NBC Nightly News report on this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOWKs-wC2ek

This has been reported on for years, but always dismissed as "conspiracy theory". Now, it's basically already happening and is finally being reported on by mainstream media.

Thoughts?

But its gonna pave over Branch Davidians in Waco so it can't be all that bad! Actually Ron Paul brought this up in the Fox debates if I remember correctly.

We need less transport of goods and more local goods. Nothing good can come from shipping so much shit such great distances when a lot of it can be made nearby. This massive highway cutting Texas in half (and splitting school districts and towns and so forth from what I hear) is just another infrastructure blemish we don't need.

It makes Austin traffic a nightmare. you can see all the cars being towed 2 3 at a time in convoys down I 35 heading south from the auctions every month. Not to mention the semis taking up the road heading north.

we paid for more toll roads to relieve the conjestion and bypass Austin but there a joke since we are paying for them twice and local finance papers put there profitabilty not to be reached for 30 years. which boggles everyone since that was released and they want us to pay for more.

Im glad I dont live around Padre Island the drive to there with all the construction has been a nightmare for years and likely to just get worse even with the completion.

The cars, semis that dont meet even Texas standards on pollution become a greater issue for air quality then theres insurance issues if you have been involoved in a wreck with a Mexican vehicle. I see the plates almost every day.
Nafta hasnt helped American jobs or the enviroment.

Actually Ron Paul brought this up in the Fox debates if I remember correctly.
Well sure, but when he (or others) calls a spade a spade, it's popular to label that as "conspiracy theory". Never mind that it's going on right under our noses, and never makes the mainstream media until it's well underway.

We had a thread covering this some time back. And I still want a super corrider through Philly.

I don't know if we had a thread specifically about this.

This seems like a huge deal to me. As recently as just several months ago, when officials were pressed for answers on the plans to do this, the answers were always along the lines of "I don't know of any plans like that". Now, it's already under way (meaning it was a concrete plan for a long time).

Even setting aside the issues of protecting our borders and sovereignty, this is doubly bad for people anywhere near its path. They've only just begun, and are already using eminent domain to unceremoniously cut paths right through existing farms and property. On top of that, businesses and towns near I-35 that depend on interstate traffic will be ghost towns when this is completed.

The whole thing seems awfully bad.

It's obviously slanted far to the other side, but there's some interesting information here: http://www.corridorwatch.org/ttc/

Seems like a pretty good idea (though the devil will be in the details) --

Privately funded
Eases congestion and increases safety on the commuter/interstate roads
Revenue generation (I'm assuming the state will take a portion of the tolls)

Looks to be a HOV lane for trucks. I'd love to be able to travel the roads and interstates and have all of the trucks moved to their own lanes. It would make for a much more enjoyable traveling experience.

It's my understanding that the state is significantly subsidizing it though. Is there a precedent for using eminent domain to force people to accept something that's mostly privatized? For that matter, when is the last time eminent domain has been used to force people off of over 500,000 acres of land in one state for one project? That's ridiculous, when no one in the state wants it except for those profiting.

It seems like a pretty dirty sweetheart deal between Cintra and Rick Perry & Co:

Governor Rick Perry has refused to release many of the details of the $1.3 billion contract his administration has signed with Cintra for a toll road from Austin to Seguin as part of the Trans-Texas Corridor. The Spanish company has had a close relationship with the governor's office: Perry's former legislative director, Dan Shelley, worked as a Cintra consultant and lobbyist prior to joining the governor's staff, and in September 2005, he went back to work for Cintra. Both he and his daughter, Jennifer Shelley-Rodriguez, now have lucrative contracts to lobby Texas legislators on the company's behalf.

In the end, it's not likely to help Texans. It's designed to help those importing and exporting through Texas, not into or out of it.

Any word on the numbers of citizens forced off their land?

I don't have any data on that yet. I think the land-grab hasn't really started in full yet. Since it's starting to become a reality, there have been a step away from riots at all of the public hearings on it in Texas, but the people are being completely ignored.

I do know the Texas DOT recommended that the ability to try eminent domain cases be extended to many more courts, because they expect so many land-grabs that it would bottleneck at the state courts.

Another big issue is how physically divisive it will be. The right-of-way for the thing is going to be about 1,200 feet. Almost four football fields wide. This means that massive bridges crossing it will be few and far between. Especially since there is no incentive at all for Cintra to waste money on that. They only care about facilitating freight transport to and from inland ports.

If this thing divides your land, you could literally have to travel a hundred miles to get to a crossing to be able to get to the other side of it. That's terrible. Have friends or family in the next town over? Buy an airplane!

They're planning on building this thing all the way to Canada, eventually. It's just Texas for now, but it threatens to profoundly affect a lot of people in its path.

I think this thing deserves a lot more attention than it's getting.

I don't have any data on that yet. I think the land-grab hasn't really started in full yet. Since it's starting to become a reality, there have been a step away from riots at all of the public hearings on it in Texas, but the people are being completely ignored.

I do know the Texas DOT recommended that the ability to try eminent domain cases be extended to many more courts, because they expect so many land-grabs that it would bottleneck at the state courts.

Another big issue is how physically divisive it will be. The right-of-way for the thing is going to be about 1,200 feet. Almost four football fields wide. This means that massive bridges crossing it will be few and far between. Especially since there is no incentive at all for Cintra to waste money on that. They only care about facilitating freight transport to and from inland ports.

If this thing divides your land, you could literally have to travel a hundred miles to get to a crossing to be able to get to the other side of it. That's terrible. Have friends or family in the next town over? Buy an airplane!

They're planning on building this thing all the way to Canada, eventually. It's just Texas for now, but it threatens to profoundly affect a lot of people in its path.

I think this thing deserves a lot more attention than it's getting.

It got some attention in the Democratic debate last night at least... Hopefully it gets more in the coming weeks.

I thought they were only talking about the fence last night (which also has exactly similar issues with eminent domain and land division).

I thought they were only talking about the fence last night (which also has exactly similar issues with eminent domain and land division).

My bad, it was the fence

Texas is really the last place I'd want to start massively disturbing the locals, at least in the US. This has the chance to blow up in so many ways, it's really quite striking.

Don't forget that one of the questions that is now asked of members of the military by the Bush administration is "If ordered to do so will you fire upon citizens of the United States on US soil"

Don't forget that one of the questions that is now asked of members of the military by the Bush administration is "If ordered to do so will you fire upon citizens of the United States on US soil"

I pray the answer to that is 99% no :(

Now, couple that with the fact that they recently did away with Posse Comitatus.

That is scary as hell.

Don't forget that one of the questions that is now asked of members of the military by the Bush administration is "If ordered to do so will you fire upon citizens of the United States on US soil"

Kent State won't forget.

Bad in so many ways it's not funny.

Wait is that true? Do they have to answer yes?

yes it is true and has ben since bush first took office. they say you do not have to answer yes, but I bet they find you unfit for service if you do.

Lawrence Wright spoke to me and some colleagues last summer about some similar stuff. He wrote the screenplay "The Siege" just before 9/11 and how crazy it was a lot of it came true. I thought the FBI and the National Guard were the only ones allowed to police US citizens?

yes it is true and has ben since bush first took office. they say you do not have to answer yes, but I bet they find you unfit for service if you do.Or if not unfit, sepparate yes from no so they know which units to send into domestic situations.

Speaking with some local servicemen, I've heard of some pretty shady stories involving US military opperating on home ground. One of the more interesting involved soldiers supporting boarder patrol along the Mexico line, under the guise of 'night training.' With our current leaders, the idea of armed soldiers playing police is not exactly comforting.

I thought the FBI and the National Guard were the only ones allowed to police US citizens?
Now, couple that with the fact that they recently did away with Posse Comitatus.
From the end of the Civil war until 2006, Posse Comitatus prevented it, correct.

Now, they can use the military here. Look up NORTHCOM. It's a military organization, just like CENTCOM, but specifically focused on us.

The recently updated continuity of government plans make that even more shady. Congress and Homeland have both been denied in their requests to read the full plan, but just the summary basically outlines martial law in the event of anything at all going wrong.

Pandemic, environmental, economic, terrorist, you name it. Any large event, domestic or foreign, gives the President power to sic NORTHCOM on us.

BTW...my answer would be a resounding NO.

Speaking with some local servicemen, I've heard of some pretty shady stories involving US military opperating on home ground. One of the more interesting involved soldiers supporting boarder patrol along the Mexico line, under the guise of 'night training.' With our current leaders, the idea of armed soldiers playing police is not exactly comforting.

How is it "shady" to use the U.S. Army to patrol the borders of the United States, in support of the Border Patrol?

They take an oath to "Defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." This has been the oath that all servicemembers and naturalized citizens take, well before the Bush administration took office.

Remember the Border Patrol is trying to keep illegals out, not the citizens in.....

Rover, can you provide a copy of this "order to fire on US Citizens" ?

Otherwise, take off the tinfoil hats.

