U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | democracy |
democracy
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:134
Throughout this century, and as the movement grows for one world government, the linchpin is always democracy, not liberty or a constitutionally restrained republic as our Founders preferred. As long as the democratic vote can modify rights, the politicians will be on the receiving end of bribes and money and will be the greatest influence on legislation.
democracy
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:141
“Democracy” is now the goal of all those who profess progress and peace, but instead they promote corporatism, inflationism, and world government.
democracy
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:145
Bennett’s great concern is this. “Disdain of representative government (democracy) however, makes it virtually impossible to instill in citizens a noble love of country” (the State rather than liberty). Bennett complains that Americans no longer love their country because of their “utter contempt some have directed against government itself.” In other words, we must love our government ruled by the tyrannical majority at all costs or it is impossible to love freedom and America.
democracy
Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998
26 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 28:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, last year’s attempts by some in Congress to tie the Mexico City Policy to the issues of funding for the United Nations (UN) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) this week come back to haunt those of us who believe in the sanctity of human life, the inviolability of US Sovereignty, and the rights of the U.S. taxpayers to keep the fruits of their own labor. This week, we see, the “grand deal” struck which will see liberals back down from their opposition to Mexico City Language in exchange for conservative members voting to support funding of the United Nations, affirmative action, peacekeeping activities, and the National Endowment for Democracy.
democracy
Conference Report on H.R. 1757, Foreign Affairs Reform And Restructuring Act Of 1998
26 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 28:10
ADDTIONALLY This “agreement” authorizes $1.8 Billion for multilateral assistance in excess of the previously mentioned contribution to the United Nations; $60 million dollars for the National Endowment for Democracy; $20 million for the Asia Foundation; $22 million for the East-West Center for the study of Asian and Pacific Affairs; $1.3 billion for international migration and refugee assistance and an additional $160 million to transport refugees from the republics of the former Soviet Union to Israel. Also, $100 million is authorized to fund radio broadcasts to Cuba, Asia and a study on the feasibility of doing so in Iran.
democracy
United Nations Money Came From Defense Department
20 May 1998 1998 Ron Paul 53:7
So this is absolutely the wrong direction that we are going in today. This is a further extension of the notion that our obligation is to police the world. We are supposed to make the world safe for democracy. Just think, since World War II, we have not had one declared war, but we sure have been fighting a lot. We have lost well over 100,000 men killed. We have lost, we have had hundreds of thousands of men injured because we have a policy that carelessly allows us to intervene in the affairs of other nations, and we allow the United Nations to assume too much control over our foreign policy.
democracy
Iraq — Part 1
5 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 107:7
Not too long ago, a few years back, in 1980s, in our efforts to bring peace and democracy to the world we assisted the freedom fighters of Afghanistan, and in our infinite wisdom we gave money, technology and training to Bin Laden, and now, this very year, we have declared that Bin Laden was responsible for the bombing in Africa. So what is our response, because we allow our President to pursue war too easily? What was the President’s response? Some even say that it might have been for other reasons than for national security reasons. So he goes off and bombs Afghanistan, and he goes off and bombs Sudan, and now the record shows that very likely the pharmaceutical plant in Sudan was precisely that, a pharmaceutical plant.
democracy
Exchange Stabilization Fund
15 July 1999 1999 Ron Paul 76:7
This is a magnificent thing, but in a free society, in a democracy, in a republic where we are supposed to have the rule of law, we are not supposed to have a slush fund that is run by our Treasury without supervision to be doing things that was never intended. This is a serious problem. And I think economically it is serious because it is contributing to the bubble. It is contributing to a financial bubble.
democracy
East Timor
28 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 99:13
If we decide that we have to fight for and engage troops for everybody who wants to be independent, we have a lot of work ahead of us. And, in addition, in the same clause, “and a long-term strategy for supporting stability, security and democracy.”
democracy
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:4
The term “republic” had a significant meaning for both of them and all early Americans. It meant a lot more than just representative government and was a form of government in stark contrast to pure democracy where the majority dictated laws and rights. And getting rid of the English monarchy was what the revolution was all about, so a monarchy was out of the question.
democracy
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:13
Our constitutional Republic, according to our founders, should above all else protect the rights of the minority against the abuses of an authoritarian majority. They feared democracy as much as monarchy and demanded a weak executive, a restrained court, and a handicapped legislature.
democracy
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
July 10, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 63:3
* In particular, the resolution refers to American ‘democracy’ and the ‘democratic’ principles upon which this country was founded. However, this country was founded not as a democracy but as a constitutional republic. Madam Speaker, the distinction between a democracy and a republic is more than just a matter of semantics. The fundamental principle in a democracy is majority rule. Democracies, unlike republics, do not recognize fundamental rights of citizens (outside the right to vote) nor do they limit the power of the government. Indeed, such limitations are often scored as ‘intrusions on the will of the majority.’ Thus in a democracy, the majority, or their elected representatives, can limit an individual’s right to free speech, defend oneself, form contracts, or even raise ones’ children. Democracies recognize only one fundamental right: the right to participate in the choosing of their rulers at a pre-determined time.
democracy
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
July 10, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 63:5
* Madam Speaker, the confusion over whether America is a democracy, where citizens’ rights may be violated if the consent of 51 percent of the people may be obtained, or a republic, where the federal government is forbidden to take any actions violating a people’s fundamental rights, is behind many of the flawed debates in this Congress. A constitutionally literate Congress that understands the proper function of a legislature in a constitutional republic would never even debate whether or not to abridge the right of self-defense, instruct parents how to raise and educate their children, send troops to intervene in distant foreign quarrels that do not involve the security of the country, or even deny entire classes of citizens the fundamental right to life.
democracy
Sense Of Congress Regarding Importance And Value Of Education In United States History
July 10, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 63:7
* In conclusion, by mistaking this country’s founding as being based on mass democracy rather than on republican principles, and by ignoring the constitutionally limited role of the federal government, this resolution promotes misunderstanding about the type of government necessary to protect liberty. Such constitutional illiteracy may be more dangerous than historical ignorance, since the belief that America was founded to be a democracy legitimizes the idea that Congress may violate people’s fundamental rights at will. I, therefore, encourage my colleagues to embrace America’s true heritage: a constitutional republic with strict limitations on the power of the central government.
democracy
ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AHEAD
November 13, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 93:3
* Mises, the great 20th century economist, predicted decades before the fall of the Soviet system that socialism was unworkable and would collapse upon itself. Although he did not live to see it, he would not have been surprised to witness the events of 1989 with the collapse of the entire Communist-Soviet system. Likewise, the interventionist-welfare system endorsed by the West, including the United States, is unworkable. Even without the current problems in the Presidential election, signs of an impasse within our system were evident. Inevitably, a system that decides almost everything through pure democracy will sharply alienate two groups: the producers, and the recipients of the goods distributed by the popularly elected congresses. Our system is not only unfairly designed to take care of those who do not work, it also rewards the powerful and influential who can gain control of the government apparatus. Control over government contracts, the military industrial complex and the use of our military to protect financial interests overseas is worth great sums of money to the special interests in power.
democracy
James Madison Commemoration Commission Act
4 December 2000 2000 Ron Paul 96:3
Of course, Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly endorse the goals of promoting public awareness and appreciation of, the life and thought of James Madison. In fact, through my work with various educational organizations, I have probably done as much as any member to promote the thought of James Madison and the other Founding Fathers. James Madison’s writings provide an excellent guide to the principles underlying the true nature of the American government. In addition, Madison’s writings address many issues of concern to friends of limited government today, such as the need for each branch of government to respect the Separation of Powers, the threat posed to individual liberty by an interventionist foreign policy, and the differences between a Republic and a pure Democracy.
