Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

US divided by superhighway plan
The Scotsman ^ | Fri 16 Jun 2006 | CRAIG HOWIE

Posted on 11/22/2006 12:42:29 AM PST by Sarajevo

A MASSIVE road four football fields wide and running from Mexico to Canada through the heartland of the United States is being proposed amid controversy over security and the damage to the environment.

The "nation's most modern roadway", proposed between Laredo in Texas and Duluth, Minnesota, along Interstate 35, would allow the US to bypass the west coast ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to import goods from China and the Far East into the heart of middle America via Mexico, saving both cost and time.

However, critics argue that the ten-lane road would lay a swathe of concrete on top of an already over-developed transport infrastructure and further open the border with Mexico to illegal immigrants or terrorists.

According to a weekly Conservative magazine published in the US, the US administration is "quietly yet systematically" planning the massive highway, citing as a benefit that it would negate the power of two unions, the Longshoremen and Teamsters.

Another source claimed the highway was a "bi-partisan effort" with support from both Republicans and Democrats that would reduce freight transport times across the nation by days.

Under the plan - believed to be an extension of a strategic transportation plan signed in March last year by the US president, George Bush, Paul Martin, the then prime minister of Canada, and Vincente Fox, the Mexican president - imported goods would pass a border "road bump" in the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, before being loaded on to lorries for a straight run to a major hub, or "SmartPort", in Kansas, Oklahoma.

Border guards and customs officers would check the electronic security tags of lorries and their holds at a £1.6 million facility being built in Kansas City, before sending them on to the road network that links the US cities of Chicago, Minneapolis and Detroit with Ottawa, Winnipeg and Vancouver across the Canadian border.

Rail tracks and pipelines for oil and natural gas would run alongside the road.

Following the release of a 4,000-page environmental study, construction of the first leg of the Trans-Texas Corridor is reportedly due to begin next year, backed by US state and governmental agencies and a Spanish private sector company, Concessions de Infraestructuras de Transporte.

Tiffany Melvin, the executive director of Nasco, a non-profit organisation which has received £1.4 million from the US Department of Transport to study the proposal, said: "We're working on developing the existing system; these highways were developed in the 1950s and we have number of different programmes we're working on to provide alternative fuels and improve safety and security issues.

"We get comments that we are working to bring in terrorists and drug dealers, but this is simply not true.

"This is a bi-partisan effort that will ultimately improve our transportation infrastructure.

"Trade with China is increasing greatly, and the costs of our transportation system are ultimately born by the consumer.

"We do offer links to Canada and Mexico, but we are working on the trade competitiveness of America. We are planning for the future."

Eric Olson, the transportation spokesmen for the California-based Sierra Club, a national environmental awareness organisation, said the road would cause significant damage.

"Something on that scale would have a massive environmental impact," he said.

"Building a large-scale new highway does not seem like the best solution.

"There is a great need for fixing our existing roads and bridges. That needs to be a priority before we start building new massive road projects."

A MASSIVE road four football fields wide and running from Mexico to Canada through the heartland of the United States is being proposed amid controversy over security and the damage to the environment.

The "nation's most modern roadway", proposed between Laredo in Texas and Duluth, Minnesota, along Interstate 35, would allow the US to bypass the west coast ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to import goods from China and the Far East into the heart of middle America via Mexico, saving both cost and time.

However, critics argue that the ten-lane road would lay a swathe of concrete on top of an already over-developed transport infrastructure and further open the border with Mexico to illegal immigrants or terrorists.

According to a weekly Conservative magazine published in the US, the US administration is "quietly yet systematically" planning the massive highway, citing as a benefit that it would negate the power of two unions, the Longshoremen and Teamsters.

Another source claimed the highway was a "bi-partisan effort" with support from both Republicans and Democrats that would reduce freight transport times across the nation by days.

Under the plan - believed to be an extension of a strategic transportation plan signed in March last year by the US president, George Bush, Paul Martin, the then prime minister of Canada, and Vincente Fox, the Mexican president - imported goods would pass a border "road bump" in the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, before being loaded on to lorries for a straight run to a major hub, or "SmartPort", in Kansas, Oklahoma.