Personally I like the idea, especially living in the southwest and seeing how understaffed our boarder patrol is, but US military isn't supposed to operate on domestic soil in that manner, especially covertly and walking around with live weaponry. That makes it shady. Just imagine how Mexico would react to knowing there was a military force building up along the boarder - there's a reason we're not supposed to do these things.

Just imagine how Mexico would react to knowing there was a military force building up along the boarder - there's a reason we're not supposed to do these things.

You mean they'd stop making chimichungas?

I haven't heard any reports of soldiers with loaded weapons patrolling the border. Now, soldiers with NVG's (Night Vision Goggles) patroling the border, and calling in illegals crossing the border to the Border Patrol would be excellent "night training".

Heh I live in San Antonio, and due to the attacks on tol lroads etc here the proposed transTexas Mistake will now go about 60 miles east of San Antonio and the connection for us would be near Seguin Texas. This is insane to say the least. I wish they would fix 35 like they talked about since I was a kid. I wish that they would put a light rail between Austin and San Antonio. I wish the millions of dollars ear marked for projects at loop 1604 and 281 N were not wasted on other things and now they are going to add toll to roads built with federal tax dollars....

From the end of the Civil war until 2006, Posse Comitatus prevented it, correct.

That's not entirely correct. Posse Comitatus has always had exceptions (I believe troops were deployed in the 1992 LA riots for example). The 2006 changes expanded the circumstances under which troops could be deployed domestically, but the power has existed for a long time (Insurrection act of 1807).

Also Kelraz, I believe the Coast Guard is allowed to police U.S. Citizens, and they are a part of the Navy.

I believe the Coast Guard is allowed to police U.S. Citizens, and they are a part of the Navy.


The Coast Guard is not part of the Navy, it is a stand alone service with its own training facilities.

does anyone have proof where this is asked of servicemen/women or is it just something that's blowing around? As Sixee said, you do swear an oath and I do remember when going thru the enlistment process if I was a conscientious objector. I'd be curious at what point you're asked if you'd fire on American citizens.

That's not entirely correct. Posse Comitatus has always had exceptions (I believe troops were deployed in the 1992 LA riots for example). The 2006 changes expanded the circumstances under which troops could be deployed domestically, but the power has existed for a long time (Insurrection act of 1807).
Troops were deployed in LA in 1992, based on the Insurrection Act. That used to stipulate that troops could only be used against us in dire situations, as a last resort.

At the same time Posse Comitatus was loosened, the Insurrection Act was amended to expand the situations that would legally warrant its invocation. At this point, something happens just about every week that would qualify.

The existence of NORTHCOM says it all.

Related: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/04/ED5OUPQJ7.DTL

does anyone have proof where this is asked of servicemen/women or is it just something that's blowing around? As Sixee said, you do swear an oath and I do remember when going thru the enlistment process if I was a conscientious objector. I'd be curious at what point you're asked if you'd fire on American citizens.

It is asked during what is known as "Martial Law Exercises" which is also something new and exciting from the Bush administration. Written proof? No, however quite a few active duty and reserve troops are a bit upset by both the exercise and the question.

If one was a concientious objector would the military be a place they would want to serve? Or would the Peace Corp be better?

The only thing I could dredge up on this was the following:

http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2008/02/04/us-troops-asked-if-they-would-shoot-american-citizens1994-combat-arms-survey/


U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American Citizens/1994 Combat Arms Survey (http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/2008/02/04/us-troops-asked-if-they-would-shoot-american-citizens1994-combat-arms-survey/)

U.S. Troops Asked If They Would Shoot American CitizensIraq vet exposes how he was trained to round up Americans in martial law exercise, asked if he would kill his own friends and family

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet (http://www.prisonplanet.com/index.html)
Monday, February 4th, 2008
U.S. troops are being trained to conduct round-ups, confiscate guns and shoot American citizens, including their own friends and family members, as part of a long-standing program to prepare for the declaration of martial law, according to a soldier who recently returned from Iraq.


We received an e mail from “Scott”, a member of a pipefitters union that runs an apprenticeship program called Helmets To Hard Hats, which according to its website (http://info.helmetstohardhats.org/content/faq/), “Is a national program that connects National Guard, Reserve and transitioning active-duty military members with quality career training and employment opportunities within the construction industry.”

Scott writes that his company hired a soldier who had recently returned from Iraq, who told him that U.S. troops were being quizzed on whether or not they would be prepared to shoot their own friends and family members during a national state of emergency in America. “I have become very close to this young man and have gained his respect and trust,” writes Scott. “I want you to know that he informed me about one particular training exercise his superiors made them perform. It was concerning the rounding up of American citizens that disobey any type of martial law or in other words any type of infringement on our freedoms.”

With this sort of "credibility" how could anyone question the truth of it?

:rolleyes:

Its known origins can be traced back to an October 1994 Marine questionnaire out of the Twentynine Palms Marine Base in California. Recruits were asked 46 questions, including whether they would kill U.S. citizens who refused to surrender their firearms.



This was really interesting as Twentynine Palms, otherwise known as "The Stumps" does not have any recruits based there.

But I do know and have heard first hand from current members of the armed forces that the question is being asked and there are Martial Law exercises being conducted.

This leaves me speechless.

"The Coast Guard is not part of the Navy, it is a stand alone service with its own training facilities."

I was going by this from the USCG site --

"Upon the declaration of war or when the President directs, the Coast Guard operates under the authority of the Department of the Navy."

Is the USCG similar to the Marines?

Regardless though, the USCG is a military branch of the federal government with domestic enforcement authority.

"The Coast Guard is not part of the Navy, it is a stand alone service with its own training facilities."

I was going by this from the USCG site --

"Upon the declaration of war or when the President directs, the Coast Guard operates under the authority of the Department of the Navy."

Is the USCG similar to the Marines?

Regardless though, the USCG is a military branch of the federal government with domestic enforcement authority.


The USCG is under the Dept of Homeland Security....funny...hitler had a dept of Homeland Security...:(


Is the USCG similar to the Marines?


There is nothing similiar to the Us Marines!

The USCG is under the Dept of Homeland Security....funny...hitler had a dept of Homeland Security...:( I've thought for a long time that "Homeland Security" was possibly the dumbest name they could have picked. Haven't our leaders ever read any dystopian fiction? Or perhaps it was on purpose, and they're only half the liars we think they are.

Today, I was thinking about this again.

You know what's sadly funny? This Spanish company, Cintra, is taking away land from the original Spanish Land Grant via our Eminent Domain laws.

Awesome.

But if this is a non government for profit venture, why are they able to take the land instead of purchasing it? Or is the texas legislature just getting away with murder?

Eminent Domain is being used to force people to sell land they don't want to give up.

The Texas government is definitely screwing their constituents though, yes. There is overwhelming opposition to the thing, yet it's getting railroaded through amidst questionable deals involving Governor Perry.

An Australian company related to Cintra even has an American subsidiary buying up newspapers along the route of the NAFTA highway; to squelch dissent.

http://athensnews.com/news/local/2008/feb/28/new-ohio-media-magnate-also-king-roads/

I forget where it was, but wasn't there somewhere in New England that took houses for eminent domain to build higher end condos?

I believe at that time that many of us commented that that incident could lead to more like it. Well here we go, another one like it. Taking land from individuals for another private business.

Check out the map of that company's newspaper buys, on this page:

http://www.macquarie.com.au/au/mmg/investments/acm.htm

Compare to the "alleged" "conspiracy theory" NAFTA Superhighway, that no one wants to talk about.

Amazing. They own 105 local newspapers along that route now.

I forget where it was, but wasn't there somewhere in New England that took houses for eminent domain to build higher end condos?

I believe at that time that many of us commented that that incident could lead to more like it. Well here we go, another one like it. Taking land from individuals for another private business.
You're probably thinking of the Kelo case that went to SCOTUS. In the wake of that decision, many states opted to pass laws restricting use of eminent domain. I'm guessing Texas wasn't one of them.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,
Been a nasty winter in some spots. hows the powder?

Wow, you guys are finally waking up to immigration issues. Go Go North American Union.

Wow. Look at the change in that map of newspaper acquisitions since my last post.

This is going to get ugly, I'm not sure how someone can be involved in this sort of "mess" and sleep at night. ;(

This is going to get ugly, I'm not sure how someone can be involved in this sort of "mess" and sleep at night. ;(To quote Mad Men, "On a bed made of money."

I'd toss and turn all night Thor ;(

Excellent news on this:

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2008/tst062308.htm

http://www.jbs.org/node/8529

! That Rocks

"So the plan that never existed has been canceled. How one does that is something only a government is likely to accomplish. In effect, TexDOT said, "It never was, but now it isn't." Amazing!"


Very good news, and I like seeing that Ron Paul has been staying on top of this. Was inspiring seeing the numbers of people that petitioned and attended the meetings on this issue.
Great links!

That is very inspiring and good to know that in some small way the people are still helping to shape policy and not the politicians lining their pockets. Good job Texas! Impressive to hear that many attended the hearings I'm sure it had some folks squirming in their seats seeing so many Texans present.