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.
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.
What incentive do you give enlistees if you believe in staying and fighting for 100 years like McCain wants to? I'm not in favor of withdrawing immediately, but there's no need to stay in that s--thole for no more than 2-3 years. It's too bad the GOP and Paul can't compromise here.
Define “victory” in Iraq, clearly and concisely. Something W has totally failed to do. Except to state that we weill be there for years or decades to come.
The neo-cons will never get that.
Since Gulf War one both troops and equipment for one reason or another have been in deployment mode. We are using Clinton's 1996 numbers. That means the reserves and NG's as well are deployed. How long does anyone think people are going to stick around either program active or reserves when all they see in their military carrer is another year long deployment to Iraq likely twice during re-enlistment? It was poor planning based on PC all the way around.
Ron Paul talks about foreign policy like Bush did in 2000. Unfortunately, Bush did a 180 in 2003 and decided to start nation building, which has been disastrous saved only by Patreaus.
Also tomorrow is Ron and Carol's 51st anniversary, so be sure to chip in some $$$ tomorrow.
Most people like me would have been happy having Hunter or Tancredo in office, or even Thompson. But all we have left are big government Republicans. That means I can't really vote for them with good conscious for President. I actually believe if Hillary were elected we'd have less liberal crap pass than if we had McCain elected as we'd have gridlock on capital hill.
What exactly would constitute victory? The original intent was to go in, remove Saddam and his regime and get out. We’ve now moved onto Nation Building. We were and are really bad at that with hostile areas. Fortunately Patreaus at least is turning it around.
A lot of them have no idea as to what should constitute war and what the objective should be. When I read the authorization for use of force it turned my stomach. Even FDR understood war. If he had done like Bush we would have lost. FDR did a lot of wrong things but the war was not one of them thankfully. He let the Commanders do their job.
Rather disingenuous line...I'm disappointed, my FRiend.
Surely you realize that Rep. Paul regularly puts in the funding requests he receives from constituents, even when he's against the project itself. Note that he voted against this spending.
It's funny that anyone would think that he's in favor of this, when the pro-TTC/I-69 folks spit at his name (do a web search and you'll see how much the open-borders folks HATE Ron Paul!)
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.