I-69 "Commerce Connector": Indianans Sue to Unwittingly Halt Segment of NAFTA Superhighway

Editor's note: Neither Indiana officials or opponents of an I-69 construction project seem aware of the plan's link to a secretive unilateral agreement reached last year by US, Mexican and Canadian leaders to integrate the three countries into a "North American Community."

One of reportedly 80 "stand alone" commerce corridors comprising the US portion of the North American SuperCorridor (NASCO, left)--a massive transcontinental combo road-train-truck transportation network physically linking the US, Canada and Mexico in an open-bordered North American Union--is slated for review and vote next year in the Indiana state legislature.

But neither state legislators or local environmental groups that recently filed a lawsuit to stop the proposed $1.8 billion construction project realize the plan is part of a much more ambitious privatized system (see page 4) of interlinking US toll roads either in place by early this year or under similar review in other states.

In March 2005, President Bush held meetings with then-Mexican President Vincente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin at his Crawford, Texas ranch culminating in their unilateral ratification of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). Their plans, characterized as "NAFTA on steroids," calls for open borders and unrestricted trade facilitated by a super highway linking the three countries.

The three leaders' respective national judiciaries and legislatures were excluded from their review and approval process.

While major US media are conspicuously silent about their agreement or its disturbing implications, the Toronto Star reported the development a week after learning of a secret forum meeting in September among US-Canadian-Mexican officials in remote western Canada.

Indiana business leaders and Republican Governor Mitch Daniels are promoting the proposed "Indiana Commerce Connector" toll road (see more detailed PDF file here) for the Northeast, East and South sides of Indianapolis as a strategy for boosting the state economy and traffic easement around the capitol city. But a cost analysis review conducted by the University of Indiana (see below) reveals that the Indiana Department of Transportation's projections of total costs and benefits to state residents were dramatically overstated.

To date, only a handful of Indianians with homes or property along the right-of-way of the proposed construction project, slated to last ten years and eventually extend to the state's southwestern corner in Evansville, have voiced concern over the I-69 plan.

But the state's relative passivity markedly contrasts with opposition in Texas to the proposed system of commerce and trade toll corridors along that state's portion of I-69. Collectively called the TransTexas Corridor, the state-wide plan was quickly pushed through the Texas legislature last year, even though up to one million mostly rural Texans could be required to relocate when eminent domain laws are invoked to confiscate properties needed for the massive project.

What also angered many Texans about project was the awarding of a no-bid contract for construction and subsequent toll management of the roadways to CINTRAS, a Spanish consortium of construction and management companies that invested $7.2 billion in the plan.

With Lou Dobbs' increasingly high-profile opposition to the transcontinental integration proposal for its inordinate benefit to America's "investment class," President Bush expedited construction of the NAFTA superhighway this summer by appointing Mary Peters as Norman Minetta's replacement as US Transportation Secretary. According to author and Washington journalist Wayne Madsen, Peters has a checkered history as paid shill for the surface transportation industry that has carried over into her occasional stints as state and federal transportation officials (see September 8/9/10 entry).

In reviewing local news accounts excerpted below on the Indiana Commerce Connector, the plan, though no similarities are cited, resembles Texas's proposed TransCorridor project, which begins construction in early 2007. Because the Indiana legislature has yet to approve the project, no company is mentioned in connection to the I-69 loop plan or future service maintenance and toll collections contracts.

Local and State Reports on I-69 Loop

The three articles below offer contrasting perspectives on the $2 billion project, slated for initial construction in early 2008 to last for 10 years. The first, written some time after May 2006, actually includes the term "NAFTA Superhighway" (while the two news reports omit any such reference). Contact information also is provided for obtaining a free video from one group rallying local resistance to the plan, which is seen as a threat to rural sections of Indiana.

The news reports are from The Frankfurt (Indiana) Times and Indianapolis Star. Posted 3 October, The Times story, posted from one a town in a country in the project's proposed right-of-way, addresses area residents' legal opposition to a plan that "would destroy about 5,300 acres of farmland, 1,500 acres of woodland and 95 acres of wetland, and would damage or disturb some 400 acres of sensitive ecosystem in caves, sinkholes and underground streams, according to the plaintiffs."

The Star piece appearing on 10 November does a good job in interviewing several players on both sides of the story. But omitting any reference the NAFTA superhighway fails to situate the project in a vaster design clearly with national implications. The piece cite "mixed views" among state legislators, including concern over invocation of eminent domain.

1. NAFTA Superhighway Update

by Jan Lundberg

The University of Indiana has done a cost-benefit study on the Indiana portion of I-69, the first NAFTA Superhighway. It found that there would be a net loss of 19 cents per dollar spent. This updates the discredited Indiana Department of Transportation's study which claimed there would be $1.54 gained per dollar spent. (Read the rest of the report here.)

2. I-69 Opponents Sue in Indiana

By RICK CALLAHAN, Associated Press Writer

MARTINSVILLE, Ind. - Environmentalists and citizen groups sued the federal government and Indiana highway commissioner Monday, alleging that the state rigged the process for choosing a route to extend Interstate 69 from Indianapolis to Evansville.

The lawsuit asks a federal court to halt planning and design work on the state's favored route for the $2 billion project, which would extend the highway 142 miles through mostly rural counties primarily served by winding, two-lane roads. Construction is tentatively scheduled to begin in the summer of 2008.

The plaintiffs argue that officials violated federal law, including the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act.

The lawsuit also alleges that the route selection criteria was tailored to ensure that the state's preferred route was chosen, and that officials did not seriously consider upgrading existing Interstate 70 and U.S. 41 for the path. It contends that route would be significantly less expensive and cause less environmental damage.

"This case comes down to the state ignoring good sense, the law and public sentiment to choose the wrong route for Interstate 69 when there's clearly an environmentally and economically preferable route out there," said Tim Maloney, executive director Hoosier Environmental Council, one of the plaintiffs. (Read the rest of the story here.)

3. Gov. wants toll road loop around Indy
Daniel's pitch: 75-mile metro tollway would boost business, ease traffic.

By Theodore Kim and Mary Beth Schneider
theodore.kim@indystar.com

Gov. Mitch Daniels promoted it as a launching pad for economic growth, a way to extend I-69 without tolls and a solution to traffic congestion around Indianapolis.

But his plan to build a privately run, 75-mile toll bypass through five counties is also raising concerns that the new highway would invite sprawl, harm the environment and lead to the possible forced seizure of land by the state.

.... Sen. Robert N. Jackman, R-Milroy, who represents some of the people whose land would be affected, said he is a strong supporter of preserving farmland. But, he said, change is coming to his rural area, and he and the local officials he's spoken to are excited by the plan.

David C. Long, the Fort Wayne Republican who is taking over as Senate president pro tempore, said he's sure he and other lawmakers will have questions. But right now he could see only positives -- a toll-free I-69, reduced congestion northeast of Indianapolis and an economic development generator for the counties the toll road would run through.

"The public is entitled to a full explanation of how this will result in growth and what type of growth are they talking about," said Sen. Timothy S. Lanane, D-Anderson. (Read more here.)

==

That "growth" as it's being pitched to you, Senator Lanane, entails the forcible restructuring of Indiana and most US states as we now know them--without adequate public notice or discussion.

Postscript: Watch CNN's Lou Dobbs here update progress on the North American Union.

Update: Governor Mitch Daniels, avid proponent of privatization as a panacea of all social ills, now is aggressively pursuing privatizing Indiana's lottery. Among the bidders are Greek, Italian and New York companies. When will investigators check Daniels' offshore banking accounts for kickbacks? Illinois is considering a similar privatization plan.

Independent Truckers Oppose PA. Interstate Sell-Off to "Foreign-Based Private Interests"

SPECIAL REPORT: OOIDA says privatization of interstates is ‘anti-American’

Dec. 1, 2006 – The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association is letting Pennsylvania officials know that leasing the state’s roads to private companies is not only unacceptable, but un-American.

Proposals to sell the turnpike to private companies is a wrong-headed idea and to consider selling this national asset to foreign companies even more so, OOIDA Executive Vice President Todd Spencer said.

He called the privatization proposal by Rep. Richard Geist, R-Altoona, a “choreographed campaign being driven by foreign-based private interests.”

“The idea of selling the turnpike may sound good to some opportunistic politicians thinking in the here and now,” Spencer said, “but it certainly would not be a yellow brick road for the highway’s users who will be paying exorbitant tolls for years to come or for Pennsylvanians who will see those tolls translate into higher prices at the checkout counter and more congestion on the commonwealth’s other highways.”

Read more here.

Architect of North American Union Says Merger "Just Crisis Away"

In October Dr. Robert Pastor, a American University professor and key intellectual force in development of a plan by the Council for Foreign Relations to integrate the US, Mexico and Canada, told a Spanish magazine he thought a "new 9/11 crisis" could expedite the merger of the three nations into a European-styled North American Union.

"Pastor had published an interview in Spanish in the Oct. 24 issue of Poder y Negocios. He told the magazine crises can force decisions that otherwise would not be made.

'The 9/11 crisis made Canada and the United States redefine the protection of their borders,' Pastor explained. 'The debt crisis in Mexico forced the government to adapt a new economic model. The crises oblige the governments to make difficult decisions'."

Read full story here.

US Commerce Secretary Reports North American Union "Top Priority"

The August Review--a "Global elite research center" exposing America's "super-elitists" --tracks the evolving North American Union, including the NAFTA superhighway.

Founder and editor Patrick M. Wood (right) collaborated with the late Dr. Antony Sutton, prolific author who exposed Wall Street's secret funding of the Third Reich, Bolshevik Revolution and, more recently, the war efforts of North Korea and North Vietnam against the US. --Editor.

==

Is SPP an Executive Branch Coup d'Etat?

The North American Union (aka Security and Prosperity Partnership) is being administered and championed by the Secretary of Commerce, with help from other cabinet position posts. This article answers the SPP's new defense, SPP Myths vs. Facts.

Is SPP an Executive Branch Coup d'Etat?

Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez has declared advancing the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America to one of his top goals, writing in a letter archived on the Department of Commerce website that “I have made the SPP one of my top priorities and will utilize the talents and expertise of the people across the Department of Commerce to ensure the SPP is a success.”

Secretary Gutierrez began his letter with obvious enthusiasm:

I would like to bring your attention to an exciting new initiative that is a high priority for President Bush, me, and the entire Bush Administration: the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). This initiative was announced on March 23, 2005, by President Bush, President Fox of Mexico, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin. It establishes the framework under which the three countries will seek to create a safer and more prosperous North America over the coming years.

Secretary Gutierrez next laid out an explanation of how “security” and “prosperity” fit together, using language that carefully replaced reference to the United States of America to language embracing the concept of “North America” as an economic and political reality.

First, Secretary Gutierrez addressed “security.”

The SPP is built around the two, complementary objectives of greater security and prosperity. In the security sphere, we will aim toward a common security strategy focusing on:

• Securing North America from external threats;
  
• Preventing and responding to threats within North America; and
  
• Streamlining the secure and efficient movement of legitimate and low-risk traffic across our shared borders.

Then, Secretary Gutierrez logically moved to “prosperity.”

In the prosperity sphere, the countries will focus on: Improving productivity;

• Reducing the costs of trade; and
  
• Enhancing the joint stewardship of our environment, facilitating agricultural trade while creating a safer and more reliable food supply, and protecting our people from disease.

This tautological language was designed to present objectives that looked obviously reasonable and important, almost Orwellian in their crafting. It takes attention to detail to note that the security and prosperity definitions virtually demand our borders with Mexico and Canada be erased, all in the interest of “streamlining,” “shared borders,” and “reducing the costs of trade,” all the while protecting our environment, our food, and our health.

The critical part of Secretary Gutierrez’s letter came next, however, when the Secretary of Commerce explained how tri-lateral cabinet-level working groups would be created in the three governments with a mission to rewrite a broad array of administrative laws all to be accomplished strictly within the executive branches of Mexico, Canada, and the United States.

Secretary Gutierrez enters the discussion by bragging about the importance of the role he is assigned to play:

Organizationally, I am jointly responsible for the economic, or prosperity, component of the SPP, with my Canadian counterpart, Minister of Industry David Emerson, and my Mexican counterpart, Secretary of Economy Fernando Canales. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, jointly with his Canadian and Mexican counterparts, is responsible for the security component. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, jointly with her Canadian and Mexican counterparts, will ensure that the two components are integrated and that the SPP advances our strong relations with Mexico and Canada.

This explanation of how the “working groups” were to be organized and managed proved to be more detailed even than the explanation given on SPP.gov, the website Secretary Gutierrez created within the Department of Commerce to manage this new “tri-lateral initiative.”

Nowhere in the letter does Secretary Gutierrez make any reference to the U.S. Congress. Instead, he invites inquiries to Geri Word who works within the International Trade Administration (ITA) office of the Department of Commerce, giving out her phone number as 202-482-1545 and her email as geri_word@ita.doc.govThis email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it .

A new “Myths vs. Facts” addendum has been added to the SPP.gov website, representing an attempt to deflect criticism. Here the Department of Commerce attempts to discredit the “myth” that “The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.” In the “Fact” response, SPP.gov openly admits that the SPP declared in Waco on that date was little more than a press release:

The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.

The goal of the “Myth vs. Facts” seems to be to reposition the entire SPP process as a mere “dialogue.” If the Department of Commerce were to openly admit that SPP.gov is rewriting U.S. administrative law, Secretary Gutierrez would need some the Constitutional justification to underpin his enthusiasm for combining with Mexico and Canada. Are we to seriously believe that pure dialogue, an exchange of intellectually challenging tri-lateral ideas is the reason Secretary Gutierrez has boasted that advancing SPP is one of the most important objectives of his office?

Working groups rewriting U.S. administrative laws in areas ranging from e-commerce, to steel policy, to energy policy, to aviation control, to border crossing policy, to environment (to mention just a few) are arguably creating the legal infrastructure for a regional government to emerge by administrative fiat.

Yet, there is no provision in the U.S. Constitution that justifies the executive branch to rewrite U.S. administrative law without formulating a treaty that must be submitted to the Senate for ratification by a two-thirds vote. These are the cold realities Secretary Gutierrez and SPP.gov seek to side-step with their reassuring “security” and “prosperity” platitudes.

Robert Pastor, the American University professor who is the leading contender for the title “Father of the North American Union” has provided much of the intellectual arguments for the logic underlying SPP. Pastor has argued for an incremental process of creating a North American Union, beginning with a “dialogue” that sounds uncomfortably like the politically correct definition of its mission as presented by SPP.gov itself.

Pastor in an article entitled “NAFTA is Not Enough,” argued for an incremental process that could head toward the creation of the NAU, all the while providing cover for participating politicians and governments to deny that creating the NAU was their goal. In this essay, Pastor wrote:

Europe has struggled with these questions for nearly fifty years, and its members still have not clearly decided on their destination. NAFTA is only eight years old, and its project from the beginning was much more modest than the EU’s. While the three governments of North America are unlikely to step into the debate on long-term goals at the current time, nongovernmental organizations, research institutes, and universities should fill the void with new ideas and old-fashioned cross-border dialogue.

Pastor begins the next paragraph by advising “the likely path the three governments are to take is the status quo with modest adjustments.” He concludes the paragraph by commenting: “All three governments could surprise themselves by taking a great leap forward, but this seems possible only if there is a dramatic crisis of some kind.”

Dr. Pastor seems to prescribe that a fear formula is all that is needed for the American people need to begin begging SPP to produce the NAU right now. Pastor openly writes as if the next 9/11 terrorist attack or a future outbreak of some health epidemic such as the avian flu could be just what the NAU doctor ordered as the prescription for the American people to abandon sovereignty in favor of super-regional government control, all in the interest of “security” leading to “prosperity.” Or, is it “prosperity” which necessitates more “security” via surrender to Big Brother government?

Disinformation and deniability are the two key concepts of the SPP modus operandi. We have to look no further than the “Myth vs. Facts” debunking document recently posted on the SPP.gov website to see the anticipated denial:

The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.

If SPP.gov is not aimed at a massive re-write of U.S. administrative law in a tri-lateral “harmonized” and “integrated” format, than why not just shut SPP.gov down? As Robert Pastor pointed out, “dialogue” can occur within universities. Reading the SPP.gov attempt at denial, we are reminded of Réné Magritte’s famous painting entitled “Ceci n’est pas un pipe.”

When the “dialogue” begins to take place in Cabinet-level tri-lateral executive branch committees, patriots are well advised to be concerned that an executive branch coup d’etat may be underway, all in the name of a North American tri-lateral “partnership” devoted to nothing more than “security” and “prosperity.” Or, as Aldous Huxley might ask, would someone please pass the soma?

Reprinted with permission.

Dr. Corsi received a Ph.D. from Harvard University in Political Science in 1972. He has written many books and articles, including co-authoring the #1 New York Times best seller, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (along with John O'Neill), "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" (along with Craig R. Smith), and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians."

His latest book published with co-author Jim Gilchrist, the founder of The Minuteman Project, entitled: "Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America's Borders" (World Ahead Publishing).

In 1981, he received a Top Secret clearance from the Agency for International Development, where he assisted in providing anti-terrorism training to embassy personnel.

Dr. Corsi's columns currently appear on HumanEvents.com. He lives with his family in New Jersey, where he is a full-time writer.