The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Randy Brogdon went to Texas to talk about the proposed Super Highway.

http://www.okpns.com/2007/11/super-highway-would-infringe-on-states.html

"Oklahoma House Bill No. 1819 would have helped create a "NAFTA super highway" by waiving Oklahoma's 11th Amendment right not to be sued in federal court."

"He told participants in a Thursday night program offered by the Midland Business and Professional Chapter of the John Birch Society that the road would be regulated under international law."

Now, I thought Randy Brogdon's impassioned defense of people who circulated the TABOR petition in violation of Oklahoma law was over the top, but insisting that a federal highway would be regulated by international law is just plain nutty.  And why talk with Birchers in Texas?  Does he need their support?

I think Randy drank the wingnut's KoolAid, then went back for seconds.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ed W

Randy Brogdon went to Texas to talk about the proposed Super Highway.

http://www.okpns.com/2007/11/super-highway-would-infringe-on-states.html

"Oklahoma House Bill No. 1819 would have helped create a "NAFTA super highway" by waiving Oklahoma's 11th Amendment right not to be sued in federal court."

"He told participants in a Thursday night program offered by the Midland Business and Professional Chapter of the John Birch Society that the road would be regulated under international law."

Now, I thought Randy Brogdon's impassioned defense of people who circulated the TABOR petition in violation of Oklahoma law was over the top, but insisting that a federal highway would be regulated by international law is just plain nutty.  And why talk with Birchers in Texas?  Does he need their support?

I think Randy drank the wingnut's KoolAid, then went back for seconds.

---

 This is a very serious threat and I am proud that Oklahoma is standing up to face it head on.

Did anyone else think that news article was poorly written?

I just spent a little time looking into this; essentially the coalition against this highway is anti-business, anti-globalization, and tree huggers.  What exactly they are opposed to I am not really sure.

Currently we import many goods from over seas.  Mexico and Canada are our largest trading partners.  Our highways are over loaded with trade (they were built to facilitate trade remember).  I don't see what is so threatening about a new highway?

Furthermore, the "NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY" that everyone fears already exists.  It's called I-35:
http://www.nascocorridor.com/admin/images/docs/NASCO%20CONGRESSIONAL%20-%20Myth%20vs%20%20Fact%20December%202007.pdf

Much like the "Avenue of the Saints" from St. Louis to St. Paul it is not a new stretch of 6 lane road with this that and everything else...  it is joining together infrastructure in a coherent manner to make it more effective.  

I also saw no indication that there was any intent to govern said corridor under international law - the Mexican/Canadian/American commercial trucks that were license to be on it would probably be covered by a new set of laws just as Oklahoma trucks on Interstates in Missouri are covered by what were "new" laws for the Interstate system (load permits, insurance requirements, etc.).  

I guess I just don't get the general objection.    Is it that trucks are not the most economical form of transit, that you think trade or economic development is bad, or that you fear closer ties with our neighbors?

Personally, I'd like to see rail be more friendly to use since it is very economical.  But anyone that has ever dealt with a railroad knows that using it to ship cargo for most companies is simply not feasible.  Same with the port (even MORE efficient, but requires huge loads).  I also hate the space utilized by cars in this country, just seems like a waste (and the maintenance!).  

Nonetheless, I fail to see this as a sovereignty issue.  Perhaps I am just ill informed but in spite of what that article said I could find no support for its claims.  I have spent minimal time looking into this, so as always, feel free to correct me please.

www.truthbetolled.com (http://"http://www.truthbetolled.com ")

The patriotism and intellectual curiosity of those for whom talk of the trans-national highway does not spark the slightest flame should be in doubt. Questions of whether this is One World Gubmint aside, the attempt to seize land for the purpose of the highway should cause one's hackles to rise.

On the lighter side, did you all know that I-35 is . . . um . . . prophesied in scripture? (CBN via Rumormillnews) (http://"http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?noframes;read=114423")

Great link, Tim. I wonder if I can count my pikepass as tithing?

If I-35 is the highway to heaven, I must have taken the off-ramp somewhere. The side road to Satan may be filled with pot holes, but the fellow travelers and the scenery are way more fun.

In the Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/hayes (http://"http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/hayes")

Ed W.

Greetings from the right side of Attila the Hun.

I read your post and the link you included.  Neither of these states whether Sen. Brogdon is in favor or opposed to the NAFTA Super-Highway.  I have talked with Senator Brogdon about this issue and heard him speak on the subject a few more times.  I have a hard time believing he is in support of the highway and/or waiving Oklahoma's rights.

Do you have any more information on this that would show Sen. Brogdon's stance on the subject.  I need to know if he needs to hear my opinion or not.

Just because he spoke, doesn't mean he's in support of the idea.

BTW, I saw Sen. Brogdon's profile on the John Birsch website once.  He commands a $1000 speaking fee.  I'd travel to Massachusetts for $1000, let alone Texas.

Chesty

quote:

---

Originally posted by Double A

In the Nation:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/hayes (http://"http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/hayes")

---

Thanks for the link AA, they were talking about this on the readio the other day and I could not remember what they were calling it until I saw it in this article. Check out "North American Union" on Google and find the story Lou Dobbs did.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H65f3q_Lm9U (http://"http://")

It seems that this will make The US, Canada and Mexico like the Eruopean Union, with free trade and travel from Mexicos southern border (not our southern border) to the northern border of Canada.

Not paranoid but I want to find out more about this, because I believe that they also want to create a common currency.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chesty




Do you have any more information on this that would show Sen. Brogdon's stance on the subject.  I need to know if he needs to hear my opinion or not.

Just because he spoke, doesn't mean he's in support of the idea.

BTW, I saw Sen. Brogdon's profile on the John Birsch website once.  He commands a $1000 speaking fee.  I'd travel to Massachusetts for $1000, let alone Texas.

Chesty

---

LINK (http://"http://www.mywesttexas.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19071931&BRD=2288&PAG=461&dept_id=475626&rfi=6")



An Oklahoma state senator said Thursday that he led opposition to a plan like the Trans Texas Corridor this year because it would have surrendered his state's sovereignty to the federal government.


...Saying the big Texas and Oklahoma highways are necessary to the creation of the North American Union by Mexico, the U.S. and Canada, Brogdon explained he became aware of the danger a year ago and was alarmed when the bill overwhelmingly passed the Oklahoma House of representatives in Oklahoma City.


..."We'd be subject to an international tribunal in case of a dispute, including accidents or other lawsuits."

=======================

I saw Randy coming into Panera Bread over the weekend, Chesty, but I didn't get a chance to talk with him.  I like the guy because he's articulate and obviously committed to public service, but the ideas expressed up above are way out of the mainstream.

But that said, you know I'd most likely oppose a superhighway like this on environmental grounds.   I've seen estimates ranging from 100 yards to 400 yards for the right-of-way.  It would be a huge concrete gutter, cutting farms and towns in two.  We have enough highways dividing our cities, towns, and farmland already.  The noise alone is reason to oppose it.

On the other hand, we could form a legion of Paul Tay wannabes, and bring traffic to a standstill.  I find a certain perverse appeal in that idea.

OK, Once again, my political arch-nemesis, I think we are on the same side of this issue.  Neither of us want this highway.  Unless I am reading wrong, neither does Brogdon.

Something strange is happening here....either your getting more conservative, I'm getting more liberal, or our world is evolving in a way that blurs the traditional lines between libs and cons.

I personally see the highway as a piece of a larger North-American Union  on the horizon.  I oppose it because I believe if that happens we can say good bye to the middle class in America.  Of course I certainly like the environmental reasons you cited too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dbacks fan
Not paranoid but I want to find out more about this, because I believe that they also want to create a common currency.

---

They call this currency the Amero.

Did anyone actually read what I posted?

THERE ARE NO PLANS FOR A SUPER HIGHWAY, A UNION, OR A COMMON CURRENCY

You are protesting I-35.  No official has proposed and no one is even lobbying for what you are conspiring about.  We have free trade with Mexico, Canada, Peru, Panama, and several other central American countries.  Canadian trucking can use our roadways.  Mexican guest workers flock to the US in the millions.  The United States is governed by hundreds of international law treaties...  and yet we remain the United States.   You think widening I-35 is the last straw?

When someone of note suggests any of the things you are talking about let me know.  Until then keep your tinfoil hats firmly over your ears.  I'm off to slay Chupacabra before he tries to jump the border.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Did anyone actually read what I posted?

THERE ARE NO PLANS FOR A SUPER HIGHWAY, A UNION, OR A COMMON CURRENCY

You are protesting I-35.  No official has proposed and no one is even lobbying for what you are conspiring about.  We have free trade with Mexico, Canada, Peru, Panama, and several other central American countries.  Canadian trucking can use our roadways.  Mexican guest workers flock to the US in the millions.  The United States is governed by hundreds of international law treaties...  and yet we remain the United States.   You think widening I-35 is the last straw?

When someone of note suggests any of the things you are talking about let me know.  Until then keep your tinfoil hats firmly over your ears.  I'm off to slay Chupacabra before he tries to jump the border.

---

Yeah, we just didn't believe you.

Texas Legislature Takes on NAFTA SuperHighway (http://"http://www.jbs.org/node/3416")

 

quote:

---

 the bill "would put the brakes on the Trans-Texas Corridor, a superhighway that a private firm received a contract for earlier this year."

---

Texas DOT Trans-Texas Corridor Page (http://"http://www.keeptexasmoving.com/index.php/trans-texas_corridor")

....doesn't appear to be "I-35" to me at all.

And, is way beyond the 'planning' phase and into the Public Comments portion of development.

Any idea what happens to this 1,200-foot wide right of way once it reaches Texarkana?

Here's another one, La Entrada al Pacifico (http://"http://www.la-entrada-al-pacifico.com/")

Oh, and the Amero also already exists (http://"http://memosphere.wordpress.com/2007/10/03/the-end-of-the-united-states/"), if not yet in circulation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Did anyone actually read what I posted?

---

Frankly, no.

And the Nation article is a great example why David Corn has 'left' it for Mother Jones.  The article is more like an article about writing the article than something exploring the issue.

Wrinkle, Texas has lacks the ability to build a superhighway in Oklahoma, it lacks the ability to sign trade agreements with Mexico, it lacks the ability to negotiate international law, it lacks the ability to allow foreign workers in, it lacks the ability to create a currency...

What does Texas wanting to build roads have anything to do with the theories discussed above?

Texas needs more roads coming from the border... I-35 N. is a mess all the way to OKC.  The corridor from Houston to Corpus is horribly choked.  You argument actually is that Texas is conspiring to build larger roads and thereby form a American Union and force the nation to adopt an international currency and thereby strip Oklahoma of its sovereignty?

Alrighty then... have fun with that.

And, Wrinkle, never mind that the land grab is the single largest case of abuse of eminent domain in the history of the US.  Never mind that a Spanish conglomerate is being given the work in that grand 'no-bid- kind of way.  Nope. Nothing more to see here. CF sez so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Wrinkle, Texas has lacks the ability to build a superhighway in Oklahoma, it lacks the ability to sign trade agreements with Mexico, it lacks the ability to negotiate international law, it lacks the ability to allow foreign workers in, it lacks the ability to create a currency...

What does Texas wanting to build roads have anything to do with the theories discussed above?

Texas needs more roads coming from the border... I-35 N. is a mess all the way to OKC.  The corridor from Houston to Corpus is horribly choked.  You argument actually is that Texas is conspiring to build larger roads and thereby form a American Union and force the nation to adopt an international currency and thereby strip Oklahoma of its sovereignty?

Alrighty then... have fun with that.

---

The same organization which developed the Texas plan has been working with Oklahoma's legislature, bringing changes designed to expand those roads through the state and onward.

Brogdon (http://"http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57915") has been instrumental in exposing their non-public, closed door deals.

In particular, the power of eminent domain has been attempted to be granted a non-national corporation. "Public-private partnership" legislation and contracts are being revised to allow wholesale ownership of formerly public type projects with no public input to the process whatsoever.

 

quote:

---

As WND previously reported, Brogdon has opposed legislation that would have pre-authorized the extension north into Oklahoma, as a deceptive piece of legislation (HB 1917) that would have put Oklahoma in a highway "pilot project" that was unlimited in scope and required Oklahoma to waive its 11th Amendment rights.

---

OKLAHOMA HB1917 (http://"http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/2007-08HB/HB1917_int.rtf")

Some historical reading for your perusal (PDF) (http://"http://www.ok-safe.com/Documents/NAFTA_Superhighway_07.pdf")

....I'm sensing you're in the infrastructure business, C-F. Are you related to Poe?

1. Tim, use of eminent domain for roads has never been considered an abuse.  In fact, roadways were one of the original intended purposes for it.  

2. A Spanish company is being granted a contract to work in Texas... how does this concern you?  If it is a federal "no bid" contract then file instant suit.  You are awarded attorney's fees in such actions and I bet you can find 12 other contractors in Texas who would love to have that work.  I call BS.

3. Wrinkle:  Eminent Domain is a governmental power, it can not be "granted" to anyone.  What's more roadways are a classic example of a proper use of eminent domain.

I must be missing the point.  Not to be trite, but Texas is widening I-35 and a group wants Oklahoma to do the same.  How do we go from that to transnational union, single currency, and Mexican cops pulling me over on the highway?  I must have missed a serious step in there because all those things are Federal issues.

Are we assuming because Texas wants to widen I-35 that Oklahoma will do the same, and from there union with Mexico is evident?  If that's the issue I have several hundred things more pressing to worry about.  If Im being daft, let me know.  I really don't see the threat here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chesty

OK, Once again, my political arch-nemesis, I think we are on the same side of this issue.  Neither of us want this highway.  Unless I am reading wrong, neither does Brogdon.

Something strange is happening here....either your getting more conservative, I'm getting more liberal, or our world is evolving in a way that blurs the traditional lines between libs and cons.

I personally see the highway as a piece of a larger North-American Union  on the horizon.  I oppose it because I believe if that happens we can say good bye to the middle class in America.  Of course I certainly like the environmental reasons you cited too.

---

Chesty - the whole political sphere is an arbitrary division of our population into warring tribes.  We're given the illusion of choice but we have no more choice that the puppets in a Punch and Judy show.  You may side with Punch or you may side with Judy, but it's the same puppet master pulling the strings.  The middle class is shrinking because the ruling oligarchy has decided to make it so.  They want a ruling elite drawn from the super rich, a small class of artisans, technicians, and professionals to support their way of life, and a huge underclass that provides cheap labor.  

The highway must be opposed because it's just another manifestation of the supposed dominance of car culture here in the United States, a culture that has reached its zenith and begun to decline.  With the rise of the industrial systems in both India and China demanding ever increasing quantities of oil, the days of cheap fuel are over.  Gasoline driven automobiles will be extinct, and at present there are no equivalent technologies to replace them.  The highway would be an expensive, under-utilized white elephant.

Now understand that as a cyclist, I have to do my part to bring an end to the days of the motor vehicles, much as the rise of small mammals may have contributed to the extinction of the dinosaurs.  All cyclists are privy to the 'plan of the day' - similar to the daily talking points put out by the political parties - except ours are plans for global domination.

By coincidence, we were discussing this highway while hanging upside down in the 'lib cave' as most of us do when we're not drinking chardonnay, and we reached a consensus on taking action against this project as another means of wreaking havoc on the country's self-deluded motorists.  I'll spare you the gruesome details because they gave me a headache.  Or maybe it was the hanging upside down that did it.  How do bats manage?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ed W
The highway must be opposed because it's just another manifestation of the supposed dominance of car culture here in the United States, a culture that has reached its zenith and begun to decline.  With the rise of the industrial systems in both India and China demanding ever increasing quantities of oil, the days of cheap fuel are over.  Gasoline driven automobiles will be extinct, and at present there are no equivalent technologies to replace them.  The highway would be an expensive, under-utilized white elephant.

---

Now that is an argument against it I can get behind.

Assuming, and bare with me, that international trade is more efficient and is not going to go away AND that internal travel is likely to remain steady or increase:

What are some viable alternative forms of transportation?

Rail is cumbersome, not convenient, and inefficient in the great wasteland of the Western US.

Water is slow and fails to reach every where.

Aircraft are expensive and inefficient.

If we could solve that problem, there would probably be a few bucks in it for us!

/sry I've been a grump in this thread.  I just don't get the greater concerns listed above.

quote:

---

Texas wants to widen I-35  

---

Calling their proposal a street widening is about as descriptive as calling our River Tax "the first phase of a street improvements program".

If you were to actually read the material, you'd see even the portion of the Trans-Texas Corridor project which approximates I-35 is a parallel project and does not actually widen I-35 at all. In fact, it leaves I-35 to rot into 3rd or 4th class transportation intentionally to boost toll traffic. Politicians have no trouble not spending money maintaining roads. Seems I recall something local in this regard recently.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ed W
By coincidence, we were discussing this highway while hanging upside down in the 'lib cave' as most of us do when we're not drinking chardonnay, and we reached a consensus on taking action against this project as another means of wreaking havoc on the country's self-deluded motorists.  I'll spare you the gruesome details because they gave me a headache.  Or maybe it was the hanging upside down that did it.  How do bats manage?

---

There are plenty of folks willing to stop this by any means necessary. Something along the lines of a 21st century Boston Tea Party. The more they try to push this, the more the resistance will grow. The roots of this in Oklahoma actually go back many years ago, when State Sen. Keith Leftwich chaired the North American Super Corridor Organization(NASCO) and he authored legislation to get Oklahoma involved.

For those who think there's no 'national' or 'international' plan, here's the Congressional Version of the Corridors Projects (PDF) (http://"http://www.portstoplains.com/maps/congressional%20corridors.pdf")published by the Federal Highway Administration.

And, here's the Ports-to-Plains Corridor Projects (http://"http://www.portstoplains.com/maps.html")

Wrinkle, this is where my problem comes in.

The DOT document you listed is "Congressional High Priority Corridors."  Or what roads Congress wants to see improved.  It includes I-35 as well as 1/3 of the rest of the Interstate System and a number of other Federal Highways.

I do not deny that Congressmen want to see highways improved in the United States.  They were designed and built in the 1950's, it would only stand to reason that they need some work.  I just fail to see ANY connection between the highway improvements linked and an international union eliminating the sovereignty of Oklahoma.  Honestly, if you do not see that such a thing is a leap I'm not sure it is worth discussing.

And the second link is an advocacy group made of of trade advocates, teamsters, and those in the infrastructure business.  That would be like linking to a Vermont secessionist group and claiming that the US government wants to dissolve itself.  The source has no correlation to the claim.  Whats more, even they have no intention of a national union nor revocation of enforcement rights or a single currency or anything else you mentioned.

So yes, people want to improve existing roads and built knew roads.  I STILL don't see what that has to do with removing I-35 from Oklahoma's jurisdiction, a single currency, or anything else.  You have convinced me that the more severe aspects of your concern are just conspiracy theories at this juncture.  If there is any actual talk of building a road down in Texas that will cause any of them to come to pass, let me know.

CF sounds like the Wizard of Oz with the pay no attention to the man behind the curtain spiel. I wonder if he is a member of the lollipop guild?

Tulsa,

Those of you who poo-poo this Superhighway deal are not aware of what is going on.  I sincerely hope that you will get on the net and check it out thoroughly.  I was at the Midland meeting where Senator Brogdon spoke, have been researching this merger deal for 3 years, and can support Senator Brogdon in everything he said.  There is a big fight going on in Texas about this highway and its implications.  Pull up Hank Gilbert who ran for Texas Agriculture Commissioner and listen to his tapes on "Paving Over Texas" and "NAFTA."  Search "Impeach Perry," and take a look at how he's going around laws and our legislature.  Search for the blog "Muckracker" and find out just how much corruption is involved in this.  This highway is set up to run local businesses out of business with blocking of exits.  They've even bought up 40 rural newspapers to block communications along this road.  I have an April 1999 article in the Mexican paper advocating the initiation of the Amero.  The BBC has been talking about it for about a year.  We're just not being told about it.  And Randy Brogdon struck me as one of the most honest men around.

quote:

---

Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Wrinkle, this is where my problem comes in.

The DOT document you listed is "Congressional High Priority Corridors."  Or what roads Congress wants to see improved.  It includes I-35 as well as 1/3 of the rest of the Interstate System and a number of other Federal Highways.

I do not deny that Congressmen want to see highways improved in the United States.  They were designed and built in the 1950's, it would only stand to reason that they need some work.  I just fail to see ANY connection between the highway improvements linked and an international union eliminating the sovereignty of Oklahoma.  Honestly, if you do not see that such a thing is a leap I'm not sure it is worth discussing.

And the second link is an advocacy group made of of trade advocates, teamsters, and those in the infrastructure business.  That would be like linking to a Vermont secessionist group and claiming that the US government wants to dissolve itself.  The source has no correlation to the claim.  Whats more, even they have no intention of a national union nor revocation of enforcement rights or a single currency or anything else you mentioned.

So yes, people want to improve existing roads and built knew roads.  I STILL don't see what that has to do with removing I-35 from Oklahoma's jurisdiction, a single currency, or anything else.  You have convinced me that the more severe aspects of your concern are just conspiracy theories at this juncture.  If there is any actual talk of building a road down in Texas that will cause any of them to come to pass, let me know.

---

 

quote:

---

I do not deny that Congressmen want to see highways improved in the United States.  They were designed and built in the 1950's, it would only stand to reason that they need some work.  

---

I can agree word for word with you on this.

And, while the Congressional map does indicate this, it's also used as a guideline for those planning 'corridor' work, which are actually independent of the Congressional map.

It's about the process, C-F, not so much the result. Much the same as some things which are attempted here locally. (i.e., South Tulsa Toll Bridge, which is mostly designed to implement the local proceedures and processes which do much the same as the construde corridor projects on a national scale.)

It's the guise of 'Public-Private Partnerships' which needs revisiting. As instituted, they've become a wholesale means of scarfing public monies to private operations, and with virtually no public involvement.

The corruption potential alone is reason enough to oppose these plans.

Meanwhile, our leaders, nationally, state and local are allowing our infrastructure to deteriorate until an emergency rises and people die so that when they propose their 'solutions' as the only means by which things can be done, it starts to sound reasonable.

Ignore a $10 Million annual expense for ten years and you've got more than a $100 Million problem. Not only do you not have the $100 Million, it was actually allocated to other uses.

Politicans like that, even if the public becomes greatly compromised. After all, they'll have moved on by then.