Border guards and customs officers would check the electronic security tags of lorries and their holds at a £1.6 million facility being built in Kansas City, before sending them on to the road network that links the US cities of Chicago, Minneapolis and Detroit with Ottawa, Winnipeg and Vancouver across the Canadian border.

Rail tracks and pipelines for oil and natural gas would run alongside the road.

Following the release of a 4,000-page environmental study, construction of the first leg of the Trans-Texas Corridor is reportedly due to begin next year, backed by US state and governmental agencies and a Spanish private sector company, Concessions de Infraestructuras de Transporte.

Tiffany Melvin, the executive director of Nasco, a non-profit organisation which has received £1.4 million from the US Department of Transport to study the proposal, said: "We're working on developing the existing system; these highways were developed in the 1950s and we have number of different programmes we're working on to provide alternative fuels and improve safety and security issues.

"We get comments that we are working to bring in terrorists and drug dealers, but this is simply not true.

"This is a bi-partisan effort that will ultimately improve our transportation infrastructure.

"Trade with China is increasing greatly, and the costs of our transportation system are ultimately born by the consumer.

"We do offer links to Canada and Mexico, but we are working on the trade competitiveness of America. We are planning for the future."

Eric Olson, the transportation spokesmen for the California-based Sierra Club, a national environmental awareness organisation, said the road would cause significant damage.

"Something on that scale would have a massive environmental impact," he said.

"Building a large-scale new highway does not seem like the best solution.

"There is a great need for fixing our existing roads and bridges. That needs to be a priority before we start building new massive road projects."


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government
KEYWORDS: afewcansshort; afewcardsshy; alienabductions; alienbuttprobes; answerthedamnedphone; blackhelicopters; boondoggle; boondogle; burncircles; canada; chemtrails; cintra; cintrazachry; closeencounters; conspiracy; cropcircles; cuespookymusic; esp; flyingsaucers; globalistsundermybed; globalistthugs; gregoryhouse; greys; heeheehohohaha; holesinthepoles; i35; ih35; interstate35; kansascity; kansasoklahoma; kookmagnetthread; lazarocardenas; littlegreenmen; mexico; morethorazineplease; mulder; naftacorridor; naftahighway; naftasuperhighway; nasco; nascocorridor; nau; nauconspiracy; northamericanunion; offmymedsagain; pagingartbell; pagingnurseratched; preciousbodilyfluids; purityofessence; renfieldskids; savagelistners; savagestuff; scully; shadowgovernment; smartport; sovereignnation; speedbump; stopthemindrays; superstate; texas; thesmokingman; tinfoilhatalert; tollboothrick; transtexascorridor; transtinfoilcorridor; ttc; ttc35; tx; txdot; unitedstates; usa; voicesinmyheadsaidso; whatsthefrequency; xenophobia; xfiles; zachry
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-145 next last
Yeah, I know, this is an older article. It still emphasizes the growing sentiment against the "NAFTA" Superhighway, and the bisecting of the US. :

Of particular interest to all those who support the construction of a wall between the US and Mexico is the fact that this highway will almost negate the reason for such a boundary.

1 posted on 11/22/2006 12:42:31 AM PST by Sarajevo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; GarySpFc

ping


2 posted on 11/22/2006 12:43:58 AM PST by Sarajevo (Stop the Trash-Texas Con-Job!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo
Rail tracks and pipelines for oil and natural gas would run alongside the road.

For those who would do damage to our transportation infrastructure, this is one-stop shopping. One effective 'dirty bomb' into the hub 'port' and it is a monument to stupidity. It would permit the efficient distribution of just about any nasty pathogen, natural or manmade, on a North/South Axis which would effectively split the nation in two.

For the National Defense, the GF factor is right off the scale.

Better to invest the money in border security.

3 posted on 11/22/2006 12:52:27 AM PST by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo
A "map" of where the new highway would run.....


4 posted on 11/22/2006 12:53:36 AM PST by MissouriConservative (Libertarian = aid and comfort to the democratic party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo

This will increase trade and raise our standard of living. No reason for us to oppose this.


5 posted on 11/22/2006 12:59:28 AM PST by MinorityRepublican (Everyone that doesn't like what America and President Bush has done for Iraq can all go to HELL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo
Rail tracks and pipelines for oil and natural gas would run alongside the road.

I would think that expanding the rail system would move more freight more efficiently and more safely than a massive new highway.

Rail Roads would also be more easily policed for trafficking humans and contraband.

6 posted on 11/22/2006 1:16:06 AM PST by Pontiac (All are worthy of freedom, none are incapable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican
This will increase trade and raise our standard of living. No reason for us to oppose this.

We'll see if we can change their mind and route it through Maryland.

Everytime they come up with a way to "increase trade", it increases it for a dozan other countries.

As for raising the standard of living... convince the thousands that will have their homes, farms and businesses taken over by "eminent domain".
7 posted on 11/22/2006 1:29:13 AM PST by loboinok (Gun control is hitting what you aim at!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

so far NAFTA and other free trade agreements have done such a wonderful job of that


8 posted on 11/22/2006 1:31:49 AM PST by ChurtleDawg (kill em all)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ChurtleDawg

stop being so paranoid. This is a good infrastructure upgrade


9 posted on 11/22/2006 1:39:06 AM PST by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo; Trupolitik; hedgetrimmer
This article is typed with a not-so-subtle bias. A road going into a supposed heart of the United States and all.

The interior of the country already gets products from Asia from either American coast, primarily the Western one.

trupolitik and hedgetrimmer, ping, though you probably won't even read this, as you haven't any other of the related pings.

10 posted on 11/22/2006 1:47:51 AM PST by Jedi Master Pikachu ( For the Republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo
North American Union


11 posted on 11/22/2006 1:56:04 AM PST by Dallas59 (Muslims Are Only Guests In Western Countries)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo

this is a very bad idea. it will essentially divide the country.. New World Order slowly spreading its tentacles.


12 posted on 11/22/2006 2:07:47 AM PST by Cinnamon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo
But building such a massive highway is going to require thousands of laborers. I don't think they'll be able to find them, so not to worry.

Oh, wait! This is going to start at the Mexican border, right? Hey, no problo, senor.

I suspect strains of that ancient refrain, 'I've been wukkin' on the railroad' in spanish will be wafting across the heartlands before too long.

13 posted on 11/22/2006 2:22:48 AM PST by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

"four football fields wide " ????



Was somebody on crack ???? Who in Hades proposed such a ludicrous project???


A 4 track railroad could carry the same load and for a tiny fraction of the cost. Thats assuming there is any actual need for such a system.


Does someone have visions (delusions) of giant jet powered cars taxiing their way across country?????

Dim.
14 posted on 11/22/2006 2:27:49 AM PST by wodinoneeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59

North American Union

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v47/dallas59/mexiuscanfs_flag.jpg


Most REAL Americans would have NO problem burning THAT flag......

Likely they will also be stringing up the dolts actively seeking it as a goal.



15 posted on 11/22/2006 2:31:21 AM PST by wodinoneeye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane
stop being so paranoid. This is a good infrastructure upgrade

Thank YOU Fritz Hollings.

'EEEEENfrastructure....EEEEENfrastructure!'

That is the only word that senile old coot could think of to say in his one and only aborted attempt to run for President.

It isn't about infrastructure, it is about making it easier than ever for illegal Pedros and Pierres to enter our Country while American citizens are being compelled to carry passports ('your papers please?').

That ain't paranoid pal, that is reality.

What we will see, if this Immigration Superhighway is built, is the same side effect that accompanied much of the Interstate Highway construction in the last century, i.e., many MANY businesses are going to go belly up as commercial traffic is diverted from the existing routes to the BAAE (Big Amigo/Auvoir Expressway).

It is described as a being as wide as FOUR freakin football fields!

Who do you think is going to provide traffic control and law enforcement for this monstrosity? The already overtaxed and overextended States?

The National Guard?

Federal Department of Transportation?

