Crazy conpiracy about mystery NAFTA superhighway.

Eminent domain is evil!

sorry for my dumb question, but could someone please explain to me as a foreigner what exactly the problem with such a highway would be (other than with every other non privately owned road?)

Not to mention the fact that the government is seizing some 800+ square miles of private lands and homes - against the will of their owners - in order to *give* it to this foreign company to build a toll highway.

Eminent domain is evil!
 
Patronus, This is not a Texas traffic issue.
This is a Mexico to Canada Issue.
This is a National sovereignty issue.
The link to TxDOT was only for the purpose of proof of existence
Some idiots have made the claim that there is no plan for a NAFTA superhighway.

How does a highway jeopardize our national sovereignty? Claiming that it does is isolationist and xenophobic. All it will do is facilitate trade... what is wrong with that?

NAFTA doesn't own these highways nor do they control them. Nor does any group in collusion. Cintra is an investment company. Their only motivation is to make money. What is wrong with that?

Yes, the eminent domain issue is bad for property holders. No one has seemed to care the past 50 years of highway development though. With that logic, we should shut down all the roads. And trust me, TxDOT has worked in so many provisions into the comprehensive development agreement, they will not get screwed on this.

And as someone highly involved in transportation policy and who has been to many conferences and meetings with FHWA and TxDOT, I can tell you that this is very much so about traffic. If you don't want Cintra participating in this, then they'll just raise the gas tax and build it themselves. Cintra has also only been awarded a couple sections in the Austin area. Future sections will be open to bidding for everyone. If domestic investors would get their acts together, maybe we can keep this at home.
 
How does a highway jeopardize our national sovereignty? Claiming that it does is isolationist and xenophobic. All it will do is facilitate trade... what is wrong with that?

NAFTA doesn't own these highways nor do they control them. Nor does any group in collusion. Cintra is an investment company. Their only motivation is to make money. What is wrong with that?

Yes, the eminent domain issue is bad for property holders. No one has seemed to care the past 50 years of highway development though. With that logic, we should shut down all the roads. And trust me, TxDOT has worked in so many provisions into the comprehensive development agreement, they will not get screwed on this.

And as someone highly involved in transportation policy and who has been to many conferences and meetings with FHWA and TxDOT, I can tell you that this is very much so about traffic. If you don't want Cintra participating in this, then they'll just raise the gas tax and build it themselves. Cintra has also only been awarded a couple sections in the Austin area. Future sections will be open to bidding for everyone. If domestic investors would get their acts together, maybe we can keep this at home.

So nice of you to join us Fred - so tell us how's your campaign going? Hows your smoking hot trophy wife and your perfect little trophy child doing thee days?

When one thinks of the TCC 69 project, one must also take into account the laws that are currently being passed and how they will affect the soverienty of our nation...


http://www.amo-union.org/newspaper/Morgue/1-2002/Sections/News/border.htm

Mexican Trucks Will Have Access To Entire Nation

Decision To Open Domestic Transportation May Reverberate In Waterborne Shipping


President Bush Dec. 4 signed into law a provision that will in time grant Mexican trucking companies access to roadways throughout the U.S., a decision that may reverberate in the domestic waterborne shipping industry.

The Senate had previously drafted a set of safety standards for which it would have conceivably taken years to establish inspection and enforcement systems, and which Mexican trucking companies would have been very hard pressed to meet. The House of Representatives passed legislation to prohibit Mexican trucks from operating outside of a 20-mile zone within the U.S. border.

However, a House and Senate conference committee in November compromised on legislation that keeps several of the safety standards proposed by the Senate but relaxes or eliminates others in order to make it easier for Mexican trucking companies and the U.S. Department of Transportation to meet the new less demanding guidelines.

NAFTA, which was implemented in 1994, required that the U.S. open U.S.-Mexico border states to Mexican trucking in 1995. Further, it required that Mexican trucks and drivers be allowed access to all states in the U.S. by Jan. 1, 2000. In the interim, it allowed Mexican trucks to travel in a commercial zone ranging from 3 to 20 miles into U.S. soil to deliver cargoes bound for interior states.

Although this issue deals exclusively with ground transportation, it has strong parallels with U.S. shipping laws, the Jones Act and Passenger Vessel Services Act. These cabotage laws reserve the waterborne transportation of cargo and passengers for ships built in the U.S., crewed with U.S. citizens, owned and operated by companies for which a majority of stakeholders are U.S. citizens.

Organized labor has long objected to opening the U.S. to Mexican trucking, citing greatly increased safety risks from inferior long-haul trucks from Mexico operating on U.S. roadways, as well as the loss of jobs and attrition in wages that will befall American truck drivers as a result.

The Clinton administration never implemented the NAFTA requirement that would have granted unrestricted access to Mexican trucking operations, citing safety concerns. Mexican trucks have remained limited to the 3 to 20 mile zone.

A NAFTA tribunal in Mexico challenged this position in 1998 and in February 2001 released a decision requiring that the U.S. open its border per NAFTA requirements or face financial penalties.

The compromise legislation signed by the President will allow Mexican carriers to apply to the DOT for conditional and/or permanent operating authority. If the operator is found to meet U.S. safety standards, a permit can be granted to authorize the company's trucks to operate throughout the U.S.

According to the U.S. Customs Service, 2,383,471 trucks crossed the border from Mexico to the U.S. in 2000 and, as of September 2001, 1,681,526 trucks had entered the U.S. from Mexico.

According to a study published in February 2001 by Public Citizen, about 1 percent (35,000) of every one million Mexican trucks that cross the border undergo safety and licensing inspections. Of that 1 percent, more than one-third, about 12,250, are turned away because of safety deficiencies.

In all, the Transportation Department (DOT) estimates that opening the border will increase traffic from Mexican trucks to about 7 million from its current level, according to the study. At the time the report was published, there were 101 state commercial truck inspectors and 60 federal inspectors at the border. The DOT estimates covering every one of the 7 million Mexican trucks would require about 32,000 inspectors.

The compromise legislation doesn't hold to the truck-by-truck inspections cited by Public Citizen. Instead, it modifies the safety standards originally passed by the Senate to create a company-by-company inspection system, with additional checks of individual drivers at the border.

Under the new legislation, Mexican trucking companies that apply for conditional authority to operate within the U.S. must pass safety inspections by U.S. inspectors, and 50 percent of the trucking capacity must be inspected in Mexico. The original Senate package required 100 percent. Those seeking permanent authority must undergo a full compliance review and on-site inspection by the DOT.

Mexican trucks operated by approved companies must be inspected every 90 days for three years. Border crossings must be equipped with scales, and in-motion weighing systems must be in place at the 10 busiest border crossings. Approximately 200 new Federal Motor Carrier inspectors and field personnel must be hired.

Mexican truck drivers carrying hazardous cargo will undergo electronic driver's license verification. At least 50 percent of all other Mexican truckers will be subject to electronic license verification.

Before any Mexican trucking companies are granted authority to operate beyond the 20-mile border restriction, the DOT must inspect the border systems to ensure the improvements have been implemented.
 
How does a highway jeopardize our national sovereignty? Claiming that it does is isolationist and xenophobic. All it will do is facilitate trade... what is wrong with that?

NAFTA doesn't own these highways nor do they control them. Nor does any group in collusion. Cintra is an investment company. Their only motivation is to make money. What is wrong with that?

Yes, the eminent domain issue is bad for property holders. No one has seemed to care the past 50 years of highway development though. With that logic, we should shut down all the roads. And trust me, TxDOT has worked in so many provisions into the comprehensive development agreement, they will not get screwed on this.

And as someone highly involved in transportation policy and who has been to many conferences and meetings with FHWA and TxDOT, I can tell you that this is very much so about traffic. If you don't want Cintra participating in this, then they'll just raise the gas tax and build it themselves. Cintra has also only been awarded a couple sections in the Austin area. Future sections will be open to bidding for everyone. If domestic investors would get their acts together, maybe we can keep this at home.

Go back to the Rudy forum.
This is for people that want to keep America Sovereign.
The NAU is well documented.

WE say NO.
 
i came across this blog - http://criminyjicket.wordpress.com/2007/07/11/ron-paul-and-the-nafta-super-highway-with-corrected-links/
and was wondering what to make of this...
On October 30, 2006 He said this: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst103006.htm

what this article does not say is the NAFTA superhighway IS I-69.

On march 12, 2007, Ron Paul made a request for funds. It was for I-69, and was categorized as funding for roads. see this link. (page 20)

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0706/popup.congress.earmarks/pdfs/tx.14.paul.pdf

Now, if he was against it in october, why is he trying to appropriate funds for it in march? Don’t say “well he voted against it in the final bill.” Just tell me why he tried to appropriate funds for the NAFTA superhighway.

There you go ron paul bloggers. Handle that… BTW, I am really curious about this, so if any of you have information let me know. The NAFTA superhighway will go through my town, and I don’t like it. China is funding deep water ports in mexico, which will make them the big winner in the whole deal."

PS - I am not a troll, nor do I work for an opposing campaign. Thank you.
 
Is the NAFTA "Superhighway" a "Holy Highway"?

It is unfortunate that some Christian groups are now convinced that the NAFTA "Superhighway" is a "holy highway". Don't believe me? Take a look at this.

As a Christian, I must say that this really frightens me. To hear about my Christian brothers and sisters actually praying that this NAFTA highway become a reality and using the Scriptures to justify it is such a shameful illustration of their Biblical negligence and Constitutional ignorance. I can assure you that this is one prayer I hope Almighty God doesn't answer!
 
wow

It is unfortunate that some Christian groups are now convinced that the NAFTA "Superhighway" is a "holy highway". Don't believe me? Take a look at this.

As a Christian, I must say that this really frightens me. To hear about my Christian brothers and sisters actually praying that this NAFTA highway become a reality and using the Scriptures to justify it is such a shameful illustration of their Biblical negligence and Constitutional ignorance. I can assure you that this is one prayer I hope Almighty God doesn't answer!

Now those are some wild memes.
 
The only real problem that I can see with this highway is that the border is already a free for all mass migration. Is this highway just going to facilitate illegal immigration and smuggling?
 
The only real problem that I can see with this highway is that the border is already a free-for-all mass migration. Will an open corridor facilitate illegal immigration and smuggling?
 
truck_dees.jpg
 
Living in the EU ... And not being in a FEMA-Camp yet :D ... How was the EU made?

It was initially billed as just a "trade agreement" but slowly more things have been added. Now they're trying to sneak a constitution in on you disguised as a "reform treaty". Regardless of whether it's "good" or not, doesn't the stealth aspect of it at all bother you?

Regards,

John M. Drake
 
Hey, I live in Canada and my brother lives in Mexico. I'd love a fast highway to go visit my brother. I've read the argument here, and they hold no weight with me, accept one. The only issue I have is over eminent domain. Otherwise I'm for it. Zoom zoom zoom.
 
Regardless of whether it's "good" or not, doesn't the stealth aspect of it at all bother you?

Any person who really reads the document and all of its relevant documents would see that this is not a "good" thing. The Charter of Fundamental Rights, given the same legal value as the Treaties under the Lisbon Treaty, actually says in no uncertain language "limitations may be made only if they are necessary and genuinely meet objectives of general interest recognised by the Union" which is certainly not democratic language.
 
Hey, I live in Canada and my brother lives in Mexico. I'd love a fast highway to go visit my brother. I've read the argument here, and they hold no weight with me, accept one. The only issue I have is over eminent domain. Otherwise I'm for it. Zoom zoom zoom.

Whadda ya say to somebody that lives in another country and doesn't care about our national sovereignty? :rolleyes:
 
Back
Top