Release of Wikileaks UFO Material Delayed Founder Arrested

Interpol Warrant and Arrest of Wikileaks Founder Julian Assange

Assange turns himself in to authorities in Britain on a charge of sexual assault arising from Sweden.

WikiLeaks: Julian Assange to hand himself in to police after arrest warrant issued
Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, will hand himself in to police - possibly as early as Tuesday - after a fresh European Arrest Warrant was issued by the Swedish authorities.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8185247/WikiLeaks-Julian-Assange-to-hand-himself-in-to-police-after-arrest-warrant-issued.html

what is happening here? Will we ever know if the charges are trumped up or reality?

WikiLeaks founder arrested in England this morning - is "poison pill" next? December 7, 2010

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has been arrested in England on rape charges he faces in Sweden. Assange made a promise to release the WikiLeaks “poison pill,” which are more secret files, if he were ever shut down or arrested. Will he stay true to his word?

Although the media is calling the charges “rape,” it is not, according to the legal documents says Judge Napolitano on Fox News this morning. Assange was already investigated regarding this charge and it was dropped three months ago, the Judge went on to say.

Assange had consensual sex in which the condom broke, the Judge continued on to say. Assange is fighting extradition to Sweden and the crime he is charged with is not a crime in England, so it may just be that England will honor his request, according to the Judge.

Judge Napolitano says that it has been suggest that this charge may be just an excuse to arrest him as an effort to get him to stop the WikiLeak postings.

http://www.examiner.com/pop-culture-in-hartford/wikileaks-founder-arrested-england-this-morning-is-poison-pill-next

It strains credulity with the United States Congress, virtually to a one, (there are a few not so inclined such as Congressman Ron Paul see Rep. Ron Paul Makes Special Request Of Wikileaks on Fox’s Freedom Watch by Frances Martel | 1:49 pm, December 4th, 2010) clamoring for Assange to face the death penalty for being a terrorist because he released a flood of material classified as super duper secret (it is said) to the public and further warned he'd release (metaphorically) not a mere tidal wave of new material he'd obtained in his own secret file entitled "insurance" if he was arrested.

While we don't have the means to investigate all the particulars, we have followed the absolute biased sites around the internet that think along with the federal government the founder of wikileaks has committed a crime against all of humanity and that laws pertaining to espionage are applicable to Assange now.

How can that hold water. Really, Assange shared the files with the world, and we didn't have to pay a dime. Nor should we. Our own government classifies whatever it wants for whatever reasons it wants. It brings upon itself skepticism as to motives for withholding material dating back to WWII, etc. and etc...

Wikileaks' 10 greatest stories The Telegraph

...In a delightful twist, a British military manual - the Defence Manual of Security, or Joint Services Protocol 440 (JSP440) - specifically dealing with how best to avoid leaks was leaked onto the site in October last year. It warned that the Chinese "[have] a voracious appetite for all kinds of information; political, military, commercial, scientific and technical" and that spying is no longer like "the novels of John Le Carre". Journalists are listed in the document as one of the "threats" to security, alongside foreign intelligence services, criminals, terrorist groups and disaffected staff. In an even more self-referential moment, a Pentagon document naming Wikileaks itself as a threat to national security was leaked - to Wikileaks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8070253/Wikileaks-10-greatest-stories.html

And there's Sarah Palin, agreeing Assange is worthy of the application of the 1917 Espionage law to him and the death penalty to him for releasing information she should want to 'study' so she can at least answer what does she read there in Alaska while she's looking over to Russia from her back yard.

Yep. Kill him for releasing that info about those odd paranormal circumstances there in Alaska as documented in

hmm will we ever know the title of that one?

Palin classifies Assange as a terrorist rather quickly... at the ready... you betcha!

John Nichols: Sarah Palin vs. Julian Assange
December 7, 2010 5:00 am

...Palin wants Assange hunted down as a terrorist. In a rant on her Facebook page, the former governor of Alaska says the Obama administration is not doing enough to take down WikiLeaks and Assange.