Big may be better when it comes to cubic inch displacement, horsepower, and bustlines, but not in this case.
16 posted on 11/22/2006 2:37:05 AM PST by mkjessup (The Shah doesn't look so bad now, eh? But nooo, Jimmah said the Ayatollah was a 'godly' man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wodinoneeye

It should in reality be a superrailroad, on ground, above ground or below ground, a superfast super rail system, something that would be electric or the engines non dino fueled.
All this is about is the countless kickbacks and bribes taking place. And I frankly have not much love for those cute cuddly mexicans. Besides security would be an extreme problem at the border.


17 posted on 11/22/2006 2:42:39 AM PST by Eye of Unk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican
This will increase trade and raise our standard of living. No reason for us to oppose this.

Whistling past the graveyard. Blackbird.

18 posted on 11/22/2006 2:49:00 AM PST by BlackbirdSST (Stay out of the Bushes, unless you're RINO hunting!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo
Anything that crushes the unions is good for America.

Besides, whatever WalMart, GE and the rest of the multi-nationals want, they get.


BUMP

19 posted on 11/22/2006 2:50:05 AM PST by capitalist229 (Get Democrats out of our pockets and Republicans out of our bedrooms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Just what this nation doesn't need is to give the Socialist Nation Mexico a choking ability to cut off incoming products into this system of a psuedo saving of time and money if they after this "devil from hell plan" is operating full blast decides in their peabrain minds to force us to do their weird bidding full scale by turning off the spigot!

Then what do we do run down to Mexico City and kiss their Mecican rearends to be nice to us!!

I say "NOT NO BUT HELL NO!!!"

20 posted on 11/22/2006 2:53:25 AM PST by VOYAGER (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Dallas59
As you are inferring by your post, the North American Union Agreement, signed secretly and without public disclosure by the US, Canada and Mexico, is not mentioned in the previously posted article from "The Scotsman".

If the agreement is carried out, US sovereignty will be lost and the proposed new currency and government for North America will be established. "The Scotsman's" article also makes no mention of these facts.

It has recently been reported, that a member of the Bush family has purchased a 98,000 acre "plantation" in Paraguay. Heavy security is being established for the facility.

Its future purpose is unclear.

21 posted on 11/22/2006 3:00:43 AM PST by nygoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican
This will increase trade and raise our standard of living. No reason for us to oppose this.

I agree completely.

22 posted on 11/22/2006 3:00:53 AM PST by jalisco555 ("Dogs look up to us, cats look down on us and pigs treat us as equals" Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup
What we will see, if this Immigration Superhighway is built, is the same side effect that accompanied much of the Interstate Highway construction in the last century, i.e., many MANY businesses are going to go belly up as commercial traffic is diverted from the existing routes to the BAAE (Big Amigo/Auvoir Expressway).

Oh why yes that evil globalist and athiest's Eisenhower's Interstate system.

The system no American ever uses.

Do you actually read what you post, mk.

23 posted on 11/22/2006 3:09:20 AM PST by Dane ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Ronald Reagan, 1987)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo

"Trade with China is increasing greatly, and the costs of our transportation system are ultimately born by the consumer."



Then let's let the consumer have the say in the highway idea's survival. I believe if fact were put to public attention the idea will die as Americans would rather pay the few cents more per product as they're now doing and be assured America remains safe from illegals, drugs and associated crime, and threats from terrorism than have a free-for-all highway just so importers can pocket the "savings". Besides, to think consumers will EVER see any savings from the highway's construction is foolish.

It's so asinine that the TSA is so "safety minded" at airports yet the OBL wants a superhighway where tanker loads of explosives can enter America. What are the proposals for screening the increased traffic entries into the US besides an expansion of a 1950's method?


24 posted on 11/22/2006 3:18:27 AM PST by azhenfud (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo

>>A MASSIVE road four football fields wide <<

Good lord. I wonder how many lanes can fit in 400 yards.


25 posted on 11/22/2006 3:21:20 AM PST by gondramB (It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo
Of particular interest to all those who support the construction of a wall between the US and Mexico is the fact that this highway will almost negate the reason for such a boundary.

If we built a road like this from San Diego to the Gulf Coast, we would have our wall.

26 posted on 11/22/2006 3:21:40 AM PST by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican
"This will increase trade and raise our standard of living."

Then let's see MEXICO build their's first since their SOL needs raising the most urgent.

27 posted on 11/22/2006 3:24:09 AM PST by azhenfud (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mkjessup

We can build a "superhighway" 400 yards wide with billions in infrastructure but we can't build a blamedasted $1.2 billion border fence.


28 posted on 11/22/2006 3:29:47 AM PST by azhenfud (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
Besides, to think consumers will EVER see any savings from the highway's construction is foolish

Yeah those flat panel TV's will never be under $1,000.

BTW, those truck tankers coming through the border probably would go under explosive and radiation detectors, which would be much more efficent than we have now, where a hodgepodge of huge sea tankers cannot go under a centrally located huge radiotion or explosive detector.

29 posted on 11/22/2006 3:30:37 AM PST by Dane ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Ronald Reagan, 1987)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Dane
"Yeah those flat panel TV's will never be under $1,000."

That's the same BS logic applied to PC pricing in the early 90's, Dane.

Later...

30 posted on 11/22/2006 3:36:47 AM PST by azhenfud (The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wodinoneeye
Who in Hades proposed such a ludicrous project???

"believed to be an extension of a strategic transportation plan signed in March last year by the US president, George Bush, Paul Martin, the then prime minister of Canada, and Vincente Fox, the Mexican president -"

Does someone have visions (delusions) of giant jet powered cars taxiing their way across country?????,?p>

No jet powered cars, it's all about revenue.

31 posted on 11/22/2006 3:44:45 AM PST by Sarajevo (Stop the Trash-Texas Con-Job!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo

If a Clinton did this, Republicans would be screaming bloody murder.


32 posted on 11/22/2006 3:55:28 AM PST by EternalVigilance (The RINO presidential field says it has "solutions"..."solutions" are solids watered down to nothing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Dane
The NAFTA SuperHighway is a toll road, not a freeway.

The NAFTA SuperHighway will be operated by a multinational consortium. Portions of the NAFTA SuperHighway will take existing highways which we have already paid for, and transfer them to the multinational consortium for profit.

The only businesses on the highway's right-of-way will be those approved by the consortium, i.e. no Mom-&-Pop restaurants.

Private property in Texas has already been taken by "emminent domain" for transfer to the private parties who will build that portion of the highway to produce their profit. It's a land grab.

Eisenhower's Interstate System is paid for and, with the exception of maintenance funding, is free to use.

33 posted on 11/22/2006 3:59:22 AM PST by Sarajevo (Stop the Trash-Texas Con-Job!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
free-for-all highway.... It's a toll road, not a freeway.

What are the proposals for screening the increased traffic entries into the US besides an expansion of a 1950's method?

From the article- Border guards and customs officers would check the electronic security tags of lorries and their holds at a £1.6 million facility being built in Kansas City, before sending them on to the road network that links the US cities of Chicago, Minneapolis and Detroit with Ottawa, Winnipeg and Vancouver across the Canadian border.

34 posted on 11/22/2006 4:04:40 AM PST by Sarajevo (Stop the Trash-Texas Con-Job!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Good lord. I wonder how many lanes can fit in 400 yards.

If the constant (road lane width) is 11.5ft, that would be a little over 104.....

Supposedly, this plan also includes rail, electric, and gas lines.

35 posted on 11/22/2006 4:13:13 AM PST by Sarajevo (Stop the Trash-Texas Con-Job!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo

"allow the US to bypass the west coast ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to import goods from China and the Far East into the heart of middle America via Mexico, saving both cost and time."

Huh? How?


36 posted on 11/22/2006 4:17:25 AM PST by RoadTest ( He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. -Rev. 3:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo

"the plan - believed to be an extension of a strategic transportation plan signed in March last year by the US president, George Bush, Paul Martin, the then prime minister of Canada, and Vincente Fox, the Mexican president"

conspiracy |k?n?spir?s?| noun ( pl. -cies) a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful : a conspiracy to destroy the government. See note at plot . • the action of plotting or conspiring


37 posted on 11/22/2006 4:19:31 AM PST by RoadTest ( He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. -Rev. 3:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo
According to a weekly Conservative magazine published in the US, the US administration is "quietly yet systematically" planning the massive highway, citing as a benefit that it would negate the power of two unions, the Longshoremen and Teamsters.

Why isn't the "weekly Conservative magazine" named? Is it because it's some Buchananite rag like "The American Conservative" or something Jerome Corsi started up specifically to fight this highway?

Also, why is the entire article repeated in your post?

38 posted on 11/22/2006 4:25:40 AM PST by xjcsa (Stop global climate stagnation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo
In the 80s, the Center for Transportation Research was given the job of making recommendations on Texas' future highway needs.

Their final report in 1996 recommended the multi-modal corridor.

39 posted on 11/22/2006 4:27:22 AM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon
this is a very bad idea. it will essentially divide the country..

You're right. We should dam up the Mississippi River too, it's dividing our country. Not to mention those damned Rocky Mountains.

40 posted on 11/22/2006 4:28:19 AM PST by xjcsa (Stop global climate stagnation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: wodinoneeye

Who proposed such a project? See #39


41 posted on 11/22/2006 4:29:45 AM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cinnamon

"this is a very bad idea. it will essentially divide the country.. New World Order slowly spreading its tentacles."

I agree. That's exactly what it is and now we see why President Bush wasn't interested in securing our border at Mexico. He had his eye on dissolving the United States in favor of a third-world amalgam of disparate nations.

Not even Jimmuh Koatuh or the Demon from Dogpatch ever did such a thing. They did other bad things, maybe laying the groundwork for this final dissolution of our country. Wickedness in high places.


42 posted on 11/22/2006 4:31:55 AM PST by RoadTest ( He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. -Rev. 3:6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: nygoose
It has recently been reported, that a member of the Bush family has purchased a 98,000 acre "plantation" in Paraguay. Heavy security is being established for the facility.

This sentence stands out as especially paranoid in the middle of the most paranoid post I've read in awhile. So just where has it been "reported," and which "member of the Bush family" has purchased this property? Do you expect us to just nod our heads and swallow this, or can you back it up? And in the interests of full disclosure, do you believe that the US Government was behind 9/11?

43 posted on 11/22/2006 4:32:20 AM PST by xjcsa (Stop global climate stagnation!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo
How will caribou migrate across the US when this is completed?
44 posted on 11/22/2006 4:39:04 AM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoadTest

>>Huh? How?<<

I suspect that was a reference to longshoreman's unions and the cost of labor in California.


45 posted on 11/22/2006 4:39:22 AM PST by gondramB (It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: RoadTest

Huh? How?



Walamrt is already doing this in a modified way by using the Port of Houston and the Panama Canal..... They are bring in some 28% of their far east container imports this way now. They changed their method because of the Christmas delays experienced in 03 at ports in southern CA.


46 posted on 11/22/2006 4:39:24 AM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: MinorityRepublican

What's the distance in road miles from western US ports to Kansas City vs road miles from southern Mexico to Kansas City?


47 posted on 11/22/2006 4:39:54 AM PST by sergeantdave (Consider that nearly half the people you pass on the street meet Lenin's definition of useful idiot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: azhenfud
"let's see Mexico build their's first"

Mexican Toll Roads

48 posted on 11/22/2006 4:44:50 AM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo

Even if its 30 or 40 lanes thats still frickin' huge.


49 posted on 11/22/2006 4:46:28 AM PST by gondramB (It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Oh why yes that evil globalist and athiest's Eisenhower's Interstate system

Do you mean it wasn't built so the Soviets could easily take over the US? WOW! And I believed those anti-interstate people and have (due to principle) been driving on horrid little two lane highways, infested with an endless number of slow moving farm trucks and traffic lights, ever since... :)

I think I'll take a pass on all of the moonbat rantings this time.

50 posted on 11/22/2006 4:47:02 AM PST by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-145 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson