See other National News Articles
Title: Ron Paul: The Nafta Superhighway
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 31, 2006
Author: Ron Paul
Post Date: 2006-11-01 14:01:22 by christine
Keywords: None
Views: 275
Comments: 16
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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: christine (#0)
Have you been listening to Alex today, Christine? The NRA has endorsed Paul's gun-grabbing opponent...what the hell is going on in Texas?
I have known of Ron Paul since he openly stood against the war against Serbia. One thing regarding the so called NAFTA superhighway and Ron Paul's position I don't understand: I assume Ron Paul is a Libertarian as such I assume again (I know the old joke about making assumptions) that he would be for open borders and free trade as most Libertarians tend to be. Is he against NAFTA superhighway because it is being passed without congressional oversight - Ron may or may not be for NAFTA but he wants congress to follow the constitution - or is he against NAFTA because he is against free trade?
"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." -- St. John Chrysostom
The real issue is that the power to fund internal improvements is not among the powers granted to the Feral Gummint.
yes, i heard that. the NRA is a traitorous entity. i think Texas is the state the PTBs want to show that they own and control completely. they wanna show us first that resistance is futile.
I almost choked on my 'burger when this information came out today - I knew that the NRA was weak, but I didn't know that they were corrupt and nuts. Should I keep my membership (and keep costing them money) or resign, in protest of what they're trying to do to Dr.Paul?
I think that things could get very interesting here...
No kidding. When I lived in CT they supported the "turn in your neighbor" bill. I did not renew my membership after that. I lost my membership at my favorite rifle range too. You had to be an NRA member to belong to the range. Screw em both. hehehe
Resign. NRA sucks.
Resign. Gun Owners of America is the ONLY 'gun group' that gives a damn about the 2nd.
The Immigration Question by Ron Paul by Ron Paul The recent immigration protests in Los Angeles have brought the issue to the forefront, provoking strong reactions from millions of Americans. The protesters’ cause of open borders is not well served when they drape themselves in Mexican flags and chant slogans in Spanish. If anything, their protests underscore the Balkanization of America caused by widespread illegal immigration. How much longer can we maintain huge unassimilated subgroups within America, filled with millions of people who don’t speak English or participate fully in American life? Americans finally have decided the status quo is unacceptable, and immigration may be the issue that decides the 2008 presidential election. We’re often reminded that America is a nation of immigrants, implying that we’re coldhearted to restrict immigration in any way. But the new Americans reaching our shores in the late 1800s and early 1900s were legal immigrants. In many cases they had no chance of returning home again. They maintained their various ethnic and cultural identities, but they also learned English and embraced their new nationality. Today, the overwhelming majority of Americans – including immigrants – want immigration reduced, not expanded. The economic, cultural, and political situation was very different 100 years ago. We’re often told that immigrants do the jobs Americans won’t do, and sometimes this is true. But in many instances illegal immigrants simply increase the supply of labor in a community, which lowers wages. And while cheap labor certainly benefits the economy as a whole, when calculating the true cost of illegal immigration we must include the cost of social services that many new immigrants consume – especially medical care. We must reject amnesty for illegal immigrants in any form. We cannot continue to reward lawbreakers and expect things to get better. If we reward millions who came here illegally, surely millions more will follow suit. Ten years from now we will be in the same position, with a whole new generation of lawbreakers seeking amnesty. Amnesty also insults legal immigrants, who face years of paperwork and long waits to earn precious American citizenship. Birthright citizenship similarly rewards lawbreaking, and must be stopped. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the perverse incentive to sneak into this country remains strong. Citizenship involves more than the mere location of one’s birth. True citizenship requires cultural connections and an allegiance to the United States. Americans are happy to welcome those who wish to come here and build a better life for themselves, but we rightfully expect immigrants to show loyalty and attempt to assimilate themselves culturally. Birthright citizenship sometimes confers the benefits of being American on people who do not truly embrace America. We need to allocate far more resources, both in terms of money and manpower, to securing our borders and coastlines here at home. This is the most critical task before us, both in terms of immigration problems and the threat of foreign terrorists. Unless and until we secure our borders, illegal immigration and the problems associated with it will only increase.
JPFO seems pretty on the level too. I bailed on the NRA after reading an editorial in one of their mags where the writer was shocked and horrified that people were stockpiling guns for a possible war against agents of the FEDGOV in the future. I took the sticker off my truck and tossed my NRA hat in the trash the next day. Screw em. I'm putting that membership fee money towards more ammo.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death" - Me.
I'll resign tomorrow. I'm a member of GOA and the JFPO organizations, as well as the Texas State Rifle Association - so I've got my memberships covered as far as I can tell. We need these folks much more under smirk's regime than we ever did under bentmember - when I initially signed on with all these guys. Happy shooting, all.
