Oklahoma state Sen. Randy Brogdon
The expressed intention of a state lawmaker in Oklahoma to halt any NAFTA Superhighway project at his state line has failed to draw a meaningful response from the White House.
Spokeswoman Dana Perino was asked by Les Kinsolving, WND’s correspondent at the White House, about the comments from state Sen. Randy Brogdon, who told a meeting in Tulsa that “The NAFTA Superhighway stops here at the border with Oklahoma.”
“And my question,” said Kinsolving. “What will the federal government do to overcome pockets of resistance, such as this, to NAFTA transportation project[s]?”
“I don’t even know where to begin,” Perino said. “Obviously the president is a supporter of NAFTA.”
Brogdon said he’s recognized in recent years a “concerted effort to undermine the nation’s sovereignty – not only the nation’s, but the state’s sovereignty, as well.”
He described the superhighway projects as being “close to reality” and intended for “transporting goods and people from Mexico and China.”
His remarks came at an event by Oklahomans for Sovereignty and Free Enterprise, Inc., whose members believe the Bush administration and businesses are conspiring to open the United States’ borders and effectively merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico.
He noted specifically the North American Super Corridor Organization and the Security and Prosperity Partnership. The Oklahoma group says NASCO is planning a multimodal transportation system across North America that would be controlled by foreign interests and intended to smooth the transport of people and goods throughout the continent.
Specifically members are concerned by a project being developed already in Texas – the Trans-Texas Corridor – in partnership with the Spanish company Cintra. That project eventually would hit the Texas-Oklahoma border.
Brogdon also has criticized the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America — an agreement with Canadian and Mexican leaders in which President Bush, Brogdon said, proves “he is more than willing to over-step his executive authority when it came to trade policy.”
“Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says, ‘Congress shall have the Power to Regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,’ not the president,” Brogdon pointed out. “Yet President Bush has entered into an agreement with Mexico and Canada called SPP that seeks to eliminate our trade and security borders and he has failed to get the explicit approval of Congress.”
The SPP website, in a section entitled “Myths vs. Facts,” supports Brogdon’s argument, openly admitting that SPP is neither a law nor a treaty.
“Texas highways are famous for ‘Texas turnaround’ U-turns,” Brogdon quipped. “Maybe it’s time we tell Governor Perry to do a Texas turnaround at the border with Oklahoma.”
“We don’t need a new superhighway four-football-fields-wide coming through the heart of our state just so Mexican trucks can carry Chinese containers from Mexican ports to Kansas City,” he said.
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.
“The 11th Amendment gives protection to Oklahoma from being sued in federal court by a foreign nation,” Brogdon explained. “So for us to be a part of this project we had to waive our 11th Amendment rights. This benign piece of legislation that started out as a simple re-surface project in Southeast Oklahoma was in fact the first step to create the NAFTA Superhighway through Oklahoma.”
WND reported NASCO changed its name from the original name, North America’s Superhighway Coalition.
NASCO also has repeatedly redesigned its webpage so as to de-emphasize the continental nature of the “super corridor” NASCO supports.
In a second question, Kinsolving asked about concerns expressed by several members of Congress about any potential use of force by Beijing against Taiwan, because of Beijing’s 2005 anti-secession law that codifies Taiwan as part of the People’s Republic of China.
“Since they also wrote of what they term the longstanding commitment to assist Taiwan’s defense, does the White House believe theirs is an accurate statement of our obligation?” he asked.
“The president’s position on Taiwan and the one China policy is well-known,” Perino said.