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

Skip to comments.

Authorities shift focus to Ĺsuper corridorĺ
In-Forum News ^ | May 30, 2007 | Jonathan Knutson and Melinda Rogers

Posted on 05/30/2007 6:22:13 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

A proposed North American “super corridor” would relieve overburdened highways and promote economic growth in three countries, supporters say.

But others wonder whether the proposal might bring in cheap exports and put unsafe Mexican trucks on U.S. roads.

The issue takes center stage at a three-day conference that begins today in Fort Worth, Texas. More than 350 transportation, logistics and economic development specialists from the United States, Canada and Mexico are meeting.

The conference is sponsored by Dallas-based North America’s SuperCorridor Coalition.

The nonprofit coalition, whose members include public- and private-sector organizations, wants to develop an integrated transportation system linking the three countries.

The corridor includes interstates 29, 94 and 35, giving North Dakota and Minnesota a stake in the outcome. The project has drawn heavy criticism, including claims that it threatens U.S. control of its own borders.

Such claims are “extremely inaccurate, false and unhelpful to the country’s actual needs,” said Francisco Conde, the coalition’s director of special projects and communications.

The real issue is that the U.S. Interstate Highway System, completed in 1970, is increasingly overwhelmed by the country’s growing population and economy, he said.

The transportation system needs to be expanded for growth to continue, he said.

North Dakota and western Minnesota have less immediate need for the super corridor than the southern Great Plains does, said Jerry Nagel, president of Fargo-based Northern Great Plains, which seeks to maximize the area’s potential through regional collaboration.

The existing highway system in this area is still adequate – which isn’t the case in the southern Great Plains, where some highways are stressed by heavy traffic, he said.

Texas lawmakers for months have wrangled over construction of what is known as the Trans-Texas Corridor.

Plans call for a transportation network across Texas, including a 10-lane highway with six lanes for automobiles and four lanes for trucks. Freight and commuter railways and a utilities corridor are also part of the proposal, which would stretch the system from Laredo, Texas, to Canada.

The idea has sparked controversy in Texas, where rural interest groups are opposed to paving thousands of acres of farmland for transportation.

There aren’t any plans for super corridor-related construction in North Dakota, said Bob Fode, director of transportation projects for the state Department of Transportation.

David Martin, president of the Chamber of Commerce of Fargo Moorhead, said his group supports the super corridor project. The region’s continued growth requires expanded transportation opportunities, he said.

North Dakota Commerce Commissioner Shane Goettle said a transportation corridor would help the state. Both North Dakota and Minnesota are exporting more to Mexico and Canada, according to U.S. government figures.

From 2001 to 2006, North Dakota increased its exports to Mexico from $38 million to $55 million and its exports to Canada from $394 million to $727 million. In the same period, Minnesota exports to Mexico rose from $435 million to $595 million, with exports to Canada rising from $2.6 billion to $4.1 billion.

The proposed super corridor worries the American trucking industry.

“We are concerned about the safety standards of Mexican trucks,” said Thomas Balzer, managing director of the North Dakota Motor Carriers Association.

There’s also concern that Mexican truckers will improperly carry goods between U.S. cities while they’re in this country with international shipments, he said.

Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., said it likely will be 20 years before the project has any impact on Minnesota.

He said it’s too early to know how such a corridor would affect the Red River Valley, but there are some concerns over how an influx of Canadian and Mexican imports could affect North Dakota and northwestern Minnesota’s economies.

“There’s a lot of concern out there with some people about Canadian cattle, and hogs and wheat. You’ve got a different situation on the Mexico border,” Peterson said.

“It depends on where it goes and how it’s developed.”


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Canada; Government; Mexico; News/Current Events; US: Minnesota; US: North Dakota; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: borders; canada; collinpeterson; congestion; cuespookymusic; economicgrowth; economy; exports; fees; franciscoconde; freetrade; greatplains; harriscounty; highways; houston; i29; i35; i69; i69alliance; i94; ih35; ih69; imports; interstate29; interstate35; interstate69; interstate94; interstates; jerrynagel; keepontrucking; laredo; membershipfees; mexicantrucks; mexico; mexitrucks; minnesota; mn; nafta; naftasuperhighway; nasco; nationalsovereignty; nd; northdakota; northerngreatplains; population; populationgrowth; rail; roads; supercorridor; trade; traffic; trains; transportation; transtexascorridor; trucking; trucks; ttc; ttc35; ttc69; unitedstates; usa; victoriaadvocate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-232 next last


