Ron Paul and the NAFTA Super Highway (with corrected links)

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)

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/interactive/allpolitics/0706/popup.congress.earmarks/pdfs/tx.14.paul.pdf 

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


Bills Ron Paul is sponsoring

June 29, 2007

   Here my dear readers you shall find a complete list of the bills The blog messiah Ron Paul is sponsoring in the house of representatives.  It’s not exactly full of surprises, but some of it is a little off the beaten libertarian track.  I would have to say that it primarily sticks to his small government agenda, but i question the social security one, and a couple of others are borderline.  Social security is near and dear to me mind since they already have my simoleans, butit looks like he wants to spend more money on it.  Shouldn’t he object to this sort of thing?  Wouldn’t it be a state responsibility? 

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery