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.
"Paul: I follow a policy called nonintervention, which was the policy of the Founding Fathers, and really what's in our Constitution. We don't have authority to be the policemen of the world and get involved in other places, and the strong advice was stay out of the internal affairs of others and stay out of entangling alliances. So I don't want to be involved any place. I would bring troops home. And besides, we're going broke. We can't afford them. So not only would I disengage in the Middle East, it would be Europe, Japan, as well as Korea. " - Ron Paul
And how is that isolationist?
Right. However somehow Ron Paul thinks it is possible.
"A policy of trade and peace, and a willingness to use diplomacy, is far superior to the foreign policy that has evolved over the past 60 years. " - Ron Paul
Looks like the Republican Party of old is turning into the Social Democratic Party. The party has shifted so far left on foreign policy, loss of rights, and especially increased government spending/entitlements that it’s sickening.
I think he would pretty much stay out of the M.E. He understands something that obviously neither you nor our president does. Iraq and the rest of the M.E. see our current diplomacy as weakness to be exploited and our intervention as aiding their enemies even their own Arabic brothers. I think we should let the tribes of Ishmael, Esau, and the rest go back to fighting each other. Seems they are the most content when doing so and would have far less time to worry about attacking us. That is if we stayed out of it.
But some politican in the pocket of a corporation will want to sell one of the nations in the M.E. arms and the cycle continues. Who sold Iran our best Naval fighter plane made? We can't play both sides over there and expect anything but a disaster as a result.
Well when we're all getting are national ID cards and dissent/disagreement from the ruling platform is declared a hate crime at least they won't be able to hate us because we're free. ; - )
Since when does “...are related to...” = “...is responsible for...”??? Please send me five pounds of whatever it is you are smoking so I can sell it and retire a rich man!
Then you should have no trouble pulling the lever for McCain because according to what you said above the things FReepers don't like about McCain aren't in what would be his main area of operation: foreign policy.
Hillary shouldn't be as repugnant to you either since she is also a hawk on Iraq and Iran.
Good luck with that.
Heh, that comment just got your blog a hit from me. :thumbsup:
Apparently "victory" is staying until the fundamentalist, Shiite government that is friendly with Iran is firmly entrenched with an American-trained and American-armed military force at their disposal.
That's something for the Iraqis to figure out.
Or do you leave it as a grab bag for Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Iranians, and Syrians?
Why not? Let them kill each other then they'll be too busy to mess with us.
Paul would pull financial and military support from:
1. Palestinians,
2. Egypt,
3. Lebanon,
4. Jordan,
5. Any other arab/muslim nation receiving US foreign aid.
So don't try to characterize Paul as some sort of Israel-hater by trying to make it look like Paul's foreign aid cutting would be restricted to only Israel.
Too bad for plain talk that the NIE agrees with Paul that US actions in the ME are used as excuses for murderous thugs to recruit other thugs to attack us.
But I guess that means this Administration is just "blaming America" too.
Anyone that can comprehend the english language won't need any convincing because they'll already understand that Paul didn't "blame America" for anything.
Obviously if you don't support stationing US troops in nearly every country on the planet you are an isolationist.
We'll just forget that Paul wants the US to be engage in trade with all the nations. That doesn't count.
Abstractly, you are correct. But remember, "Stroke of the pen, law of the land." The truth is that Executive Orders and administration of federal agencies whose beaurocratic regulations are also the law of the land are far more effective ways of inducing rapid change than Congress, as Clintoon realized. BATFE could be abolished or severely reduced via Executive Order, as could many other federal agencies. The president has tremendous authority over the administration of his staff, the intended purpose of the Executive Order, and this could effect many positive changes. Just rescinding all of Clinton's EO's would be a tremendous victory for conservatism.
There, fixed it.
Hoo..That's Rich!
You GLOBALISTS using the Constitution when you want to use it to try to make a point. Ell-Ohh-Ell!
Actually, you are missing something anyway:
The President appoints the Chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Or not.
And I disagree with your assertion that the POTUS has the "very last hand in this", because as we all know, the President has a very LARGE bully pulpit, which he can use to sway public opinion, and bully the Congress into submitting legislation he favors.
You're welcome.
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.