Good job, and solid thinking.
Should I keep my membership (and keep costing them money) or resign, in protest of what they're trying to do to Dr.Paul? The NRA is a make work program for well heeled lobbyists who have cultivated a symbiotic relationship with many members of congress. Neither would be inclined to support a final ruling to clear the issue of the 2nd amendment up once and for all. And, the NRA is a hand maiden in support of the GOP, not vice versa. The NRA will look at the big picture and pragmatically do what's best for their lobbyists and their buddies in congress, and they will not stand on principles and endorse someone that will upset their good friends on the hill. An endorsement for Dr. Paul would be a repudiation of the corrupt house Republicans who will not even permit Paul to caucus with them. Paul has his own "Liberty Caucus" in the house. (Paul told me this on a webcast when I spoke with him a few months back.) In other words, if the majority of GOPers tell the NRA to withhold endorsement from Paul, they association will do just that. I voted for Paul for prez, too. Years ago I quit the NRA when my senior senator Bill Roth (of ROTH IRA infamy) voted for the misnamed "assault weapons bill". The NRA gave Roth a "C" rating with an asterisk (*) and at the bottom of the page it read, (*)This is not necessarily a passing grade." Wow, what courage! I wrote the NRA and asked them exactly what this rating meant, and I received a hand written letter from some bureaucrat who replied with "We stand by our rating!" Again, what hairy-chested brutism! I explained in my resignation letter that the association didn't poll me or others about their decisions and I have no quarrel with how they run their association, but they won't do it with any more of my money. 6 years later Roth ran again, and without having done a single thing to help us, the NRA had him back up to an (A) rating again! So, if they used the same test for Ted Kennedy, (voted for AWB but hasn't introduced any gun legislation since) then he too should receive an A rating! Well, the NRA didn't appreciate me being smart enough to see through their con. I received another hand-scrawled letter that like the first was filled with gibberish. It was also 6 years before when I joined the state gun rights association, The Delaware State Sportsmen's Assoc. Inc. I did so because the prez, a lawyer had the literature for the Libertarian candidate on his table at a gun show. 3 months later on the eve of the election I received an emergency action message from him, stating that I shouldn't "waste my vote on a 3rd party, and I should vote for Roth!" I let my dues lapse with them also. The truth is our "friends" on the hill and at the NRA will be perfectly happy with their ELMER FUDD COMMEMORATIVE MODEL DOUBLE-BAWWELED WABBIT GUNS long after our ugly black guns with detachable magazines and bayonet lugs have been outlawed. They've been compromising our rights all along, and the NRA simply refused to punish any rep or senator who voted for the AWB. So, what is the point of the NRA rating system, anyway? The only thing it's good for is as an indicator of who is a good party functionary (like Roth) and who isn't. (like Paul)
Join G.O.A. vote Ron Paul in the 14th and send young what's-his-name back to the farm.
Thanks for this information - I'll be checking out tomorrow. It's like most things - it starts out good, it get the money rolling it, and then it turns to shit. The sad thing is, it doesn't take all that long for this to happen. (Shit, it's not even 6pm CDT - it seems like 10:00)
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#2. To: who knows what evil, christine (#1)
#3. To: christine (#0)
The real issue is national sovereignty
#4. To: who knows what evil (#1)
#5. To: who knows what evil (#1)
The NRA has endorsed Paul's gun-grabbing opponent...what the hell is going on in Texas?
#6. To: christine (#4)
i think Texas is the state the PTBs want to show that they own and control completely. they wanna show us first that resistance is futile.
#7. To: christine (#4)
the NRA is a traitorous entity.
The SS and other Gestapo like US Government agents spying on this site should go suck a horse's ass!
#8. To: lodwick (#5)
The SS and other Gestapo like US Government agents spying on this site should go suck a horse's ass!
#9. To: lodwick (#5)
Should I keep my membership (and keep costing them money) or resign, in protest of what they're trying to do to Dr.Paul?
Remember...G-d saved more animals than people on the ark. www.siameserescue.org
#10. To: Destro (#2)
#11. To: who knows what evil (#9)
Resign. Gun Owners of America is the ONLY 'gun group' that gives a damn about the 2nd.
#12. To: who knows what evil. Critter. advisors here (#9)
NRA
#13. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#11)
Screw em. I'm putting that membership fee money towards more ammo.
#14. To: lodwick (#5)
I almost choked on my 'burger when this information came out today - I knew that the NRA was weak, but I didn't know that they were corrupt and nuts.
#15. To: lodwick (#13)
#16. To: HOUNDDAWG. randge. all (#14)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest