[Marmon man]

Originally Posted by allan5oh

Doesn't exist, won't happen.

Nice try.

What?.....try this website genuis

http://www.nascocorridor.com/

Or read what Dr. Ron Paul wrote about it:


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 back room deals that threaten our sovereignty.

October 31, 2006

[Fozzy]

You can post as much drivel as you like about Ross Perot.. oops! I mean Ron Paul.. it still won't make him electable nor less of a moonbat.. I would almost bet the farm that in the next few months that Ross Perot... um.. I mean Ron Paul will become and independent and siphon off votes from the conservatives and hand the election to the liberal Democrats.. Hillary will be the next president and the supposed conservatives who put all their eggs into the loonie basket will be scratching their heads on why they will live under Hillary for the next eight years...

[allan5oh]

It's not a "NAFTA SUPERHIGHWAY".

The nasco corridor would just be a larger interstate.

There wouldn't be borderless travel. Never going to happen.

[Fredog]

Originally Posted by Fozzy

Ron Paul is the Perot of the new century.. and just like Perot he's
A: unelectable
B: crazy as a sh*t house rat!!!!

at least Perot was entertaining

[gordoUSA]

The 2008 Federal Budget

by Ron Paul

The fiscal year 2008 budget, passed in the House of Representatives last week, is a monument to irresponsibility and profligacy. It shows that Congress remains oblivious to the economic troubles facing the nation, and that political expediency trumps all common sense in Washington. To the extent that proponents and supporters of these unsustainable budget increases continue to win reelection, it also shows that many Americans unfortunately continue to believe government can provide them with a free lunch.

To summarize, Congress proposes spending roughly $3 trillion in 2008. When I first came to Congress in 1976, the federal government spent only about $300 billion. So spending has increased tenfold in thirty years, and tripled just since 1990.

About one-third of this $3 trillion is so-called discretionary spending; the remaining two-thirds is deemed “mandatory” entitlement spending, which means mostly Social Security and Medicare. I’m sure many American voters would be shocked to know their elected representatives essentially have no say over two-thirds of the federal budget, but that is indeed the case. In fact the most disturbing problem with the budget is the utter lack of concern for the coming entitlement meltdown.

For those who thought a Democratic congress would end the war in Iraq, think again: their new budget proposes supplemental funds totaling about $150 billion in 2008 and $50 billion in 2009 for Iraq. This is in addition to the ordinary Department of Defense budget of more than $500 billion, which the Democrats propose increasing each year just like the Republicans.

The substitute Republican budget is not much better: while it does call for freezing some discretionary spending next year, it increases military spending to make up the difference. The bottom line is that both the Democratic and Republican budget proposals call for more total spending in 2008 than 2007.

My message to my colleagues is simple: If you claim to support smaller government, don’t introduce budgets that increase spending over the previous year. Can any fiscal conservative in Congress honestly believe that overall federal spending cannot be cut 25%? We could cut spending by two-thirds and still have a federal government as large as it was in 1990.

Congressional budgets essentially are meaningless documents, with no force of law beyond the coming fiscal year. Thus budget projections are nothing more than political posturing, designed to justify deficit spending in the near term by promising fiscal restraint in the future. But the time for thrift never seems to arrive: there is always some new domestic or foreign emergency that requires more spending than projected.

The only certainty when it comes to federal budgets is that Congress will spend every penny budgeted and more during the fiscal year in question. All projections about revenues, tax rates, and spending in the future are nothing more than empty promises. Congress will pay no attention whatsoever to the 2008 budget in coming years.

http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst040207.htm

[Marmon man]

Originally Posted by Fozzy

You can post as much drivel as you like about Ross Perot.. oops! I mean Ron Paul.. it still won't make him electable nor less of a moonbat.. I would almost bet the farm that in the next few months that Ross Perot... um.. I mean Ron Paul will become and independent and siphon off votes from the conservatives and hand the election to the liberal Democrats.. Hillary will be the next president and the supposed conservatives who put all their eggs into the loonie basket will be scratching their heads on why they will live under Hillary for the next eight years...

unlike Perot.....Paul is in the house, and he does speak the truth.

[Fozzy]

Originally Posted by Marmon man

unlike Perot.....Paul is in the house, and he does speak the truth.

He's also arse deep in the 9/11 "truth" traitors... I would rather see Hillary in there than someone as clueless and obviously as cowardly as Ross... uh,,Ron

[greg3564]

Originally Posted by Marmon man

Right........please read this article and learn....

Fred Thompson's globalist pedigree


By Tom Kovach

Voters and pundits alike are claiming that a potential Fred Thompson run for the White House could "save" the conservative movement that has been betrayed by President George W. Bush. Such a claim defies the facts, because Thompson's political pedigree includes Bush-like globalist credentials.

This column was prompted by near-record e-mail responses, the vast majority of which asserted that a previous WND column on this topic did not go far enough. Some of the material supporting this follow-up was provided by those WND readers, some of whom claimed to write from Lawrenceburg, Tenn. (Thompson's hometown).

Just as the favorite Republican non-candidate gets near-constant news coverage, even for saying nothing, many of Thompson's policies are revealed more by what he does not say than by what he does say. Even before the 9-11 attacks, President Bush was already trying to downplay even the word "amnesty." Similarly, the public statements of Fred Thompson do not reject amnesty for illegal aliens. Revelations about the design of the premeditated merger of the United States with Mexico and Canada prove that Bush and his Republican insiders harbored a long-time globalist agenda. Just who were those globalist insiders? Is Thompson one of them?



Tennessee's globalist connections

The core values of the average voter in Tennessee are very conservative. This fact has produced Democrats that voted overwhelmingly for Ronald Reagan. But, out of misguided local loyalty, the conservative voters in Tennessee have also repeatedly elected homegrown globalists. Among them are prominent United States Sens. Howard Baker, Bill Frist, Lamar Alexander, and – yes – Fred Thompson.

All four of those Republican senators from Tennessee were members of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations during their tenure in the United States Senate. (And, a Democratic senator from Tennessee – Al Gore, who became vice-president – was also a CFR member.) Baker, who mentored Thompson into politics in 1972, was part of the "Panama Canal giveaway team" during the administration of President Jimmy Carter – another CFR member. (Note that the linked CNN commentary was written by Robert A. Pastor, another CFR globalist. Pastor recently wrote a column for WorldNetDaily, claiming to distance his North American Community plan from an assault upon American sovereignty.

The "lamestream" news media treats the CFR as merely some advisory think tank. But, the Council on Foreign Relations is much more than that. Going back almost a hundred years, the CFR mission is to establish a one-world government. Because of our historic role as a beacon of freedom, the United States is an obstacle to global domination. Therefore, CFR members must work – some openly, and some secretly – to steadily undermine American sovereignty. The recent news about the North American Union is only one phase of an unrelenting effort toward global government. To solidify elitist power, that effort includes a concurrent effort toward global currency. That effort toward a one-world money system is, in turn, linked to an effort to use RFID chips in commerce and marketing. Many people believe that the use of such chips is the "Mark of the Beast," as predicted in the Holy Bible. (And, the president of the company that makes the chips is another Republican CFR member, presidential candidate Tommy Thompson. (Is anyone surprised?)

So, CFR member Lamar Alexander used to work for CFR member Howard Baker, who mentored CFR member Fred Thompson. And, Thompson was elected to the Senate in 1994, the same year CFR member Bill Frist was elected to the United States Senate from Tennessee. Both Frist and Thompson joined the CFR in 2002. So, with several years of experience on Capitol Hill at the time they both joined, there is no way either of them could reasonably deny knowledge of the agenda and influence of the globalist Council on Foreign Relations. ("What did Thompson know, and when did he know it?")

Is there any further Tennessee connection to a globalist organization and agenda? Let's see. The junior senator from Tennessee is Bob Corker, who was mentored by CFR members Frist and Alexander. (This writer personally spoke with Alexander at a fund-raiser for Corker.) Upon his inauguration, Corker was sworn in by CFR member Vice President Dick Cheney. There certainly seems to be a pattern.

By the way, during a 2002 speech at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in D.C. to his fellow CFR members, Vice President Cheney joked about getting elected by downplaying his membership in that globalist organization:

"I see a lot of old friends in the room. And it's good to be back at the Council on Foreign Relations. As Pete mentioned, I have been a member for a long time, and was actually director for some period of time. I never mentioned that when I was campaigning for re-election back home in Wyoming – (laughter) – but it stood me in good stead." It seems that having something of a country-boy image is helpful to concealing a globalist agenda – whether in Wyoming or in Tennessee.

Will the new junior senator from Tennessee join the ranks of globalist CFR members? Frist and Thompson did not join the CFR until several years after they were in office. Both had already proven their globalist credentials by that time, having voted in favor of relaxed immigration and border security rules. Corker is already on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as were CFR members Baker, Gore, Thompson and Frist. What did these gentlemen from Tennessee – elected by conservatives – do while they were in office?

Baker helped to give away the Panama Canal. Gore's committee on aviation security eschewed probable terrorist connections to the downing of TWA Flight 800. Thompson voted to expand NAFTA, and to relax limits on migrant farm workers. Frist (as majority leader) refused to push a tough border-security bill through the Senate, even though H.R. 4437 – the "Wall Bill" – had passed in the House overwhelmingly.

Bob Corker talked tough on border security during his campaign, but couldn't quite shake allegations that his construction company had hired illegal aliens and had ignored warnings from INS officials. (Those allegations, by the way, came from Republican primary opponents, as well as his Democratic general election opponent.) So, it would appear Corker would be "encouraged" by globalist mentors such as Thompson to lean toward the CFR position on border security and alien workers.

And, with a political bloodline of CFR globalism behind him, doesn't it seem likely that Bob Corker would be the next CFR member senator from Tennessee? And wouldn't that scenario be far more likely if there was a President Fred Thompson to sponsor his membership? There is no doubt Thompson has a globalist pedigree. And, if he becomes a candidate for the White House, the pattern is already established for Thompson and his CFR-elite cronies to continue weakening the security of America's borders, turning a blind eye toward terrorist threats, and giving away America's strategic advantages. Regardless of his amiable personal qualities, can the United States really afford to elect a "Bush-button" globalist president such as Fred Thompson?

Sorry, I don't read the WND. Too much "sky is falling" mantra and conspiracy theories. I also don't waste my votes on un-electable politicians. I don't want to waste a vote and cost someone the election like Dummy Perot did. You guys can waste your votes and we'll end up with ANOTHER Clinton.

[gordoUSA]

Cowardly????

I think it was Mr. Cheney that used 5 medical deferments to avoid the draft, and we all know W's history, but at least I guess, he did ocasionally
drag his butt out of the west Texas bars and saloons to show up for a few required weekend meetings.

Paul's problem is he quotes the Constitution. Many of his postions are based on the Constitution. Of course this document is being far forgotten by almost every politican, ever notice how other candidates "snicker" when he mentions the Constitution? It's obvious they think its rather humorous and of course so do their masters.

Thompson, still open on, depends if he is independent of Baker or a mere lap dog. And Baker and the Bush's are too tight politically.

Did notice where the top 4 Republicans missed the debate at Morehead Univ, a black univ., big and very stupid mistake on their part.

[greg3564]

Originally Posted by gordoUSA

Did notice where the top 4 Republicans missed the debate at Morehead Univ, a black univ., big and very stupid mistake on their part.

I agree, from a public relations standpoint, it was dumb. However, from a political standpoint, Morehead like most universities, tend to vote very liberal. Add to that a history of african americans overwhelmingly voting democrat and I don't think it will impact those politicians much.