Corrections and Clarifications (Victoria Advocate)

The Advocate wants to correct promptly any error in fact or clarify any misleading information we publish. To report any error or need for clarification, please call 361-574-1222. Harris County Commissioners Court voted in early May to pull out of the I-69 Alliance because the portion of the highway that was to be I-69 has become part of the Trans-Texas Corridor and no longer would go through Harris County, said Kathy Luhn, policy director for the Harris County judge's office. Also, the toll road bill would take away Harris County's right to build its own toll road, which the court didn't agree with while the I-69 Alliance supported the bill, Luhn said. A story on Page A1 on Monday, May 28, said the court withdrew from the project because too much was spent on membership fees. Luhn said that was a secondary reason for withdrawing.

Copyright, (c) 2007, The Victoria Advocate

1 posted on 05/30/2007 6:22:16 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TxDOT; 1066AD; 185JHP; Abcdefg; Adrastus; Alamo-Girl; antivenom; AprilfromTexas; B4Ranch; B-Chan; ..

Trans-Texas Corridor PING!


2 posted on 05/30/2007 6:22:58 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Will I be suspended again for this remark?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

BTTT


3 posted on 05/30/2007 6:23:55 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Another huge waste of taxpayer money. Instead of building highways where we do not need them, why not invest in improving highways where people in this country actually live and work.
4 posted on 05/30/2007 6:24:19 AM PDT by pnh102
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

and the push for SPP continues:

http://www.spp.gov/


5 posted on 05/30/2007 6:26:56 AM PDT by PissAndVinegar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Here it comes!

This is the next step in the loss of our sovereignty!

It's almost like they've planned it.

6 posted on 05/30/2007 6:29:38 AM PDT by SittinYonder (Ic ■Št gehate, ■Št ic heonon nelle fleon fotes trym, ac wille fur­or gan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

They’ll face heavy opposition in this area.


7 posted on 05/30/2007 6:29:54 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Greed is NOT a conservative ideal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: eyespysomething
The project has drawn heavy criticism, including claims that it threatens U.S. control of its own borders.

ROFLOL! What control?

8 posted on 05/30/2007 6:30:59 AM PDT by SittinYonder (Ic ■Št gehate, ■Št ic heonon nelle fleon fotes trym, ac wille fur­or gan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SittinYonder

No one wants to believe that this is a part of the Conspiracy.


9 posted on 05/30/2007 6:41:11 AM PDT by Halgr (Once a Marine, always a Marine - Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Halgr
No one wants to believe that this is a part of the Conspiracy.

shhhhh!

10 posted on 05/30/2007 6:42:47 AM PDT by SittinYonder (Ic ■Št gehate, ■Št ic heonon nelle fleon fotes trym, ac wille fur­or gan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

My big question here is, Why do they not build some new railroad lines? The railroads can haul more at any given time, and it would create thousands of American jobs. It would also keep the Mexican trucks off our highways. Solves many problems and answers many questions.


11 posted on 05/30/2007 6:46:45 AM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle

Here is comes...


12 posted on 05/30/2007 7:11:11 AM PDT by Apple Blossom (...around here, city hall is something of a between meals snack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E.G.C.

bump.


13 posted on 05/30/2007 7:14:21 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Will I be suspended again for this remark?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Apple Blossom

The NWO is coming soon. Get ready for your implants.


14 posted on 05/30/2007 7:15:18 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Satan is working both sides of the street in World Socialism and World Courts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SittinYonder
This is the next step in the loss of our sovereignty!

There are roads in my town and I never got to vote on them! LOL!

15 posted on 05/30/2007 7:18:56 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists (and goldbugs) so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
My big question here is, Why do they not build some new railroad lines?

Railroads would integrate commerce, but nothing else. The goal, however, is to integrate countries, which is why roads like the TTC are being proposed. Road access grants much easier passage to the average traveler, who is not bound by the fares and schedules of rail travel. More roads mean more travel between countries, which makes the integration of societies easier.

Your question shoots the "It's-only-for-trade" argument full of holes.
16 posted on 05/30/2007 7:32:12 AM PDT by snowrip (Liberal? YOU ARE A SOCIALIST WITH NO RATIONAL ARGUMENT.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: rawhide
Because rail lines would require wasting time staging a bunch of trucks, loading the containers on the train cars, transporting them to a different location, unloading them back on to trucks, delivering the products to their destination.

It isn't efficient or cost effective.

While it wastes a lot of time, it doesn't necessarily waste a lot of man hours, since train transport isn't manpower intensive. Therefore the Teamster's Union hate that idea as well, not to mention that a trains might also be used for domestic transport, where the threat of Mexican trucks delivering foreign goods doesn't pose a large threat to that part of their business.

Trains are most effective when you want to move huge quantities of something from one spot to another all at once. That means storing all that stuff. That means increased inventories. That means tying up huge amounts of assets in the supply chain. That just doesn't work well for most businesses.

17 posted on 05/30/2007 7:33:52 AM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Invade Mexico now. We’ve already got half their people, we might as well have the territory.


18 posted on 05/30/2007 7:37:30 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (The Reds went Green, but the goal remains the same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
U.S. Interstate Highway System, completed in 1970

If they'd print junk that, what else in the story is false? (Hint for writers - the orginal plan called for completion in 1975; as with many governmental programs, that deadline wasn't met. )

According to this source, the system was only 70 per cent complete by 1970. "By 1970, Wisconsin had completed its initial rural Interstate system at a time when only 70% of the country's system was complete."
http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/library/history/50/facts.htm

And we aren't just talking about minor interstates:

Meanwhile, down in Georgia, the state's segment of Interstate 95 was completed in January 1980.

http://acppubs.com/article/CA6379220.html

19 posted on 05/30/2007 7:47:03 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
There are roads in my town and I never got to vote on them!

What's your point?

20 posted on 05/30/2007 7:55:35 AM PDT by SittinYonder (Ic ■Št gehate, ■Št ic heonon nelle fleon fotes trym, ac wille fur­or gan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SittinYonder
How do roads take away our sovereignty?
21 posted on 05/30/2007 7:58:19 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists (and goldbugs) so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Thanks for the ping!


22 posted on 05/30/2007 8:07:25 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

You’re welcome. :-)


23 posted on 05/30/2007 8:15:10 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Will I be suspended again for this remark?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot; eyespysomething

The link takes you to a pdf (just a warning, sometimes pdf links freeze my computer).

http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf

The CFR’s North American Community, in my opinion, sounds like the loss of national sovereignty to me. This is the sort of thing that leads to us all being “citizens of the world.” These steps are incremental. This super corridor is one step, the Senate’s immigration deal is another step.

I suspect, based on your other posts, that you’ll offer me Saran Wrap for my tinfoil hat and accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist, but when I read things like the following, it makes me very nervous. Read through this report, and you will find multiple examples of this kind of “no borders” language:

“Lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America. The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.”

It smells like an effort to erase our northern and southern borders, and I believe it is a terrible and tragic mistake.

I’m all for pro-growth measures, and I have no problem with expanding opportunities for trade with other nations. But those opportunities should not also mean a loss of our borders.


24 posted on 05/30/2007 8:15:30 AM PDT by SittinYonder (Ic ■Št gehate, ■Št ic heonon nelle fleon fotes trym, ac wille fur­or gan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: snowrip
The goal, however, is to integrate countries,

Exactly, see the CFR report linked to in post #24 of this thread.

We are all citizens of North America, now. The United States is merely a geographic and historic reference point.

25 posted on 05/30/2007 8:17:30 AM PDT by SittinYonder (Ic ■Št gehate, ■Št ic heonon nelle fleon fotes trym, ac wille fur­or gan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PAR35

As I recall, the Interstate Highway System was considered complete in 1996.


26 posted on 05/30/2007 8:21:32 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Will I be suspended again for this remark?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Lets make it an American Autobahn.
You drive on it at your own risk, you can go as fast as you want, if you cause an accident you, or the company you work for, not your insurance company, pays for all medical - life - property damage that occurs.

Think very many people would use it?

27 posted on 05/30/2007 8:22:17 AM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SittinYonder
The CFR’s North American Community, in my opinion, sounds like the loss of national sovereignty to me.

CFR? I thought we were talking about a road?

This super corridor is one step,

So the road really doesn't take our sovereignty?

I’m all for pro-growth measures, and I have no problem with expanding opportunities for trade with other nations. But those opportunities should not also mean a loss of our borders.

I agree, more trade, fewer illegals.

28 posted on 05/30/2007 8:24:51 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists (and goldbugs) so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
As I recall, the Interstate Highway System was considered complete in 1996.

Sounds good enough for me. I knew the 1970 date was garbage. They ought to fire any reporter who isn't smart enough to Google.

I remember the last stretch of I-75 in Georgia was paved while Carter was president. They set up a big ceremony with him. Unfortunately, the weather conditions weren't right for the paving, and a few weeks after the staged news event they were tearing the paving out so they could re-do that stretch.

29 posted on 05/30/2007 8:30:33 AM PDT by PAR35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
CFR? I thought we were talking about a road?

We're taling about a road that offers travel from the southern tip of Mexico, through the United States and into Canada. The road is a big part of the CFR's plan for a North American Community.

So the road really doesn't take our sovereignty?

It's a piece of the puzzle, IMO.

I agree, more trade, fewer illegals.

When we erase the border, there will be no illegals, so I guess you'll get what you want.

30 posted on 05/30/2007 8:37:06 AM PDT by SittinYonder (Ic ■Št gehate, ■Št ic heonon nelle fleon fotes trym, ac wille fur­or gan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SittinYonder
We're taling about a road that offers travel from the southern tip of Mexico, through the United States and into Canada. The road is a big part of the CFR's plan for a North American Community.

Currently there are no roads that go from Mexico into the US? No roads that go from Canada into the US?

When we erase the border, there will be no illegals, so I guess you'll get what you want.

Sorry to disappoint you, I don't want illegals or an erased border.

31 posted on 05/30/2007 8:40:00 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists (and goldbugs) so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
The EU started with a trade agreement. You then have to have a court over see the agreement about your own countries court system. Then you have a new system of people spending time increasing their power and ability to collect taxes. Soon you are a Federalized system. It is happening in Europe today. It has now come to you.
32 posted on 05/30/2007 8:44:23 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Satan is working both sides of the street in World Socialism and World Courts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: rawhide

Railways are part of the super corridor plans, too.

Where I live we are part of CANAMEX, a high priority corridor kind of a variation of Texas Corridor.

Union Pacific has been here trying to get options on land to build rail from Mexico. Supposed, they are now going to look in California.....

Down in Baja, Mexico.... a new port to rival Long Beach is to be built where millions and millions of containers of Chinese goods are to be loaded on the trains and trucks to ship north to the US and Canada.

I bet every state has corridors planned to be part of “this global” madness.

We are to have power come up from Mexico, right across the border. Natural gas is to come in from off Baja. New highway roads...not openly referred to as CANAMEX. One speaker did say we are “the western leg of CANAMEX.”

So much for all the transparency,the new government buzz word!


33 posted on 05/30/2007 8:45:32 AM PDT by kactus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle
The EU started with a trade agreement.

Yeah, we're just like Europe. LOL!

34 posted on 05/30/2007 8:48:50 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists (and goldbugs) so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: kactus
We are to have power come up from Mexico, right across the border. Natural gas is to come in from off Baja.

Stop the electricity! Stop the gas! Do it for the children.

35 posted on 05/30/2007 8:50:20 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists (and goldbugs) so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

The first steps are in the works. Laugh all you want. You are being sold out by Congress and your President. It will be real funny. /sarcasm


36 posted on 05/30/2007 8:50:54 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Satan is working both sides of the street in World Socialism and World Courts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle
The first steps are in the works.

If you say so.

37 posted on 05/30/2007 8:51:36 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists (and goldbugs) so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Patronize all you want. Fools do that so well.


38 posted on 05/30/2007 8:53:39 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Satan is working both sides of the street in World Socialism and World Courts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Comment #39 Removed by Moderator

To: bmwcyle

Whine all you want. Fools do that so well.


40 posted on 05/30/2007 8:54:23 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists (and goldbugs) so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Currently there are no roads that go from Mexico into the US? No roads that go from Canada into the US?

Not like this road, no.

I don't want illegals or an erased border

I look at the long-term affects of this road and the importance of this road to the North American Community agenda, and I see the blurring of borders, the blurring of national identities, the blurring of economies and the loss of our sovereignty. This is hardly just any road.

41 posted on 05/30/2007 8:54:52 AM PDT by SittinYonder (Ic ■Št gehate, ■Št ic heonon nelle fleon fotes trym, ac wille fur­or gan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: SittinYonder
Not like this road, no.

Some roads are okay and some destroy the nation?

I look at the long-term affects of this road and the importance of this road to the North American Community agenda, and I see the blurring of borders, the blurring of national identities, the blurring of economies and the loss of our sovereignty.

Time to check your eyeglass prescription?

This is hardly just any road.

I know, evil road. Any other roads we should tear up, for the children?

42 posted on 05/30/2007 9:00:10 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists (and goldbugs) so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
North Dakota and western Minnesota have less immediate need for the super corridor than the southern Great Plains does, said Jerry Nagel, president of Fargo-based Northern Great Plains, which seeks to maximize the area’s potential through regional collaboration.

