FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
10 Questions for Ron Paul
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
navari
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 10:58 pm    Post subject: 10 Questions for Ron Paul Reply with quote

I am planning on developing a list of questions for Ron Paul that will
hopefully enlighten me to his "real" position - is he an authorized
unauthorized candidate, or is he a true unauthorized candidate. Is he
someone who I should invest time supporting, or is he simply another
dead end path.

For me, one of the primary things to understand is Paul's attitude on the
war on terror. His comment, in the second GOP debate - that "they
"attacked us because of our longterm policies over "there" - certainly is
disturbing. Does he buy-into the Muslim Fundamentalism enemy and war
on terrorism memes or does he not?

Also, I'd like to address the racist comments that have circulated around
the web. Does he deny these comments, were they taken out of
context, what?

While he has clearly been an advocate of a Constitutional money system,
he has also stated that he would not dissolve the FED quickly. What are
the details of his transition plan.

I'm open to suggestions. If anyone would care to propose a question, I
will make sure that the questions gets asked and answered sometime over
the next few months.
Back to top
DrewTerry
Guest





PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steve:

Have you seen the 2005 documentary "Why We Fight" by Eugene Jarecki?
Back to top
Ormond



Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2007 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have one suggestion, pertaining to approach to questioning.

We know that Ron Paul has caught the hope of those of us who see that the laws of the US and most other countries in the direction of invasion of privacy formerly guaranteed to all citizens without "probable cause" (evidence of wrongdoing) is a dangerous paradigm shift toward totalitarian government.
He's made bold statements supporting turning around this course.

But we also know that when asked his perception of the 911 Commission's report, he's been clear that his position is that the destruction of the WTC was as the official story goes--the Muslim terrorist, Mohammed Atta, on orders from Osama Bin Laudin.
Upon that premise, he attributes the reason for why a handful of young college dropouts with no military or airline pilot experience beyond the alleged Florida flight school, and those makeshift 'Al Queda terrorist training camps' in the mountains and caves of Afgahnistan could have succeeded in this under the radar of DIA, CIA, FBI and 'incompetence' and inadequacies within and former lack of communication between those agencies.
This latter assumption is also the premise which has been used as the premise for the Bush Administrations doing away with the separation of these agencies (which everyone seems to have forgotten was for checks and balances to prevent them from becoming instruments of an internal coup d'tat, and to protect the lawful privacy of innocent US citizens).

With all this in mind, and as many of us understand that the whole 'war on terror' pretext which kicked off due to the 911 event, the urge is to confront Paul directly on this position of his.

However, having considered this it may best not to put the focus of a guestion to press him on his position regarding how 911 happened just yet. Either he really believes the official line, as the constituents of his Congressional district overwhelmingly do -- or he sees it as a 'campaign killer' to take a stance on further 911 investigation right now, while campaigning.

So to give him a little room on that, I would suggest a different focus to shed insight about his intentions with regard to the result that we've assumed require exposure of 911 to achieve. That is, what we really need and want here is the ROLLBACK of the 'war on terror' legislation and judicial changes, which are legion at this time.

So I would ask, "Do you support that the US government went beyond Constitutional boundaries with the 'war on terror'? As you've held that it has with regard to the illegal and unwarranted invasion and occupation of Iraq? "

And from there ask how he intends to roll back these excesses in Anti-Constitutional violations of citizen's right to privacy which have been legislated and madated into policies under Exectuive orders?

I grant him that he may actually intend to do that--I even give him the benefit of the doubt that the may suspect there's more to how 911 occurred.

In this line of questioning, I would also ask whether--as he holds that the 911 Commission didn't get to the bottom of the full extent of intelligence and military failure to do a thing to prevent that attack, if he intends to re-open and expand investigation into 911, including full investigation into the origin of Al Queda, and Osama Bin Laudin's relationship to the CIA.

_________________
The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ormond



Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2007 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On Fintan's broadcast today, The Long Life Report' Internet Radio Show - 18th June, 2007 , the interview with Jonathan Emord, he mentions that Ron Paul will be presenting in Congress the bill that he (Emord) has drafted to prohibit any regulatory commission (unelected bureaucrats now routinely representing corporate interests), from promulgating any law through regulation that would have an impact on the American economy of 500 thousand dollars or more or cause the unemployment of a single individual.
(a brilliant way to put the brakes on ex post facto lawmaking by unelected bureaucrats).

So Paul supports this kind of approach to stopping corporate interests when they have circumvented the Constitution -- as the Pharma juggernaut has done and is about to do worse through the Food and Drug administration.

I think I will ponder this small aspect of Paul's legislative record and emphasis. Don't have a question framed yet, but throwing this out for folks to glean a glimpse of how Paul effectively works in such an area.

_________________
The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
puffdaddy



Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 506
Location: Northern California

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:52 pm    Post subject: 10 Questions for Ron Paul Reply with quote

I believe that Ron Paul is a good man, but he is a dead-end candidate for the US Presidency. I am afraid that it will end up Hillary in the end. Don't waste your valuable time on this Nav. Sorry.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
navari
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:32 pm    Post subject: Re: 10 Questions for Ron Paul Reply with quote

puffdaddy wrote:
I believe that Ron Paul is a good man, but he is a dead-end candidate for the US Presidency. I am afraid that it will end up Hillary in the end. Don't waste your valuable time on this Nav. Sorry.


It's about getting a different message out there and building a constituency. That's an important task.
Back to top
paradox



Joined: 11 Feb 2007
Posts: 212

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2007 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ormond, how about a question like:

"Considering the bill you've introduced about (short burble explaining the bill), why do you feel it is necessary for the average American to support such legislations?"

That will get him to open up to any points he wants to make.

Maybe a few words could be dropped to make the question easier to understand.
________
Colorado Dispensaries


Last edited by paradox on Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:00 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 2:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ormond,

While I DO NOT DISAGREE with your point about (unelected bureaucrats now routinely representing corporate interests), I still think this type of legislation has been promoted to completely go lassez faire on pollution. Either draconian regulation, or none. Catch 22. Even Alex Jones wanted sensible enviro laws -- but what is sensible to one ...

I just read a Gary Allen chapter I discussed offline with with O'Malley where he was predicting that the socialists were going to seize and socialize everything, when actually the capitalists have privatized everything, including natural monopoly activities. Then he wrote about how America should pump every last drop of oil from Alaska and it would last until 2021 by which time he'd be dead and it wouldn't matter because someone would invent alternative energy by that time. And how it was just socialist government regulations on safety and pollution that was preventing new refineries from being built, and wells drilled in America, rather than realities of capitalists and their desire for cheap labor and shortages.

His line was that people were worried that the Alaskan caribou would dirty their dainty hooves, and that's what's wrong with America. I just saw that someone -- some Limbaugh types -- are still using that same line about the caribou and their dainty hooves. While I'm NOT for de-industrialization and energy shortages, I'm not for saying that poor Exxon is suffering.
Allen managed to defend Exxon over oil spills (I'd read about how reckless they were in side-stepping common sense regulations for running tankers in rocky areas and then dumped the blame on the supposedly drunken skipper) and Allen blamed Exxon (Rockefeller) in the same chapter for supporting these regulations and funding Sierra. That ulterior motive stuff probably has a chunk of truth to it. Again, all or nothing.

Ron Paul has long been associated with these Gary Allen Birchite paranoid types, as well as appearing in a "Christian economics" seminar with REVEREND Rushdoony (an Allen favorite i learned) and his son-in-law Gary North, who both advocate Biblical Govt complete with stoning for sinners.

OK, so RP showed up there. Maybe Kucinich has met with former members of the Andrea Dworkin Fun Committee.

But I'm pretty sure that those Reconstructionist people and Reagan types are who Ron Paul really is. I mean did RP admire Reagan before or after Reagan started illegally funding the Contra Army and defending death squad leaders as getting a 'bad rap'? Sure, GENERAL EFRAIN RIOS MONT was really a misunderstood libertarian.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/CentralAmerica.html

From his website, he apparently still respects Reagan. Otherwise he sees Reagan as a useful prop.


I PHONED Ron Paul's campaign office, but of course did not get past the gatekeepers. Gatekeeper 1 said she'd have to get back to me and hung up. Gatekeeper 2 repeated that they were very busy and could not answer my specific question, look on RP's Congressional website, etc.

My main question was about CORPORATE PERSONHOOD. They kept saying RP is against special favors to corporations, payouts, subsidies, otherwise lassez faire it seems. I argue that INCORPORATION ITSELF IS A GOVERNMENT FAVOR. Therefore any business partaking of govt protection deserves govt regulation, for the public good. Other than that, I think what's left is de facto corporate rule. (I derived this from Constitutional Libertarian Michael Badnarik who proposed that the Constitution itself had too many holes in it for both govt and corporate tyranny, and therefore should be legally amended. He did not mention corporate tyranny in his lectures, but he eagerly acknowledged that in a private convo.)

in some detail: I sent an email to a buddy recently pointing out that MY CAR is not a HUMAN BEING, even tho I named her Jenna Jameson, it's still a machine. So is every corporation. A money machine. A machine not a person. No civil rights. et cetera. You all know.

What about limiting or regulating existing PRIVATE MILITARY CORPORATIONS? Defense contractors?

What about Big Pharma and the rest of Fortune 500 offshoring HUGE profits in no-tax havens and taking losses at home? That's a rigged game which could be prosecuted, or they could force a pay to play rule. If you want to set up sales offices stateside, you have to play by the rules of the club.

Many conservatives of that ilk (including the people at Reason -- link above) want a flat tax and elimination of all other taxes. Sweet, if you live on capital gains like stock options. Instead of tightening the progressive tax code and maybe keep deductions for private homeowners or owners of small residential real estate, they want to chuck the whole thing. Warren Buffett already complained that HE had to pay less taxes on gains than his secy on salary. I'm not being radical here. I'm apparently in good company with common sense.

Anyhow, THAT is my main concern about RP, that he's a Misean proto-fascist with a grandfatherly exterior image. Another Ronald Wilson Reagan, 666. I think I already know that, I just wanted it from the horse's mouth, but could not quite get it.

Sorry Ormond, I PM'd you back before I saw this thread. Redundancy.

Now that I found this little history blurb, I'll probably have to paste it where it belongs on the Reagan thread. This is what Reagan WOULD have done to America if he could have, but he had to settle for an economic bloodbath of debt instead.

http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/fdtcards/Cards_Index.html#Index
Friendly Dictators Trading Cards

Quote:
GENERAL EFRAIN RIOS MONT (colleague of Pat Robertson and his CIA buddies)
President of Guatemala

"A Christian has to walk around with his Bible and his machine gun," said born-again General Efrain Rios Mont, military ruler of Guatemala from March 1982 to August 1983. Rios Mont was one in a long series of dictators who ran Guatemala after the Dulles brothers and United Fruit, backed by the CIA, decided that elected President Jacob Arbenz held the country "in the grip of a Russian-controlled dictatorship" and overthrew the country's constitutional democracy in 1954. The succession of corrupt military dictators ruled Guatemala for over 30 years, one anti-communist tyrant after another receiving U.S. support, aid, and training.

After the 1982 coup that brought Rios Mont to power, U.S. Ambassador Frederic C. Chapin said Guatemala "has come out of the darkness and into the light." President Reagan claimed Mont was given "a bum rap" by human rights groups, and that he was cleaning up problems inherited from his predecessor, General Romeo Lucas Garcia. Ironically, Garcia had given $500,000 to Reagan's 1980 campaign, and his henchman, Mario Sandoval Alarcon, the "Godfather" of Central American death squads, was a guest at Reagan's first inaugural celebration. Sandoval proudly calls his National Liberation Movement "the party of organized violence."

Mont simply moved Garcia's dirty war from urban centers to the countryside "where the spirit of the Lord" guided him against "communist subversives", mostly indigenous Indians. As many as 10,000 Indians were killed and over 100,000 fled to Mexico as a result of Mont's "Christian" campaign.
Back to top
abcar



Joined: 25 Nov 2006
Posts: 336
Location: Being Charles Mingus

PostPosted: Fri Jun 22, 2007 1:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just thought i'd tie these threads together a little since they are related. I grabbed statusquobuster's post and highlighted the question..i think it's a very good question for one who's so Constitution loving as Paul.

statusquobuster wrote:
Open Letter to Congressman Ron Paul

Joel S. Hirschhorn

There are numerous reasons to admire you, as I have for many years. Clearly you are running for president as a Republican, rather than a third party candidate, for the sole purpose of getting media and public attention not available to those outside the two-party duopoly. In last night’s debate among Republican presidential candidates you proudly described yourself as a “champion of the Constitution.” However, you are missing a major opportunity to demonstrate your courage and allegiance to our constitutional republic.

You have acknowledged the appropriateness of amending the Constitution. In fact, you introduced legislation for an amendment that would stop giving automatic citizenship to babies born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents. You said: “Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment.”

Personally, I endorse this particular amendment. More important, however, I am disappointed that you have never latched on to the long history of Congress’ failure to honor and obey the part of Article V of the Constitution that gives Americans the right to a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution – an alternative to Congress proposing amendments. Interestingly, the particular amendment that you favor will probably never emerge from Congress, but might have a better chance through an Article V convention.

Why have you failed to acknowledge that Congress has ignored over 500 applications from state legislatures from all 50 states for an Article V convention? As a champion of the Constitution, surely you know that the one and only requirement explicitly stated in Article V is that two-thirds of state legislatures ask for one. And surely you know that Congress has never passed any law that expands or modifies this single explicit constitutional requirement. So, I ask you Congressman Paul: Why have you remained silent on the Article V issue?

If you do not believe that Congress should honor Article V’s provision for a convention, why not say so publicly? If you believe that it should never be used, then why not call for an amendment to delete it from our Constitution?


Please Congressman Paul, as a champion of the Constitution, do not behave like other members of Congress and silently veto a crucial part of the Constitution that the Framers wisely gave us. They anticipated that eventually Americans could lose confidence in the federal government. You clearly have earned the respect and support of millions of Americans because you object to so many policies and actions of the federal government. Thus, you, more than virtually any other member of Congress, should appreciate the wisdom of the Framers in giving us the Article V convention option.

I beg you to speak up and demonstrate just how much of a champion of the Constitution you really are by bringing national attention to the Article V convention issue and supporting its use. As a founder of Friends of the Article V Convention (www.foavc.org) I invite you to play a leading role in giving the United States of America its first Article V convention.

[The author had the pleasure of a private meeting with Congressman Paul about a year ago to discuss his book Delusional Democracy – Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government: www.delusionaldemocracy.com. He serves as National Press Secretary of Friends of the Article V Convention: www.foavc.org.]
_________________
Delusional democracy breeds delusional prosperity

_________________
The New World Order!!#!! There goes my career..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dilbert_g
Guest





PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2007 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I carefully listened to Ron Paul. I even gave him 5 stars before I finished.

http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=23825#23825
This is about RP's talk in New Hampshire.

starts above
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=23786#23786
Back to top
Ormond



Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Please keep your questions coming, folks. Can't say much but there is a good chance questions here will be heard and answered by RP, long before this election season is out, so now's the time to ask a real live Presidential candidate the real questions, while we still can...

I'm interested in Ron Paul's statements concerning the North American Union.
Houston financial advisors are informing investors in their newsletters about the reality of the coming transition to the Amero currency.

The North American Union is incredibly still either unknown to most Americans and Canadians, or those who've been hearing about it are still wanting 'proof'. This is because the mainstream media has a gag on reporting about it, preferring to amplify Anna Nicole's death, or Paris Hilton's country jail term for driving with a suspended driver's license...

But the State of Texas is where the rubber meets the road first, being on the border of Mexico, and the Trans Americas Corrider construction is well underway...half a million acres of land cutting a swath through central Texas, displacing property owners in it's way more effectively than the march of Santa Ana. This is news here--in particular in Austin and San Antonio, which lie in the wake of the Corridor. There have been protests at the State Capitol over this, demanding it stopped.

Here is a little bit of background.

First, the .pdf fact sheet of the Texas and EU corporations collaborating to build the Trans Americas Corridor, to be paid for by Texas taxpayers in the form of toll roads - many of which are already in use and taking in millions annually in Houston alone.

Quote:

A team led by Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte, S.A. and Zachry
Construction Corporation was selected by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to
develop the first phase of the Trans-Texas Corridor – a visionary transportation system for the
future of the Lone Star State.


THE TRANS-TEXAS CORRIDOR
The vast majority of those working on Cintra/Zachry’s Trans-Texas Corridor project –
workers, sub-contractors, suppliers, etc. – will be Texans. Cintra, Ferrovial Agroman and
Zachry Construction will finance, design, build and operate TTC 35 in a manner in which
Texas workers, sub-contractors and suppliers will be employed to get the job done. All
of the project’s construction work will be handled by Texans and Texas sub-contractors.

THE TEAM
In addition to Cintra and Zachry, our team includes:
Ferrovial-Agroman (Madrid, Spain)
Earth Tech, Inc. (California/offices in Texas)
Bracewell & Patterson, LLP (Texas)
Rodriguez Transportation Group (Texas)
Aguirre & Fields, LP (Texas)
OTHON, Inc. (Texas)
Pate Engineers (Texas)
HRM Consultants, Inc. (Texas)
P1 Resources (Texas)
Southwestern Capital Markets Inc. (Texas)
Railroad Industries Incorporated (Nevada)
Amey, PLC (UK)
Mercator Advisors, LLC (Pennsylvania and Washington, D.C)
Public Resources Advisory Group (New York)
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP (New York/offices in Texas)
JP Morgan Securities, Inc. (New York)



Quote:
North American Union to Replace USA?

by Jerome R. Corsi
Posted: 05/19/2006

President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy.

Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.

President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.

The blueprint President Bush is following was laid out in a 2005 report entitled "Building a North American Community" published by the left-of-center Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR report connects the dots between the Bush administration's actual policy on illegal immigration and the drive to create the North American Union:

At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action. We welcome this important development and offer this report to add urgency and specific recommendations to strengthen their efforts.

What is the plan? Simple, erase the borders. The plan is contained in a "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" little noticed when President Bush and President Fox created it in March 2005:

In March 2005, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopted a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), establishing ministerial-level working groups to address key security and economic issues facing North America and setting a short deadline for reporting progress back to their governments. President Bush described the significance of the SPP as putting forward a common commitment "to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security." The policy framework articulated by the three leaders is a significant commitment that will benefit from broad discussion and advice. The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized.

To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary." Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America.

The perspective of the CFR report allows us to see President Bush's speech to the nation as nothing more than public relations posturing and window dressing. No wonder President Vincente Fox called President Bush in a panic after the speech. How could the President go back on his word to Mexico by actually securing our border? Not to worry, President Bush reassured President Fox. The National Guard on the border were only temporary, meant to last only as long until the public forgets about the issue, as has always been the case in the past.

The North American Union plan, which Vincente Fox has every reason to presume President Bush is still following, calls for the only border to be around the North American Union -- not between any of these countries. Or, as the CFR report stated:

The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.

Discovering connections like this between the CFR recommendations and Bush administration policy gives credence to the argument that President Bush favors amnesty and open borders, as he originally said. Moreover, President Bush most likely continues to consider groups such as the Minuteman Project to be "vigilantes," as he has also said in response to a reporter's question during the March 2005 meeting with President Fox.

Why doesn’t President Bush just tell the truth? His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union. The administration has no intent to secure the border, or to enforce rigorously existing immigration laws. Securing our border with Mexico is evidently one of the jobs President Bush just won't do. If a fence is going to be built on our border with Mexico, evidently the Minuteman Project is going to have to build the fence themselves. Will President Bush protect America's sovereignty, or is this too a job the Minuteman Project will have to do for him?

Mr. Corsi is the author of several books, including "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), "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians," and most recently, "Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America's Borders." He will soon author a book on the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America and the prospect of the forthcoming North American Union.

_________________
The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ormond



Joined: 14 Apr 2006
Posts: 1556
Location: Belly of the Beast, Texas

PostPosted: Thu Jun 28, 2007 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
The NAFTA Superhighway


by Ron Paul

By now many Texans have heard about the proposed “NAFTA Superhighway,” which is also referred to as the trans-Texas corridor. What you may not know is the extent to which plans for such a superhighway are moving forward without congressional oversight or media attention.

This superhighway would connect Mexico, the United States, and Canada, cutting a wide swath through the middle of Texas and up through Kansas City. Offshoots would connect the main artery to the west coast, Florida, and northeast. Proponents envision a ten-lane colossus the width of several football fields, with freight and rail lines, fiber-optic cable lines, and oil and natural gas pipelines running alongside.

This will require coordinated federal and state eminent domain actions on an unprecedented scale, as literally millions of people and businesses could be displaced. The loss of whole communities is almost certain, as planners cannot wind the highway around every quaint town, historic building, or senior citizen apartment for thousands of miles.

Governor Perry is a supporter of the superhighway project, and Congress has provided small amounts of money to study the proposal. Since this money was just one item in an enormous transportation appropriations bill, however, most members of Congress were not aware of it.

The proposed highway is part of a broader plan advanced by a quasi-government organization called the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” or SPP.

The SPP was first launched in 2005 by the heads of state of Canada, Mexico, and the United States at a summit in Waco.

The SPP was not created by a treaty between the nations involved, nor was Congress involved in any way. Instead, the SPP is an unholy alliance of foreign consortiums and officials from several governments. One principal player is a Spanish construction company, which plans to build the highway and operate it as a toll road. But don’t be fooled: the superhighway proposal is not the result of free market demand, but rather an extension of government-managed trade schemes like NAFTA that benefit politically-connected interests.

The real issue is national sovereignty. Once again, decisions that affect millions of Americans are not being made by those Americans themselves, or even by their elected representatives in Congress. Instead, a handful of elites use their government connections to bypass national legislatures and ignore our Constitution – which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.

The ultimate goal is not simply a superhighway, but an integrated North American Union – complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the abolition of national sovereignty altogether.

A new resolution, introduced by Representative Virgil Goode of Virginia, expresses the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a NAFTA superhighway, or enter into any agreement that advances the concept of a North American Union. I wholeheartedly support this legislation, and predict that the superhighway will become a sleeper issue in the 2008 election.

Any movement toward a North American Union diminishes the ability of average Americans to influence the laws under which they must live. The SPP agreement, including the plan for a major transnational superhighway through Texas, is moving forward without congressional oversight – and that is an outrage. The administration needs a strong message from Congress that the American people will not tolerate backroom deals that threaten our sovereignty.

October 31, 2006

_________________
The anticipated never happens. The unexpected constantly occurs
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.