---

[nicmarlo]

He could not have telegraphed his mission more clearly. I read halfway and had to stop. Out of the horse's mouth, it cannot be denied.

BTTT!

[television is just wrong]

George W. Bush, and Vincent Fox, Co-presidents.

[Tammy8]

There is something missing on your map- HWY 2 in Mexico continues along the border further East than what it shows on this map- it actually goes all the way from Nogales to HWY 45 . Also abt. halfway between Tucson and El Paso, there is a hwy from I-10 all the way to the border and there is a US Port of Entry there, the road from the Port to HWY 2 is all paved except for 2 miles right now. This is a project that was completed on the US side within the past few years and the unpaved 2 miles is on the Mexican side of the border. There is actually more of a connection between our two HWY systems than your map shows.

On the US side of the border, there is also a HWY from Douglas, Az to just outside of Rodeo, NM that turns into HWY 9 at that point and continues all the way to El Paso, TX and is paved all the way. HWY 9 is right now being redone in anticipation of heavier traffic. There are paved HWYS that interconnect and skirt the border that make it possible to go from Nogales, AZ all the way to El Paso, TX without even using I-10.

I know this map only shows major HWYS but thought some might be interested to know that the US HWY system and Mexico HWY system connect and almost connect much more than this map depicts and at this time most of these HWYS are under construction to improve them.

[hedgetrimmer]

Excellent, spot-on post!

[Tammy8]

For most of our history our borders were not patrolled and little control was attempted. No one considered it that significant and little, if any, effort was made to limit people coming across.

That is absolutely not true. You need to study some history of the Southwest. Prior to the Mexican War there were constant skirmishes along the border leading up to the war breaking out. For many years there were military forts all along the Mexican border and troops regularly patrolled the border. The first Border Patrol was made up mostly of Texas Rangers and they were very serious about securing the border. All through the History of the US there has been border enforcement of one type or another and at times immigration and other illegal activities has gotten out of hand and it has been followed up by a crackdown.

Do these guys not look serious to you??

[hedgetrimmer]

I did a quick search for maps of the highways you mentioned, haven't found any yet. Any ideas where to look?

[Tammy8]

Not sure where on the net, but any newer major US road atlas will show them, an older one might show some as dirt roads but they are all paved. They are considered secondary roads, but are pretty well traveled.

If you don't have access to a road atlas then go to map quest and do searches using the following small towns, each one connected to the next. If you try to make your search to far at one stretch you may be directed to I-10 so it might take several small searches to find the HWYS I am talking about.

Search Nogales, AZ to Bisbee, AZ
Then Bisbee, AZ to Douglas, AZ
Then Douglas, AZ to Animas, NM (North of Rodeo, NM you turn West on HWY 9 and it will be Hwy 9 all the way to outskirts of Santa Theresa, NM (another Port of Entry that is very near El Paso, TX.)
Then Animas, NM to Hachita, NM
(If you search Hachita, NM to Antelope Wells,NM Then Hachita to any major US city you will find the road that connects I-10 to Mexico Hwy 2. Antelope Wells is a Port of Entry that is rapidly expanding- but info you will find on it online is hopelessly outdated for some reason, like 30+ years old)
Hachita,NM to Columbus, NM
Columbus, NM to Santa Theresa, NM
Santa Theresa, NM to El Paso, TX

As you look at maps from Nogales to Columbus you should be able to look south of the border and see HWY 2 in Mexico skirting the border; then between Antelope Wells and Columbus it goes south to connect with HWY 45 in Mexico.

I travel these roads regularly- but many have only been paved in the last 15 years, some completed within the last 5 years. These are smugglers routes also. Traffic is really picking up lately and many of these roads are undergoing major improvement right now.

As a side note- between Animas, NM and Hachita, NM you will see a short HWY headed south to Playas, NM; Playas is now a Homeland Security Terrorism Training Center, and the Military regularly trains in that area also.

[Tammy8]

I should add that there are Ports of Entry at Columbus and Santa Theresa,NM and they are rapidly expanding also. At this time Antelope Wells POA is considered to be a branch of Columbus POA and commercial truck traffic is not allowed to cross there. For many years AWPOE was a little podunk crossing for locals- and is still depicted that way on the internet. In the last 2 years passenger shuttle bus service from Mexico to Phoenix, AZ has expanded to the point now there are 3 or 4 buses a day that travel from Mexico through AWPOE and on to Phoenix. For a POE in the middle of nowhere in the desert it is pretty busy at this time and I am sure when Mexico paves their last 2 miles of dirt road across from AWPOE it will become busier.

[Tammy8]

I just did some looking and map quest is confusing, some roads are not really shown- and I guess Mexico HWY 2 from Nogales to Columbus changes to HWY 15 then branches down and then 2 picks up again E of Columbus. Funny it shows that on a map, all the locals consider it HWY 2 all the way. Learn something new every day. Also map quest is confusing on HWY from Hachita to Antelope Wells, it is 45 miles pretty straight shot, not sure how map quest messed that up. It is easier to find all the routes on a good road atlas than on the net.

[ForGod'sSake]

Powerful stuff joanie. I would really like to add something to the debate, but I think it's all been said by now. About all that's left for us to do is wait and see if our countrymen will take a stand against our "leaders'" willful neglect of their duties. '06 and '08 elections may offer some hope; we'll see.

God help us.

FGS