"Less immediate need" is an understatement.

Unfortunately, the "economic development" types only look at the bottom line, not at the crap that can come in on something like this.

Can we give Fargo to Minnesota yet?

43 posted on 05/30/2007 9:05:14 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
From 2001 to 2006, North Dakota increased its exports to Mexico from $38 million to $55 million and its exports to Canada from $394 million to $727 million. In the same period, Minnesota exports to Mexico rose from $435 million to $595 million, with exports to Canada rising from $2.6 billion to $4.1 billion.

Had the Missouri River Dam System been built as originaly proposed, with locks for ship travel, then freighters or barges could have been loaded with grain and the grain shipped south.

That was not done.

44 posted on 05/30/2007 9:08:39 AM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
Time to check your eyeglass prescription?

lol

I know, evil road. Any other roads we should tear up, for the children?

If you have a point to make, and if you want to make it in a civil manner, then that's fine. You don't have to agree with me. But if all you can do is be insulting and foolish, then take it up with someone who's interested.

I'm not.

I've made my case. You're welcome to disagree and clearly you do. I've been civil in my responses to you in spite of your sarcasm and condescending attitude. But the increasing level of condescenion in your responses does nothing to argue against the points I've made about the North American Community report.

If your position is that this enhances free trade and is therefore a good thing, then why not argue that position rather than trying to be rude and insulting?

45 posted on 05/30/2007 9:13:35 AM PDT by SittinYonder (Ic ■Št gehate, ■Št ic heonon nelle fleon fotes trym, ac wille fur­or gan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

An open letter to a worried patriot: Why you needn’t lose sleep over a “North American Union”
By Michael Medved
Wednesday, May 9, 2007

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=an_open_letter_to_a_worried_patriot_why_you_neednt_lose_sleep_over_a_north_american_union&ns=MichaelMedved&dt=05/09/2007&page=full&comments=true

Over the last few weeks, I’ve received several letters, e-mails and even phone messages from listeners to my radio show who feel desperately worried or bitterly offended because I dismiss their fears that the Bush administrations and “corporate America” have devised a secret plan to destroy our national independence by merging the United States, Mexico and Canada into a “North American Union.” This dreaded outcome would feature the end of the Yankee dollar as we know it and the substitution of a worthless new currency called “The Amero.” (a Western Hemisphere counterpart to the Euro, obviously). I wrote back directly to one patriotic Navy veteran who shares these concerns and who lives in the Seattle area, as I do, in order to put his agitated mind at ease. I reproduce my letter below, in the belief that it might also help others come to terms with the exploitative scam by which agitators, fundraisers and a few sincere paranoids have tried to frighten people over a fictitious scheme that’s never been a serious consideration for our government or politicians.

Howdy, Neighbor-—

Thanks for your letter and I’m grateful that you care enough about my work to take the time to write to me. I also regret that you felt personally insulted when I used my radio platform to deride and mock the demagogues who are trying to frighten gullible people about the innocuous Security and Prosperity Partnership and the non-existent plans for a “North American Union.”

You felt that I insulted you “for strongly opposing the ludicrous ‘Security and Prosperity partnership/North American Union’ proposition being drafted.” No, I wasn’t insulting you for opposing any such scheme. All patriotic people would- and should -oppose any attempt to merge the U.S. with Mexico and Canada, and to terminate our national sovereignty. My scorn wasn’t aimed at opposition to such plans, but rather focused on those shameless scare-mongers who’ve tried to advance their own pathetic careers by getting you to believe that such plots even exist.

Doesn’t it tell you something that every time anyone in the administration or Congress is asked about the notion of a “North American Union” he denounces and rejects and ridicules the idea?

The demagogues and charlatans who promote this nonsense focus on Professor Robert Pastor of American University as the “Father of the North American Union.” But even Professor Pastor (who’s a liberal Democrat who advised Kerry and bears no connection whatever to President Bush) denied (to Jerome Corsi) that he believes that a “North American Union” is a good idea!

If you can find one official in any federal department, or one prominent politician of either party, who has ever, in any way, promoted submerging our national sovereignty into a new nation of North America, would you please give me the name? This is an urgent matter: don’t send a letter, call me with the name on Disagreement Day on our radio show, between 2:00 and 3:00 PM, any Thursday. (The number is 800-955-1776).

Ah, but the paranoid alarmists and sicko fear-peddlers suggest that the plans are secret, so naturally no one will acknowledge them. Never mind that when you go to the website of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (spp.gov) there is nothing in the least bit menacing or worrisome (unless you object to cooperation on securing the border and dealing with flu epidemics), and you will find extensive, well-documented and specific denials of grand plots that would damage sovereignty. The hypesters and hysterics tell you that it’s all part of the master plan to hide diabolical intentions until it’s too late, and the conspirators have already managed to terminate our independence and destroy our currency.

But surely you know that any “North American Union” would require a big, big fight in Congress before winning approval.

Even NAFTA – a much less significant change in economic policy – generated years of controversy and a ferocious pitched battle in Congress (remember the big televised debate between Ross Perot and Al Gore?). How do you think the purported conspirators would be able to impose their nefarious plans (including the non-existent plans for a new currency, the “Amero”) without going through months or years of argument and agitation, and somehow winning majorities in both houses of Congress? And if they’re really planning to go forward in this huge public fight, what sense does it make for them to keep their plans secret? Why aren’t they already working to soften up public opinion for their final victory?

May I also remind you that the main source of all the alarmism on this non-existent threat is a struggling website known as WorldNutDaily that also promoted an “authoritative” report that consumption of soy milk caused the current epidemic of homosexuality. When I ridiculed that story on the air, and invited its author and researcher to defend his crapola in public, he quickly scurried away to the dank and dingy under-the-rock quarters from which his “science” originated.

And please note that the same flamers and losers who promote the “North American Union” nonsense also warned the world that Y2K would bring the end of civilization as we know it. I scoffed at that paranoia at the time, and of course I was completely right. Where are the apologies from the demagogues who scared millions with tales that the “Millenium Bug” would cause our economy to collapse and democracy to end?

Neighbor, you sound like a good egg -— and a real patriot (and I salute your service as an officer in the WWII Navy, where my dad also served, but as a humble enlisted man). But as a proud nationalist, veteran and America-booster, you should join me in focusing on the real threats to our country: Islamo-Nazi terror, socialist militants who want to nationalize healthcare and kill the free market system, blame-America leftists who seek to cripple the country because they think that our current power and prosperity somehow threaten the world.

These are real threats. They are reflected in open and highly-publicized debate, with leading politicians (even Democratic Presidential candidates) rallying support for disastrous changes (like nationalized health care, higher taxes, more bureaucracy and less freedom) that would imperil the Republic.

The “North American Union” isn’t a real threat – in the political mainstream, no one favors it, no one advocates it, no one is planning it. With all the billions of words written against the North American Union, where are the corresponding speeches, articles, columns, or manifestos that actually favor it?

At the moment, the agitation and paranoia about this non-existent “scheme” (who are the schemers, anyway?) serves as a Weapon of Mass Distraction – taking good people (like you) out of the real battles where we need you.

I hope you’ll refocus your passion and admirable fighting spirit on the significant issues that menace our beloved country, and disentangle yourself from this delusional dreck.

With respect and sympathy —— Michael Medved


46 posted on 05/30/2007 9:34:36 AM PDT by Valin (History takes time. It is not an instant thing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SittinYonder
If your position is that this enhances free trade and is therefore a good thing,

More roads enhance trade are are a good thing. Roads do not destroy our sovereignty. No matter what the CFR says.

47 posted on 05/30/2007 9:35:03 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists (and goldbugs) so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot; SittinYonder; bmwcyle
Some roads are okay and some destroy the nation?

---------Note this is a reply to Toddsterpatriot

____________________________________________________

You are either paid to try and obfuscate the issues, or you are a fool, I have time for neither.

48 posted on 05/30/2007 9:41:24 AM PDT by itsahoot (The GOP did nothing about immigration, immigration did something about the GOP (As Predicted))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

So what’s the issue?


49 posted on 05/30/2007 9:45:06 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Why are protectionists (and goldbugs) so bad at math?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: SittinYonder; Toddsterpatriot
He's doing nothing but trying to goad you SittinYonder. He'll try diversion and childish retorts at every instance.
He also, apparently, doesn't believe it'll be four football fields wide (even when the article says...a 10-lane highway with six lanes for automobiles and four lanes for trucks. Freight and commuter railways and a utilities corridor are also part of the proposal...)
...or that it'll be run by a foreign company (...Cintra proposes to invest $6 billion in a toll road between Dallas and San Antonio by 2010
I do concede that it'll be off limits to most Americans is a stretch. Who will pay the tolls if it's not open to Americans? The Mexican trucking companies?
50 posted on 05/30/2007 10:20:24 AM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-232 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