Wrong Paul

Ha ha ha ha! You say "The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects total spending for the current fiscal year to be about $2.9 trillion". Projects is the keyword. Anyhow, if that's the case, then why did Donald Rumsfeld say on September 10, 2001 that according to some estimates, there was $2.3 trillion (yes, Trillion with a T) missing funds from the pentagon? Here's a link of a CBS story ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU ). How about them apples Joe Miller? What? Cat got your tongue...or is it the kabal that has your tongue...well keyboard anyhow. This isn't a news story...it's a story of falsehoods and lies. You should fit right in with newsweek.

Don't be ridiculous. Paul never claimed the Superhighway was anything more than an extension of the current highways either. The state governments of border states could not conduct plans or operations without the consent of the Federal Government. Aything that has to do with borders and people traversing them is at leat overseen and under the supervision of the Federal Government.

Newsweek's claims of this being a THEORY were already debunked by user comments at the end of last year. The Canadian government is outspoken about this NAFTA Superhighway or Corridor.

John Harvard, lieutenant-governor of the Province of Manitoba, Canada, opened the second session of the 39th assembly of the provincial legislature with comments proclaiming support for the development of a "Mid-Continent Trade Corridor."

"Manitoba is also taking a major role in the development of a Mid-Continent Trade Corridor, connecting our northern Port of Churchill with trade markets throughout the central United States and Mexico," Harvard told the legislature. See for yourself here: http://www.gov.mb.ca/throne.html

"To advance the concept," Harvard continued, "an alliance has been built with business leaders and state and city governments spanning the entire length of the Corridor. When fully developed, the trade route will incorporate an 'inland port' in Winnipeg with pre-clearance for international shipping."

A video posted on YouTube shows excerpts from Harvard's speech juxtaposed with clips of President Bush and Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper at the press conference of the third summit of the Security and Prosperity Partnership in Montebello, Quebec, on Aug. 21, ridiculing the North American Union and the NAFTA Superhighway as baseless conspiracy theories.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br31mdP8-Ug

A Destination-Winnipeg trade group website identifies the Mid-Continent Trade Corridor as "the northern gateway of this vast Corridor, a network of highways and railways linking the business community with cities to the south, through the U.S. and into Mexico."

The Canadian government's Canada Transport website describes the Mid-Continent International Trade Corridor as a rail and highway network which stretches from Manitoba to Mexico.

The Ministry of Infrastructure and Transportation in Alberta, Canada, has posted on its website a trade corridor map that shows a NAFTA Superhighway clearly designated in the same route, including Interstate Highways 35, 29 and 94, that the North America's SuperCorridor Coalition, or NASCO, designates as the I-35 NAFTA Superhighway.

More is known about the "mid continent trade corridor" in Manitoba's House of Commons than at Newsweek. Manitoba is already planning "inland ports with pre-clearance for international shipping" in cooperation with the U.S, and Mexico. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br31mdP8-Ug

I don't usually read Newsweek, and this article confirms why. The overt bias is inexcusable. You realized that "Ron Paul" was the most searched term on your website, so you responded with a piece that solely attacks, rather than objectively reports, his views? It's sloppy, reprehensible, and cannot be considered to be journalism. You should be ashamed.

Sorry....Leave it to talking heads to label something a "conspiracy" to discredit it even as there is ample evidence of information about the NAU to the "Amero" reported every so often on CNN and other major media outlets. No one's saying it's a bigsecret, but it's architects certainly aren't screaming about it from the mountain top either. Suggest this pundit read a book every once in a while starting with Chalmers Johnson's "Blowback" about costs and consequences of American "Empire". Surely his little tome will put this in perspective and is a good starting point for the benighted.

This is absolutely laughable that you call that article journalism. The bias is so clear. The anger and sarcasm dripping, Perhaps if you were more educated and open minded you would actually research before printing things like "the NAFTA superhighway is a myth". Also, Ron Paul is not the only candidate to mention it. Mike Huckabee actually endorsed it in one of the republican debates.

NAFTA Superhighway and North American Union are real...do some research here:

http://www.canamex.org/

NAFTA Superhighway - NHS Designation Act of 1995
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/nhs_sec.html

http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Find-Freedom.htm?At=026726

Wake me up when you are finished dreaming Newsweek...

