August 26, 2007
I hate to say it but sometimes this guy leaves me drooling. I know that he means well, and I’m aware that a devoted following has put a lot of pressure on him to be the new Messiah, but you really can’t have it both ways. In this speech, diatribe, mixed up message, he seems to be firmly against the NAFTA superhighway. I’m ok with that. I don’t like it either. However, it flies in the face of his free market theories. The Trans Texas Corridor is an inovative way of improving infrastructure in the state of Texas. It involves private funding to build and maintain a toll road across Texas. While Ron says that it is not clear maintaining it will be the responsibility of the corporations involved, news reports say differently. For information on the Trans Texas Corridor merely type that in your browser window.
There are plenty of reasons to build this highway, and plenty of reasons not to. The one salient factor that seems to be overlooked is that the STATE government elected by the people is entering into a deal that it feels is best for the state of texas. You can muddy up the waters with talk of eminant domain, and toll splits and all the other little things that play a part, but the people elected these officials, and continue to elect them. This is what you get from strong state government with limited federal oversight, which is also one of Ron Pauls big ideas.
The free market is working in Texas. Private industry combining with governments to fund a massive project that in the overall will improve things in that state. Ron Paul should be standing and cheering that two of his major premises are being practiced in his home state.
I suppose the fact that its not running up through I-69, and therefore through his district, has nothing to do with his change of heart? I mean, a Ron Paul as conspiratorial politico just couldn’t be possible. This is what is known as flipflopping in a big way. I’m for free markets, and strong state governments, except when they don’t do what I want them to.
August 23, 2007
In a Radio interview in Ottawa, Ron Paul again expressed grave reservations about plans to create a NAFTA Superhighway. The administrations of the nations involved deny that it is being planned, but their is more than a little evidence to the contrary. Ok, maybe not evidence, but certainly some strange coincidences.
One of the main purposes of the Security and Prosperity Partnership was to make legal travel between the nations involved easier. Already we have the Bush Administration and the transportation department pushing to allow Mexian Trucks and drivers on American highways. This is currently in a testing stage to see if it will impact safety on American highways. Currently Mexican trucks are limited to an economic zone along the border.
China isn’t funding the creation of deep water ports in Mexico to ensure trade opportunities in Mexico. Their target is the entire western hemisphere. Railheads are being established to transport goods into middle america, and open roads for truckers will also facilitate Chinese aims of global trade domination.
Add to this the current insanity in Indiana. Mitch Daniels, former Director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Bush administration, and current Governor of Indiana is pushing incredibly hard to extend I-69 through to the south end of the state. It currently runs from the Michigan border to Indianapolis. I-69 is the propsed route for the NAFTA Superhighway. It will cost billions to build this to the southwest border of Indiana, but Mitch is absolutely certain we will reap massive benefits as a result. I know it may seem a stretch, but it would appear to me he has a little insider information from his days hobnobbing with Bush the younger.
As far as Ron Paul, he also has requested federal funding for I-69 in his district. I don’t know if this is a case of him just doing his job for his district, or if its him figuring if there is going to be a NAFTA Highway he might as well get his folks in on the ground floor.
Anyway, its an interesting article, and well worth checking out.
July 11, 2007
Boy, I’ll never point out another chink in the armor of the American messiah again. Was I ever laid waste. They smote me from the left, and then they smited me from the left, and then I was even smitten by…wait. thats a different post. The Pauliacs reared there verbose heads at my challenge to explain the NAFTA Superhighway flip flop. They were in full glory as the pointed out the following
“he voted against his earmarks in the final bill”
“doesn’t I-69 already exist in Texas”
ouch. Those hurt. Bad. Most of them failed to get past the first link because it was probably obvious that their fair haired boy had done an oopsie on this one.
It’s ok though. With the exception of a rare minority, they can’t accept that he can be wrong too. They didn’t want to accept that he voted public funds to subsidize offshore oil exploration. They didn’t want to accept that he votes both ways on abortion. They didn’t want to accept that he tries to subsidize the shrimp industry, and that he uses earmarks to purchase votes. They’d rather say something incredibly bright like “so does the other guy.”
Can we say NAFTA flip flop to gain support from rich Texans boys and girls?
Let’s go with I’m right, you all are wrong on this one.
July 11, 2007
I apologize for the links. They’ve been fixed
As many of you know, I’m neither for nor against any political candidate at this point. That being said I have shown more interest in Ron Paul than in many of the other candidates. The reason for this is I believe Ron Paul is more dangerous.
One of his bloggers the other day (name withheld) challenged me to come up with something they haven’t already figured out how to spin. So here you go. Explain this for me.
On October 30, 2006 He said this: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst103006.htm
what this article does not say is the NAFTA superhighway IS I-69.
On march 12, 2007, Ron Paul made a request for funds. It was for I-69, and was categorized as funding for roads. see this link. (page 20)
Now, if he was against it in october, why is he trying to appropriate funds for it in march? Don’t say “well he voted against it in the final bill.” Just tell me why he tried to appropriate funds for the NAFTA superhighway.
There you go ron paul bloggers. Handle that… BTW, I am really curious about this, so if any of you have information let me know. The NAFTA superhighway will go through my town, and I don’t like it. China is funding deep water ports in mexico, which will make them the big winner in the whole deal.
thanks mike for bringing this to my attention