“Assange is not a ‘journalist,’ any more than the ‘editor’ of al-Qaida’s new English-language magazine Inspire is a ‘journalist.’ He is an anti-American operative with blood on his hands. His past posting of classified documents revealed the identity of more than 100 Afghan sources to the Taliban. Why was he not pursued with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaida and Taliban leaders?” Palin demands to know. “What if any diplomatic pressure was brought to bear on NATO, EU, and other allies to disrupt WikiLeaks’ technical infrastructure? Did we use all the cyber tools at our disposal to permanently dismantle WikiLeaks? Were individuals working for WikiLeaks on these document leaks investigated? Shouldn’t they at least have had their financial assets frozen just as we do to individuals who provide material support for terrorist organizations?”

As it happens, Palin does not get to define who is or is not a “journalist,” or what is or is not “journalism.” Nor does she get to decide who should be pursued “with the same urgency we pursue al-Qaida and Taliban leaders.”

But it is worth noting that, while reasonable people can and do criticize Assange, most of them do not place him in the same category as the leaders of international terrorist groups. Palin and New York Congressman Peter King, who wants to label WikiLeaks as a terrorist organization, are the outliers

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/john_nichols/article_0bc17590-3ed5-5f42-b68f-ffc8e176a560.html

Judge Napolitano of Fox News programming disagrees Assange is committing either terrorism or espionage by the release of materials recently.

REBEL OF THE WEEK: THE JUDGE By Megan Duffield at 8:06AM

...Among the many articles, interviews, and spin stories revolving around Wikileaks' war document disclosure, a voice stood out in the nightly news. Fox News Freedom Watch host Napolitano claims it was the reputation of the government, not the military, which was put in harm's way after the Wikileaks revelations. Napolitano was one of the few voices speaking out in support of Wikileaks' action in mainstream media and for that is named Silver Circle's Rebel of the Week Award. He is a former New Jersey Supreme Court judge turned political and legal analyst for the Fox News Channel. He has been outspoken on many civil liberty issues such as the recent TSA security measures, the PATRIOT Act, as well as foreign policy.

Monday night, Judge Napolitano covered the Wikileaks story in a different light than most of the media. He called out the government's imperialism around the world. With Julian Assange at the center for scrutiny, Judge Napolitano used his legal expertise to show that Assange and others involved with Wikileaks did not illegally obtain the information. The document was given to Wikileaks, and according to the Judge, Wikileaks is, "free to publish it, to discuss it, to analyze it without any criminal activity at all." Much of what was released within the documents concerned military strategies, classified information on leaders in other countries, as well as financially relevant details that the American people would probably be sick from after reading.

http://www.yaliberty.org/posts/rebel-of-the-week-the-judge

We're wondering if the disagreement between Judge Napolitano and Sarah Palin over this issue will ever arise during any of his forthcoming interviews with her.

What is even more astonishing. Just as Assange is about to release material related to those government files we've all been waiting for since we learned there were such government files puff like a disappearing unidentified flying object aka a UFO he's wanted in Sweden for sexual assault, and he turns himself in to authoritities.

Sounds like a conspiracy to us.

WikiLeaks: new diplomatic cables contain UFO details, Julian Assange says
By Andrew Hough 11:00PM GMT 03 Dec 2010

New leaked diplomatic cables set to be published by Wikileaks will contain fresh details on UFOs, according to the website's founder Julian Assange

The 39 year-old Australian, who is wanted by Interpol over a charge of rape and sexual assault in Sweden, said there were some references to extraterrestrial life in yet-to-be-published confidential files obtained from the American government.

He did not disclose what information was contained in the diplomatic memos obtained by the whistleblowing website. It also remains unclear when they will be published.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8180528/Wikileaks-new-diplomatic-cables-contain-UFO-details-says-Julian-Assange.html

additional articles from The Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/ufo/

WikiLeaks may release 'UFO' files

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/TechandScience/Story/STIStory_610718.html

Meanwhile

WikiLeaks sparks worldwide diplomatic crisis
The King of Saudi Arabia privately urged the United States to attack Iran to destroy its nuclear weapons programme, according to diplomatic cables leaked by the whistle-blowing website, WikiLeaks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/8166502/WikiLeaks-sparks-worldwide-diplomatic-crisis.html


U.S. Facing Global Diplomatic Crisis Following Massive WikiLeaks Release of Secret Diplomatic Cables

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22108.cfm

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/29/us_facing_global_diplomatic_crisis_following

Net the Truth Online

Ron Paul chances going going going

Speaking to the Taft Club organization, presidential candidate Ron Paul said a secretive monetary scheme is the Federal Reserve. Paul's speech was re-broadcast on C-Span Saturday. Paul further said it produces conterfeit money...

huh... he didn't explain, and he should have. He may have been preaching to the choir, those already convinced of his positions and opinions, but the rest of the voters need more clarification to swing to the Republican's presidential effort.

Later he's asked what would he do about the federal reserve. He said he would legalize the money... hmmm, why not be absolutely clear. Say you'd abolish the Federal Reserve and void the 16th amendment. He did later say he would eliminate the income tax. What would he replace it with?

He wasn't very clear again. He said something about we used to have tariffs... but he didn't clarify further or adequately.

now ron Paul says anybody who doesn't want to pay social security taxes, etc. ought to just get out...

What? Missed why Paul would think the government should be even collecting social security taxes? Again unclear.

Paul says we're basically attacking third world nations... they don't have any weapons... we're a bully... we're attacking nations before they get any weapons... preemptive war... endless and open... continuing on... he says it's war propaganda, we always have to have another war... that's where our problems come from.. we always have to be occupying a foreign Muslim country...

I had at one time been leaning heavily toward supporting Paul. Now I'm not so convinced.

At this appearance, speaking to those he knows are overall in agreement with him, he confirmed my growing belief that on the Iraq war he's saying what he knows a larger percentage of Americans are with increasing fervor being propagandized to believe...

Guess one has to continue reading his weekly columns to see who else he panders to

http://www.house.gov/paul/

Ron Paul doesn't place the blame squarely where it lies. With a Congress that abrogated its sworn duty to uphold the Consitution of the United States.

Don't get me wrong. To his credit, Ron Paul did not vote to give President Bush authority to use force in Iraq back in 2002. He also is the Congressman who session after session presents a bill to get the United States out of the United Nations.

I support those efforts.

Paul also correctly states that Congress declares war according to our United States Constitution. And with the war on Iraq that didn't happen.

But Paul ignores that it didn't happen because our members of Congress abrogated their DUTY. That's right, their duty. Minus Ron Paul's vote and a handful of others, Congress authorized President George W. Bush to use necessary force in Iraq.

Now these same law-breakers who thwarted the U.S. Constitution are crying they were lied to and that's why many don't support the war now...

No, that isn't acceptable. At least Paul has ethical ground on which to stand as he didn't vote for the use of force authorization.

First, the Bush Administration was no different than the Clinton Administration concerning the real and imminent potentiality of Saddam Hussein possessing weapons of mass destruction and Hussein's threats to use those weapons. Even the United Nations was unsure of the status of Hussein's stockpiles of such including mustard gas the UN said he used on his own people in the 1980s.

And yes, it's been documented that the United States when supporting Hussein at one point was responsible for providing some of those weapons of mass destruction. That's despicable.

But Congress, even newcomers to service there, has the power to stop it all.

Congress had in its domain of power, one of the few limited powers it possesses, to outright declare war on Iraq, or not. Congress had the power to call in experts as well as the state department to obtain independent information to make their decision to "declare war." They didn't.

Members of Congress had one directive from the Constitution of the United States -

Congress declares war.

Congress members did not do their duty as sworn to uphold the Constitution. Those members who authorized the use of force by the president, sidestepping their constitutional duty to declare war, are the ones who should be held accountable and should have been recalled or impeached by the people of the United States.

President Bush went to Congress under the so-called War Powers Act. Congress doesn't have to abide by unconsitutional acts. But members did.

After Congress allowed President Bush to use force they either then fully support the effort or do their next constitutional duty. Withhold money to fight the illegitimate war.

But they won't do that now, either.

They are the hypocrites. Either withhold the money or shut up.

Congress could also challenge en masse the War Powers Act and abolish it.

They won't.

While Ron Paul is a champion on many fronts, on this one, he simply fails.

He also didn't adequately explain what is "imminent" threat or danger or attack or sudden attack.

Do nuclear warheads have to be dropping on United States soil before Congress declares war?

When does a President have the authority to fight back without the consent of Congress - when there is an imminent threat of an attack to the United States.

And that's why President Bush did not have to go to Congress under the War Powers Act or any other act, to take action against Iraq, if the president believed from all available intelligence that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat.

That he did seek Congressional authorization tells us a lot.

That members of Congress acquiesced and voted for the president to use necessary force tells us a lot.

When Ross Perot ran for President back in the early 90s, I was fortunate enough to be in a postition to ask Perot just such a question at a press conference in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. When would you go to war against another country?

When there's an imminent threat... when we're under attack, responded Perot.

The difference between then and now truly is the perceived "imminent" threat of attack since September 11, 2001.

And that is the primary reason we do need to have all of the information we can obtain about what happened the morning of September 11, 2001.

Why didn't President George W. Bush get up from his seat in the classroom when he was told by Andrew Card that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center, America is under attack?

America Under Attack: Job Ahead of Bush
Aired September 14, 2001 - 03:10

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/14/se.30.html

Why didn't Bush do his duty when told America is under attack and immediately get up politely from his seat, go into the adjacent room already set up with secure phone lines (according to Bill Sammon in Fighting Back) and call out the full military forces of the United States of America? Did Bush know planes had been hijacked before he entered the second grade classroom to listen to children read? How would Bush know that military planes of a foreign country were not "attacking" the United States? How would Bush know these were only suicide missions and not an in concert broad attack with a combination of hijacked planes and nuclear warheads coming in from wherever?

(See my This is Not a Conspiracy Theory for treatment of these issues)

Ron Paul should be screaming about President Bush being told America IS UNDER ATTACK the morning of September 11, 2001, and doing nothing for several minutes. (Again see This is not a Conspiracy Theory for documentation that Bush remained seated in the classroom for six minutes).

But even Ron Paul isn't asking President Bush anything about that morning. Why not?

He can be vocal about an illegitimate war all he wants. But if he doesn't go the distance and show that the basis of that war and all subsequent U.S. policy rests on what happened on September 11, 2001 which as of this date remains unexplained fully he is no more presidential material than any other of the candidates.

All of the other issues Paul is correct about do not matter if he isn't willing to directly ask the President of the United States to account for his inaction when there was an imminent threat on United States soil.

posted by Net the Truth Online with revisions

More

THIS IS NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORY: 6-MINUTE SLIVER SHOWS HISTORICAL TRUTH

http://dirtline.tripod.com/talkacrosstown/id3.html

october 10, 2002 AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ


http://authforce.liberatedtext.org/021010/cr10oc02-69_01.html

Quotes from Ron Paul speech

http://www.digg.com/2008_us_elections/Quotes_From_Ron_Paul_s_Speech_Last_Night

Ron Paul forum

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=24058

clip

Danny Carlton Says:
October 9th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Did Clinton get a declaration of war when he bombed Kosovo civilians?

Also, Ron Paul claimed we have never been under an imminent
attack in 220 years. Where was he on December 7th, 1941?
Where was he September 11th, 2001?

Kurt Obermeyer Says:
October 9th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Rep. Paul may have misspoke when he said we were never under the threat of an imminent attack, however, he is absolutely correct in saying that we need to have a Congressional declaration of war to go to war. This is the real issue. This country has been in a nearly continuous state of war since the end of WWII. Korea, Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Gulf War I, Bosnia, Kosovo, contiued bombing of Iraq after Gulf War I, Afghanistan, and now Iraq again, the list is exhausting. Not a single one of these conflicts has had a Constitutionally directed declaration of war. By the way, the War Powers Act is unconstitutional. The Constitution says the Congress has to declare war. Article 1, section 8, if anybody cares anymore.

http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/10/09/video-rudy-vs-ron-paul-on-911/

clip

THE PRESIDENT'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST TERRORISTS AND NATIONS SUPPORTING THEM

The President has broad constitutional power to take military action in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001. Congress has acknowledged this inherent executive power in both the War Powers Resolution and the Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 14, 2001.

The President has constitutional power not only to retaliate against any person, organization, or State suspected of involvement in terrorist attacks on the United States, but also against foreign States suspected of harboring or supporting such organizations.

The President may deploy military force preemptively against terrorist organizations or the States that harbor or support them, whether or not they can be linked to the specific terrorist incidents of September 11.

September 25, 2001

MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/warpowers925.htm

CATO Institute position on executive power

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Z8xxeesRfggJ:www.cato.org/pubs/handbook/hb108/hb108-11.pdf+power+president+imminent+sudden+attack&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=us

The Debate over war powers

http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1319&context=lawfaculty

clip

Thursday, May 10, 2007
Ron Paul's Weekly column Dec.11, 2006
Who Makes Foreign Policy?
December 11, 2006

...The media, Congress, and the American public all seem to have accepted something that is patently untrue: namely, that foreign policy is the domain of the president and not Congress. This is absolutely not the case and directly contrary to what our founding fathers wanted.

The role of the president as Commander in Chief is to direct our armed forces in carrying out policies established by the American people through their representatives in Congress. He is not authorized to make those policies. He is an administrator, not a policy maker. Foreign policy, like all federal policy, must be made by Congress. To allow otherwise is to act in contravention of the Constitution.

Library of Congress scholar Louis Fisher, writing in The Oxford Companion to American Military History, summarizes presidential war power:

The president's authority was carefully constrained. The power to repel sudden attacks represented an emergency measure that allowed the president, when Congress was not in session, to take actions necessary to repel sudden attacks either against the mainland of the United States or against American troops abroad. It did not authorize the president to take the country into full-scale war or mount an offensive attack against another nation.

But it’s not simply the decision to wage war that is left to Congress. Consider also the words of James Madison:

Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great principle in free government, analogous to that which separates the sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of enacting laws (italics added).

So Congress is charged not only with deciding when to go to war, but also how to conduct-- and bring to a conclusion-- properly declared wars. Of course the administration has some role to play in making treaties, and the State Department should pursue beneficial diplomacy. But the notion that presidents should establish our broader foreign policy is dangerous and wrong. No single individual should be entrusted with the awesome responsibility of deciding when to send our troops abroad, how to employ them once abroad, and when to bring them home. This is why the founders wanted Congress, the body most directly accountable to the public, to make critical decisions about war and peace.

It is shameful that Congress ceded so much of its proper authority over foreign policy to successive presidents during the 20th century, especially when it failed to declare war in Korea, Vietnam, Kosovo, and Iraq. It’s puzzling that Congress is so willing to give away one of its most important powers, when most members from both parties work incessantly to expand the role of Congress in domestic matters. By transferring its role in foreign policy to the President, Congress not only violates the Constitution, but also disenfranchises the American electorate.


Go directly to Ron Paul's site at http://www.house.gov/paul

http://fredanderson.blogspot.com/2007/05/ron-pauls-weekly-column-dec11-2006.html

clip

Source: Los Angeles Times, January 29, 2003

THE STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS

Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat

"Trusting in Hussein's Restraint 'Is Not an Option,' President Says

By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON -- A somber and steely President Bush, speaking to a skeptical world Tuesday in his State of the Union address, provided a forceful and detailed denunciation of Iraq, promising new evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime poses an imminent danger to the world and demanding the United Nations convene in just one week to consider the threat.

But the president made clear his decision whether to attack Iraq would not hinge on U.N. approval.

