Posted on 01/31/2008 2:28:42 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
Ron Paul, Republican congressman from Lake Jackson who is running a long-shot bid for president, has filed a bill in the House of Representatives to prevent the proposed Trans-Texas Corridor from receiving federal dollars.
The TTC is a large transportation network championed by Gov. Rick Perry and the Texas Department of Transportation that would carve a wide swath out of central Texas to add highway lanes, rail lines and other infrastructure to major trade routes in the state.
Paul, who represents District 14, has long opposed the concept. Among the goals of the TTC are improving trade between the U.S. and its North American neighbors. Paul, who opposes U.S. membership in the United Nations, has said the TTC is part of a broader effort to form a North American organization that could supplant aspects of U.S. law and policy.
Paul has further stated his opposition to the superhighway being built by private companies, who would control aspects of the corridors and would charge fees for its use.
“I am particularly concerned about the use of eminent domain to take private land for the construction of this highway,” said Paul, “and this bill would prevent the federal government from participating in this heinous practice.”
Thus far, planning is under way for two major routes of the corridor: TTC-35 (to run along I-35 in Central Texas) and TTC-69 (to run along the path of the future I-69 along the Gulf Coast).
The corridor proposal has run into much criticism. In January, TxDOT officials travelled the state for a series of “town hall meetings,” which were intended to foster discussion about the TTC and what state leaders say are its benefits. The meetings, including one in Rosenberg, brought out large numbers of opponents.
Paul's district includes western and northern Fort Bend County, including Simonton, Fulshear and Cinco Ranch. He faces two primary opponents in his District 14 re-election bid, and is a candidate in the Republican presidential primary.
PING * snicker *
Immigration ping.
Let Freedom Ping!
And we wouldn't want to do that. LOL!
Trans-Texas Corridor PING!
(Even though Paul did appropriate some money for I-69.)
Being a DECLINE TO STATE voter in California means I can choose the independent ballot and not have a say in either the Rep or Dem primary, or I can ask for a Dem ballot. I think I’ll ask for the Dem ballot and write in the name of Ron Paul. That’ll learn ‘em!
Ron Paul is loved by all of our enemies.
After watching the dynamics of the GOP nomination head towards a McCain win over Romney, like many I started pondering how or if I would vote come November.
I share the disdain for McCain most others here at FR have for him, yet it’s still not as much as I have for Hitlary and the RATS in general.
I can easily see Ron Paul running 3rd party given his funds. I even started looking more closely at him.
At last nights debate in California I saw the need to look no further. He’s still a freaking lunatic of the scary kind.
He says one thing, does another.. how is this new? I wonder if he has any new earmark request for the TTC? Maybe worth looking into.. maybe some of the highway construction companies are donors?
some, to the tune of over $13Million
So could it receive money from private donations?
Is that edited???????????
I photoshopped it. I was lucky to have all of the tones match without any tweaking.
(Even though Paul did appropriate some money for I-69.)
I wonder when and if ever Paul introduced a bill that got passed in Congress.
Paul should be required to travel by horse and buggy and have all his goods delivered by mule drawn Constagos or Studebakers.
I’d be curious to see what was more tollerable for FReepers; Ron Paul’s foriegn policy or McCain’s liberalism. It’d make a good poll.
That's the beauty of opposing it. If Cintra/Zachry puts-up $10B of its own money, it's evil. If Uncle Sam puts-up money for it, it's evil.
I thought it was a real picture. Great job
You should have just said your Ghost Writer did it and deny any affiliation with the photoshopped image.
“It’d make a good poll.”
Yes it would. Perhaps it would make some realize that if we want “conservative values” then vote for the person promoting those values! Keep them in the forefront! How else are we going to be heard?
I can’t believe the number of people saying they are going to write in Fred or Duncan, like that is going to make a statement. It may be admirable, but we cannot afford to throw our voice away by being sentimental.
I would just love to see “exactly what” the establishment and the MSM would do if Ron Paul made it to the convention. Which is exactly why I know where my vote is going. I mean if the MSM and the established RINO’s are squashing Ron Paul, whose side are we on?
BTTT
I think it also means that if we are going to hold our collective noses, we have to decide if there is an advantage to electing a candidate whos domestic policies are sane, even if their foreign policies are less than desired. That’s the way I’m leaning anyway.
Right on! The only guy that makes any sense at all for small government conservatives.
Not unless he gives them a little wink and pushes tens of millions in earmarks to them knowing he has never once passed a bill in his decades in office but the symbolic move of putting the bill up would still keep his cult supporters on their little leash.
Yup. I just decided. Paul gets my vote (NC). Viva small government!
Think about it this way. All the issues people agree with Paul on, are Constitutionally Congress' role, not the Executive. The Executive's primary role is CIC of the Armed Forces and foreign policy. If you had to give a little (which we will have to do no matter what) do you give on something that is the primary duty or something that is a secondary duty? I frankly don't like any of the prospects, but because of the primary role of the President, I support Paul the least.
It's like choosing a doctor if you had to have heart surgery. Do you choose a doctor who you love his bedside manner and has great skill in cosmetic surgery, but not so much skill in heart medicine? Or would you rather have a doctor who can't do jack on cosmetic surgery and has crappy bedside manner, but is well versed in heart surgery?
Remember when weighing everyone to first take into account the Constitutional Role of the President.
I am really surprised all the people who support Paul for President, even though they disagree with him on foreign policy and the war. Those are the main duties of the President. If you like his attitude on spending, taxes, etc, then leave him in Congress- whose duty it is to originate all spending and tax bills.
Exactly. No one is going to take office and immediately change everything, nor are they going to change everything they said they would. Our government does have checks and balances and set procedures that prevent anything from happening too fast.
The question is then: Can or should a president have an substantial reality-based direct effect on foreign policy, and if not, why not RP, then?
For me, domestic policy reigns king, as that is where me and my family live.
“the primary role of the President”
It’s all about leadership. Right now no one is “leading” conservatives, or expounding conservative principles.
Yes, that is the primary Constitutional role for the President. Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces and overseeing treaties with foreign countries.
For me, domestic policy reigns king, as that is where me and my family live.
Domestic policy, other than USSC nominations, primarly originate in the legislative branch where Paul is now. Constitutionally, the President has the very last hand in this and his hand can be overturned by Congress.
Exactly, NO ONE is. It sucks. We all want a Patton or Westmoreland to be the general of our army, but right now I want someone who won't stab our troops in the back. We have young men and women being shot at. That is reality.
“It sucks.”
Big Time!
I don’t want someone who would stab our troops in the back, either. I haven’t seen anything that would make me think that about Ron Paul. In fact, I was reading an article about how he especially wanted to make sure that our returning wounded soldiers are given the proper treatment they deserve.
We’ll probably never agree, but it’s much nicer discussing the issues, than just shouting at each other. :)
He was the only grown up on the stage. McCain and Romney acted like preschoolers throwing sand at each other in the sandbox. Huck never answered any question he was asked, he responded with sermons.
Who's Sec of Def is sucking his blasted thumb while Americas Finest are getting Court Martialed on the word of Iraqi's? You may not realize it but some very respected Conservative Republican Congressman say it's past time to get out of Iraq. One of then is Jimmy Duncan R-TN.
In other words all you've got is lies.
“real change”
Amen to that!
It's about individual priorities. It seems that people who consider foreign affairs a bigger issue to them don't care for Paul. People who care moreso about domestic issues like him. Neither is right or wrong, per se.
Yes. Ron Paul comes across verbally as a nutcase. His written work is perhaps a bit more more careful wording but stll exposes his irrational and flawed reasoning. He is rules-based, derives his conclusion first and then attempts to rationalize them.
http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=2372
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr040506.htm
Lormand BUMP!
Some more Ron Paul links. He makes Hillary Clinton look reasonable on foreign policy in comparison.
http://nationaljournal.com/onair/transcripts/071116_paul_ron.htm
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/ron_paul_on_war.html
“I welcome ideas on how we can make progress in defeating liberalism and make America a better place for our children and their children’s children.” (From your homepage)
I welcome ideas also. So, what do you think we need to do to get the attention of the RNC that we want conservative values? No one I know contributes to them anymore, they’ve been sent Ameros in lieu of dollars, and we’ve bombarded them along with our Senators with letters and phone calls against amnesty and other liberal schemes they like to cook up. And, what do we get? More of the SOS. They need to “get” the message.
I definitely DO NOT agree that we need a RAT in office, so we can get a conservative next time. I don’t know about you, but my watch is telling me that there might not be a next time. Like it or not, we are all on the same ship that has shifted off course, and unless we all start steering in the same direction, we’ll never make it to shore.
Israel is our best friend in the M.E. Had Poppy, Clinton, and W had enough brains to stay out of their foreign and domestic policy there is a very good chance Israel would have done some needed clearing out. Remember it was not the U.S. who ended Saddams nuclear program but rather Israels. I believe like Ron Paul we should reserve the right to answer a strike. All the anti-Paul is mostly based on Iraq. Maybe some Republicans need to see what some others said as well. There are some conservatives who believe it's time to get out of Iraq. You just don't hear about it. They are some of the most level headed and respected conservatives in congress.
As for Hillary? She'll have us there as well. Wearing U.N. Blue. There is better than a 50% chance now that the DEMs may win the White House. It's time for Bush to wrap it up in Iraq and the U.S. to learn a lesson on nation building.
I'm not 100% with Ron Paul on foreign policy but I think he is closer to the truth of the matter than anyone else running.
If we pull the troops out before victory is achieved, what will then be the incentive for people to stay in the military or enlist? They will see that our civilian leadership does not want to finish what it started.
When the invasion of Iraq was turned into a nation building fiasco Bush snatched victory away. You do not go to war for that purpose. Bush and several others need to write it 10,000 times till they get it through their heads and it sinks in.
Going to war in Iraq should have been exactly that and limited to a precise and simple military objective. Remove Saddam and sons and bring them before a U.S. military tribunal for trial and punishment and not instead turned over for a stinking civics lesson. Eliminate all usable infrastructure in Iraq for any further threats from Iraq should have been the agenda. IOW bomb their manufacturing and power, communications , etc facilities back to the early 1900's. Leave it smoldering in ashes, and bring the troops home for victory and hero's welcome trhey so far have been denied. The war in Iraq should have taken months not nearly a decade.
But the problems in Iraq began when the military objective took back seat to diplomatic Bull Crap. Soldiers are for killing that is their job and duty. They are not the peace corps not Habitat for Humanity. They should not be court martialed for actions n country either especially under civil war conditions. Bush Botched Iraq. That is what happens when congress does not issue a formal declaration of war and lets POTUS do as he very well pleases.
Saddam is dead and the only we are doing there now is building a strong military and infrastructure for the next Saddam. I am 100% against that policy. Either go to war to destroy the enemy nation or stay home.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.