Posted on 08/21/2007 4:59:36 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
OTTAWA — It's a threat that has left-wing Canadian nationalists and right-wing U.S. congressmen in rare and dismayed agreement: a freeway, four football fields wide, stretching from Mexico to northern Manitoba.
Groups on both sides of the political spectrum say the corridor - dubbed the NAFTA superhighway - is a primary goal of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America established two years ago by the leaders of the United States, Canada and Mexico.
At separate press conferences in Ottawa yesterday, the road was held out as an example of the potentially repugnant effects of the trilateral partnership.
There's just one thing: Officials in Canada and the United States say no plans for any such freeway are in the works. The concept, they say, is part urban myth and part fear-mongering.
But the detractors of the SPP are convinced that the road's construction has already been approved. They argue that plans are being kept secret, a lament they extend to the discussions taking place behind closed doors this week in Montebello, Que., between U.S. President George W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon.
"The chief project thus far of the SPP is the so-called NAFTA superhighway which would connect Mexico, the United States and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City," warned Republican Congressman Ron Paul in a statement read at one of the morning news events in Ottawa yesterday.
"Millions would be displaced by this massive undertaking which would require the eminent domain actions [expropriations] on an unprecedented scale. ... A Spanish construction company, it is said, plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road."
Just a few minutes earlier, a collection of antiwar activists and civil-rights spokesmen led by the Council of Canadians, a non-profit group that fights against corporate integration with the U.S., offered a similar message.
They warned that a Trans Texas Corridor being built in Mr. Bush's home state that "will be four football fields wide and include lanes for cars, trains and trucks headed from the Mexican coast" will not end in the United States.
"Through public-private consortia like the North American Super Corridor Coalition, which counts the province of Manitoba as a proud participant, plans are under way to extend the Texas pet project right up past the Canadian border to an expanded port in Churchill," warns a Council of Canadians pamphlet entitled Behind Closed Doors that features pictures of the three leaders on its cover.
The U.S. embassy in Ottawa issued a press release yesterday calling the superhighway a myth.
A spokesman from the Prime Minister's Office scoffed at the claim, saying a simple denial that plans for the project are in the works would be "an understatement."
Even the North American Super Corridor Coalition (NASCO) says the superhighway is not one of its goals.
"We are concerned with improving the efficiency and security and safety of existing transportation infrastructure," said Frank Conde, the director of communications for NASCO.
The need for those improvements was made clear with the bridge collapse in Minneapolis earlier this month, Mr. Conde said. But there is no move by NASCO to create a separate international highway, he said.
Even if there is no specific proof that the highway is going ahead, the Council of Canadians says there is a plan to fortify trade corridors through North America that transport Canadian water to the United States while damaging the environment by putting more trucks on the road.
And, said Stuart Trew, a council spokesman, "it's fortifying this kind of pattern of the economy where goods are made in areas where civil liberties and human rights are lower and where you can make them cheaper."
*****
What is the SPP?
The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America is a framework for a trilateral relationship by the leaders of the United States, Canada
and Mexico.
It resulted from a get-together involving U.S. President George W. Bush, Canadian prime minister Paul Martin and Mexican president Vicente Fox, when they met in March of 2005 in Waco, Tex.
It states that the three countries will establish a co-operative approach to advance their common security and prosperity.
While the partnership talks about securing North America from internal and external threats, it also promises a streamlining of legitimate, low-risk traffic across the shared borders, as well as the promotion of economic growth, competitiveness and quality of life.
Critics in both Canada and the United States argue that it will infringe on national sovereignty and promote the import of cheaper goods from such places as China, and that the agreement was reached in secret without broad consensus.
Advocates dismiss those concerns as conspiracy theories of protectionists and say that the partnership will promote cross-border trade that is vital to the economies of all three nations.
BTTT
Here’s what I think:
There are exteral threats coalescing in various ways. Particularly the Islamic caliphate and Asian power bloc (China/Russia becoming more united). Meanwhile, we have the internal threat to our sovereignty that is the NAU. We can argue whether it’s a threat or not, though, since all these external forces need to be met with some kind of unified terrirorial structure. There’s no doubt that our alliances ae being redefined.
My comment about the Patriot Act, which I regard as an eminent threat to the Bill of Rights as much as McCain/Feingold, was a parrallel. 911 caused a shift in thinking among the average guy that made such a law acceptable. Along the way, it was pitched as PART of a plan to secure the US against our enemies, foreign and domestic. The reality is, the Patriot Act was as far as it ever got, since the borders were never secured and decisively winning the war was subjugated to economic concerns and PC sensitivities.
My question was, ‘what will it take for people to accept the loss of sovereignty and the unification of North America?’ The answer lies in your post 24- the external threats that the MSM is ignoring, as much as they’re ignoring the NAU. If we suffer another ‘incident’, the ensuing paradigm shift will make way for this.
And the people at Montebello know it.
Amoosebitmysisteronce.
And, although Judicial Watch has said that they will file FOIA to find out what those evil businessmen are up to, we(the globo-phobes) can find, on the internet, all of NACC's recommedations for 2007, 2008, and 2010.
Not necessarily. I think it was allowed to progress, for various reasons. Not just the 911 incident, but terrorism in general since 1973. (watch ‘The Road to 911’. That’s what I think.)
Was it used by internal control freaks to further undermine the sovereignty of free people? Yep. Did America deserve to have our freedoms undermined? In many ways, yes. As a culture, we worry about Hollywood morons more than anything of real substance. The founders uttered dark prophecies about this.
Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom. We are asleep at the switch.
Candor, WMA was replaced by :
The Emergencies Act is an Act of the Government of Canada to authorize the taking of special temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies and to amend other Acts in consequence there of the Parliament of Canada.
It received Royal Assent on July 21, 1988, replacing the War Measures Act.
The Emergencies Act differs from the War Measures Act in two important ways:
1. A declaration of an emergency by the Cabinet must be reviewed by Parliament
2. Any temporary laws made under the Act are subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Thus any attempt by the government to suspend the civil rights of Canadians, even in an emergency, will be subject to the “reasonable and justified” test under section 1 of the Charter.
“why did 25 members of the House send a letter to the President asking for more “Transparency” regarding the SPP and NAFTA?”
That’s a very good question. Eventhough Congress is constantly trying to get the Admin to reveal their bag of tricks, why would they bother with conspiracy theories??
LMAO!
We Canadians who believe that we are superior to the US in areas of personal freedom simply need to know the truth of the matter, before casting stones at the "Patriot Act. We could have its equivalent in Canda so fast that it could happen in 24 hours , subject to parliamentary review, but by then , boots would be on the ground and troops on the move.
Smugness often is a precursor to ignorance, as I have found in my own experience.
Gatun,
Is there anything you can tell us about the Chinese Cmpany that now manages ( controls) the Panama Canal. I am strategically curious about how they could prevent the US
Navy Atlantic Fleet from getting quickly into the Pacific.
I think that is true. There are even border checkpoints with customs agents where the roads cross the borders.
Churchill and northern Manitoba needs a 2-lane highway (currently served by only a railroad for part of the way) but no more.
Except in the urban areas, a 4-lane freeway is adequate along the corridor north of Kansas City to Winnipeg. The traffic counts range from about 5,000 to 20,000 along there.
Oh please. That's just a conspiracy theory! < /sarc>
It's tough to maintain a real road in the frozen North. I took a trip to Moosonee long ago, and the last miles were by train, and Churchill is further North and really in the tundra ....................... FRegards
The bigger question is, would any of it get past Texas?
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.