"All free nations have a stake in preventing sudden and catastrophic attack. We are asking them to join us, and many are doing so," the president said. "Yet the course of this nation does not depend on the decision of others."

Calls have mounted in recent weeks for the president to make a better case for going to war. In response, Bush argued that use of force is not only justified but necessary, and that the threat is not only real but imminent.

"If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late," Bush said. "Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

http://www.ph.ucla.edu/EPI/bioter/iraqimminent.html

clip

In Response to Richard E. Berg-Andersson's Commentary
Dealing with War Powers
Thursday, September 19, 2002 by Kenneth Stremsky

Mr. Berg-Andersson responds:

The main point of my Commentary of 13 September was that there is a "gray area" in between a sudden attack which the President appears to have the power to repel without necessarily or immediately consulting Congress (I would put the attacks of 11 September 2001 in this category) and that which requires a Declaration of War from Congress per Article I, section 8 of the US Constitution (I would put any military action re: the current threat level from the regime of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in this category). Assuming that a condition of Peace is "condition GREEN", the former condition (surprise attack on the United States) would be "condition RED" and the latter condition (dealing with an indirect, less than imminent, danger from abroad) would be "condition YELLOW"; liberally borrowing the color code of alert levels used by the U.S. Office of Homeland Security, I referred to the "gray area" (into which the Bush Administration- or so it appears- currently wishes a present Iraqi "threat" to be placed) as "condition ORANGE"-- in such a case, at bare minimum, a Congressional Resolution would be in order (and, so it appears as of this typing, it seems we are rather likely to get just that-- though only that!). To reiterate my own position: in the case of war with Iraq as contemplated at present, a Congressional Resolution is simply not good enough- since it is "YELLOW" and not "ORANGE" as I defined these in my Commentary; a Declaration of War would be much more advisable- as well as necessary under the terms of the Constitution of the United States itself...

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Vox/?20020919-0

Ron Paul and “Islamofascism”

http://thecrossedpond.com/?cat=1

Search results

http://blog-admin.lewrockwell.com/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=5&search=%22ron%20paul%22

Republican Debate Transcript, South Carolina
Published May 15, 2007

http://www.cfr.org/publication/13338/

May Debate posting

http://www.scruffydan.com/blog/?p=760

Ron Paul (did he say we invited the attack on 9/11 because we are over there...?)

http://soundpolitics.com/archives/008623.html

search results Ron Paul executive orders

http://www.google.com/search?q=ron+paul+executive+orders&hl=en&sourceid=gd&rls=GGLD,GGLD:2006-40,GGLD:en

Residents of planned union to be 'North Americanists'
Arizona State University teaches
how continent to be integrated
Posted: January 5, 2007
By Bob Unruh
© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Arizona State University is teaching that the U.S., Mexico and Canada need to be integrated into a unified superstate, where U.S. citizens of the future will be known as "North Americanists," according to the taxpayer-funded "Building North America" program.

The program openly advocates for the integration of economic issues across the continent, and in many places goes further – such as the call for a common North American currency.

One teaching module made available online for professors to integrate into their teachings was written by George Haynal, senior fellow at the Norman Patterson School of International Affairs at Carleton University, and implied a joint military is required. Since the security of the continent "is a joint need; it should be supplied as a common enterprise."...

... Another teaching paper advocates the adoption of a unified North American currency, the "amero," modeled after the euro currency of the European Union.

The programming the university is providing for help in teaching the new North American focus is just the latest evidence of the mounting campaign for a de facto North American Union. Although most in the establishment press are not covering the controversy, it has earned the opposition of a number of high-level voices including congressmen like Tom Tancredo, Virgil Goode and Ron Paul, and newsmen like CNN's Lou Dobbs who has described the U.S. government's actions in this effort as "Orwellian."

Paul, a maverick Republican from Texas, has denounced such integration plans and warns that most members of Congress aren't aware of the situation, and that he is opposing any transnational "superhighway" projects such as the "Trans-Texas Corridor" project in his home state...


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53633