AS usual_____________you are doing your usual hatchet job_________full of misquotes as well as quotes taken out of context.Whatever happened to transparency and objectivity?Perhaps you should apply for
a gig at FOX News.You know_____fair and unbiased.You should be ashamed of yourself.
zoot66

Look at your politics page do I see a single picture of RP? No... How many links? Three.. where are they located? Not at the top but towards the bottom. Do I need to say more?

I almost decided to boycott NPR after it had failed on MANY occasions to mention Ron Paul as a candidate while going through every single other candidate's story after story about the primaries, but this is quite remarkable.

This goes for all lesser-known candidates like Dennis Kucinich, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, etc. and to a lesser degree Mike Huckabee. Ron Paul's censorship in particular in the Mainstream Media (MSM) is vindicated in full here...so anyone claiming RP fans are just whining need to sit up and pay attention now:
"A Roundtable on Campaign Coverage"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18881616

At about the 5:30 mark listen to Andrew's question (Andrew is an RP supporter from Iowa) and Tom Rosenstiel's answer. Tom is the Director for the Project of Excellence in Journalism (http://www.journalism.org/about_pej/about_us). Here is part of Tom's answer:
"The day before Super Tuesday Ron Paul was a significant or primary figure in 0% (that's ZERO) of the stories we analyze...600 stories across 48 different news outlets. Andrew is correct in suggesting that the press has discounted the chances of Ron Paul having any success. There is no doubt, it's an objective fact that the press has decided that Ron Paul is not a viable candidate."

This is pure vindication straight from the mouth of the MSM. It's a little late for the admission now that the prophecy of the MSM is being fulfilled before our eyes. Spread the word to all doubters and all MSM friends who have been hoodwinked by the media and their darlings like McCain, Obama, and Hillary.
The Project for Excellence in Journalism monitors 48 different news outlets each week for its New Index including the NY Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, NPR, among many others. A complete listing of its News Index can be found here:
http://www.journalism.org/about_news_index/list_of_outlets

Here is what the mainstream media looked like in its coverage of the candidates a couple of weeks BEFORE Super Tuesday, a day in which about half of the states primaries occur and a day that is largely responsible for the determination of our next President:
http://www.journalism.org/node/9436

Here is what it looks like now:
http://www.journalism.org/node/9610

You can also check some of the other weeks leading up to Super Tuesday and see the same type of results at the Project for Excellence in Journalism's web site here:
http://www.journalism.org/

Again, spread the word to all doubters and all MSM friends who have been hoodwinked by the media and their darlings like McCain, Obama, and Hillary.

I almost decided to boycott NPR after it had failed on MANY occasions to mention Ron Paul as a candidate while going through every single other candidate's story after story about the primaries, but this is quite remarkable.
This goes for all lesser-known candidates like Dennis Kucinich, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, etc. and to a lesser degree Mike Huckabee. Ron Paul's censorship in particular in the Mainstream Media (MSM) is vindicated in full here...so anyone claiming RP fans are just whining need to sit up and pay attention now:
"A Roundtable on Campaign Coverage"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18881616
At about the 5:30 mark listen to Andrew's question (Andrew is an RP supporter from Iowa) and Tom Rosenstiel's answer. Tom is the Director for the Project of Excellence in Journalism (http://www.journalism.org/about_pej/about_us). Here is part of Tom's answer:
"The day before Super Tuesday Ron Paul was a significant or primary figure in 0% (that's ZERO) of the stories we analyze...600 stories across 48 different news outlets. Andrew is correct in suggesting that the press has discounted the chances of Ron Paul having any success. There is no doubt, it's an objective fact that the press has decided that Ron Paul is not a viable candidate."
This is pure vindication straight from the mouth of the MSM. It's a little late for the admission now that the prophecy of the MSM is being fulfilled before our eyes.
Spread the word to all doubters and all MSM friends who have been hoodwinked by the media and their darlings like McCain, Obama, and Hillary.
The Project for Excellence in Journalism monitors 48 different news outlets each week for its New Index including the NY Times, ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, NPR, among many others. A complete listing of its News Index can be found here:
http://www.journalism.org/about_news_index/list_of_outlets
Here is what the mainstream media looked like in its coverage of the candidates a couple of weeks BEFORE Super Tuesday, a day in which about half of the states primaries occur and a day that is largely responsible for the determination of our next President:
http://www.journalism.org/node/9436

Here is what it looks like now:
http://www.journalism.org/node/9610
"McCain Wins the Coverage Battle as Media Move to Anoint Him"

You can also check some of the other weeks leading up to Super Tuesday and see the same type of results at the Project for Excellence in Journalism's web site here:
http://www.journalism.org/
Again, spread the word to all doubters and all MSM friends who have been hoodwinked by the media and their darlings like McCain, Obama, and Hillary.

Perhaps Newsweek should do fact checking of its own articles before turning the spyglass on others.

Regarding the NAFTA Superhighway, I find it fascinating that you acknowledge the Trans-Texas Corridor and yet deny its existence in the very next paragraph: "There is no such superhighway like the one [Paul is] talking about. It doesn't exist, in plans or anywhere else."
Huh?

Ron Paul is correct that we are spending upward into the trillions per year on unnecessary foreign ventures. You are merely splitting hairs on a flub, where the meaning in his statement is that he will save the country a great deal in spending. And indeed...
http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?PressID=991&org_name=NTUF
The fact that he would dig this country out of a hole rather than deeper into it is no fantasy.

With regards to the Reagan endorsement, how does that constitute a "fantasy" or even a falsehood? He has said that he wants to disassociate himself from the Reagan administration, not the principles that the man ran on. One of his criticisms of Reagan is that he promised to do away with the Department of Education, yet he expanded it instead. That sort of thing is what he wishes to disassociate from.
Incidentally, you managed to quote Reagan's praise of Paul, yet implied later in the article that the Ron Paul campaign was somehow making up an endorsement. Again I must ask... huh?

It's poor journalism and misleading information like this that made me cancel my subscription to Newsweek many years ago. I find it unfortunate that the magazine hasn't changed for the better since then.

You should do a little fact-checking before making derogatory statements about an honorable man who speaks the truth.

The "NAFTA Superhighway" IS in the works (http://www.nascocorridor.com/) and is even being funded by Congress (http://www.nascocorridor.com/pages/federal/federal.htm). Ask the folks in Texas - they're already dealing with it as our government is seizing their land to build the highway (Trans Texas Corridor). The NAU (North American Union) is on the way: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=205004696&blogID=313179052

You should do a little fact-checking before making derogatory statements about an honorable man who speaks the truth.

The "NAFTA Superhighway" IS in the works (http://www.nascocorridor.com/) and is even being funded by Congress (http://www.nascocorridor.com/pages/federal/federal.htm). Ask the folks in Texas - they're already dealing with it as our government is seizing their land to build the highway (Trans Texas Corridor). The NAU (North American Union) is on the way: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=205004696&blogID=313179052

I cannot believe that Newsweek would publish such an article - I come to expect more from you; i'm not even American. Is this a desperate way to push down a movement that is threatening or is it to push another political opinion/agenda?

No doubt a poorly written article. The worst dirt you guys can come up with is a change of mind back in 1988 on Reagan? a super highway and Bush's insane spending habits? How about digging up the flip flopping on Obama, Clinton and Mccain the past few months? You surely would have a 20 page essay on each if not more. NAFTA whether its called I-35 or not doesn't matter, it is not the biggest concern when it comes to his policies - google NAFTA and you would find good research papers on it. US war in Iraq is at 500 bill + Afghanistan + Israel donations + Palestinian donations + Money to Musharaf + Stationing of troops elsewhere such as Korea + opportunity cost (this is an unfair price, but if these billions were invested in US infrastructure it would heavily outweigh the war).. i think 1 trillion is not a bad measure.

I'm not a RP supporter, but i like objectivity and being able to read both sides of the story.. this article is extremely one sided and really doesn't address the most important issue that RP stands for - free economic market, do not suggest isolationism - he believes in free open trade, no income tax etc.. there wasn't one single positive point in this article. Pathetic. I expect better journalism from a high schooler.

I am suprised that you have included the factCheck article in Newsweek. It is a terrible article, and leaves me wondering who factchecks factcheck.org ? A few glaring errors.

1. regarding the SPP and NAU - see this article http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/opedne_paul_rye_080211_what_is_the_world_co.htm - I am suprised that you would use the SPP's own information to define what it is ? Did newsweek accept Richard Nixon's assertion that he is "not a crook" ? Judicial watch has had to file FOIA documents to find out what this organization does, and has shown that they deal with such important issues as immigration, Public Safety and the environment, and all without Congressional oversite.

2. The Article Claims there is not NAFTA superhighway. However it turns out that up until 4 or 5 years ago, the newsmedia was filled with articles on this highway, as local governments scrambled to get their piece of these federal highway dollars. The Fact is that Roads are being built using federal taxpayer money (I-69) and Upgraded (I -35) to carry additional traffic from Mexico, and Canada, through the U.S. at the expense of fixing roads that do not serve the interests of Trade between the countries - so the government is subsidizing mexican imports, through its Highway policies.

I suppose this article is appearing now, because of Ron Pauls Congressional race. The newsmedia of today is truly shameless. Somewhere Edward R. Murrow is weeping.

I am suprised that you have included the factCheck article in Newsweek. It is a terrible article, and leaves me wondering who factchecks factcheck.org ? A few glaring errors.

1. regarding the SPP and NAU - see this article http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/opedne_paul_rye_080211_what_is_the_world_co.htm - I am suprised that you would use the SPP's own information to define what it is ? Did newsweek accept Richard Nixon's assertion that he is "not a crook" ? Judicial watch has had to file FOIA documents to find out what this organization does, and has shown that they deal with such important issues as immigration, Public Safety and the environment, and all without Congressional oversite.

2. The Article Claims there is not NAFTA superhighway. However it turns out that up until 4 or 5 years ago, the newsmedia was filled with articles on this highway, as local governments scrambled to get their piece of these federal highway dollars. The Fact is that Roads are being built using federal taxpayer money (I-69) and Upgraded (I -35) to carry additional traffic from Mexico, and Canada, through the U.S. at the expense of fixing roads that do not serve the interests of Trade between the countries - so the government is subsidizing mexican imports, through its Highway policies.

I suppose this article is appearing now, because of Ron Pauls Congressional race. The newsmedia of today is truly shameless. Somewhere Edward R. Murrow is weeping.

I cannot believe that Newsweek would publish such an article - I come to expect more from you; i'm not even American. Is this a desperate way to push down a movement that is threatening or is it to push another political opinion/agenda?

No doubt a poorly written article. The worst dirt you guys can come up with is a change of mind back in 1988 on Reagan? a super highway and Bush's insane spending habits? How about digging up the flip flopping on Obama, Clinton and Mccain the past few months? You surely would have a 20 page essay on each if not more. NAFTA whether its called I-35 or not doesn't matter, it is not the biggest concern when it comes to his policies - google NAFTA and you would find good research papers on it. US war in Iraq is at 500 bill + Afghanistan + Israel donations + Palestinian donations + Money to Musharaf + Stationing of troops elsewhere such as Korea + opportunity cost (this is an unfair price, but if these billions were invested in US infrastructure it would heavily outweigh the war).. i think 1 trillion is not a bad measure.

I'm not a RP supporter, but i like objectivity and being able to read both sides of the story.. this article is extremely one sided and really doesn't address the most important issue that RP stands for - free economic market, do not suggest isolationism - he believes in free open trade, no income tax etc.. there wasn't one single positive point in this article. Pathetic. I expect better journalism from a high schooler.

Okay, so your main gripes with Dr. Paul are his stance on NAFTA and the potential NAU, the dollar figure he attaches to our foreign policy, his relationship with President Reagan, and ONE flawed piece of logic from ONE Ron Paul support site...

...Dr. Paul's stance on NAFTA and the NAU are that they are IDEAS that have been discussed by high ranking officials. They have never been proposed to congress or the president. That doesn't mean that some people don't want it to happen.

Okay so maybe our foreign policy doesn't amount to $1 trillion. We still are an empire. We still are overextended. We still have bases in 130 countries at over 700 bases. We still meddle in the internal affairs of any country giving a damn. Dr. Paul's message is that this needs to stop. I agree.

You really have a problem with Dr. Paul's change of stance on Ronald Reagan? Something that has nothing to do with policy or issues? Pathetic.

Using the same logic... you can't assume every Ron Paul supporter believes he is right just because one website made that claim.