democracy
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:2
The main question before the new Congress and the Administration is: Are we to have gridlock or cooperation? Today we refer to cooperation as bipartisanship . Some argue that bipartisanship is absolutely necessary for the American democracy to survive. The media never mention a concern for the survival of the Republic. But there are those who argue that left-wing interventionism should give no ground to right-wing interventionism-that too much is at stake.
democracy
Statement Paul Amendment to Defund the UN
July 18, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 56:5
I think this is an appropriate time to discuss the reasonableness for our support for the United Nations. The government of the United States has continued to grow as our state sovereignty has gotten much smaller, but now we are losing a lot of sovereignty to an international government which is the United Nations. Just recently, the United States was humiliated by being voted off by secret ballot from the U.N. Human Rights Commission and Sudan was appointed in our place. How could anything be more humiliating. So democracy ruled, our vote counted as one, the same value as the vote of Red China or Sudan. But the whole notion that we would be put off the Human Rights Commission and Sudan, where there is a practice of slavery, is put on the Human Rights Commission should be an insult to all of us.
democracy
Crazy For Kazakhstan
1 August 2001 2001 Ron Paul 69:12
There are many challenges ahead for Kazakhstan, but there are enormous opportunities for economic and political progress. Mr. Nazarbayev has taken advantage of Kazakhstan’s stability to begin transforming its economy from the old Soviet form giant, state-owned industries and collective grain farms into a modern, market-based economy. We have much at stake in this development. Will Kazakhstan become a true market- oriented democracy, or will it slip into economic stagnation and ethnic violence like so many of its neighbor? The stability of Central Asia and the Caucasus depends on how Kazakhstan chooses to move forward. The United States must do its part to enhance U.S.-Kazakhstancooperation and encourage prosperity and stability for the entire region.
democracy
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:77
For instance, the military draft is the ultimate insult to those who love personal liberty. The Pentagon, even with the ongoing crisis, has argued against the reinstatement of the draft. Yet the clamor for its reinstatement grows louder daily by those who wanted a return to the draft all along. I see the draft as the ultimate abuse of liberty. Morally it cannot be distinguished from slavery. All the arguments for drafting 18-year old men and women and sending them off to foreign wars are couched in terms of noble service to the country and benefits to the draftees. The need-for-discipline argument is the most common reason given, after the call for service in an effort to make the world safe for democracy. There can be no worse substitute for the lack of parental guidance of teenagers than the federal government’s domineering control, forcing them to fight an enemy they don’t even know in a country they can’t even identity.
democracy
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:51
Since Buckley, the proponents of ever more stringent limits upon campaign contributions have emphasized that such laws are needed not to prevent actual government corruption, but to eliminate all appearances of such corruption. Indeed, these proponents have contended that the elimination of the appearance of corruption is compelling because, if the appearance is allowed to remain, people will lose faith in our current system of government and their confidence in their elected leaders, such faith and confidence lying at the heart of a healthy democracy.
democracy
So-Called “Campaign Finance Reform” is Unconstitutional
February 13, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 7:52
This same theme has been struck by leading proponents of reform in the House of Representatives. Four years ago, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt urged the adoption of more restrictive measures “for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy” even at the expense of the freedom of speech. (Gibbs, “The Wake-Up Call,” Time, p. 25, Feb. 3, 1997) Representative Gephardt has not changed his mind, continuing his adamant support of the speech-restrictive Shays-Meehan bill to this day. (Mitchell, “2 Election Bills Go to the House Floor,” The New York Times , June 29, 2001) Indeed, Senator John McCain has not changed his mind either. Having urged in 1997 the enactment of a law placing limits on public policy organizations’ political advertising in the waning days of an election campaign, and thus calling off the political “attack dogs” (NBC News, Meet the Press, Feb. 3, 1997), Senator McCain is waging an all-out war to make sure that his version of campaign-finance reform passes the House. (Shenon, “House Critics Call McCain a Bully on Campaign Bill,” The New York Times, July 9, 2001) As McCain’s Democrat colleague, Russell Feingold, put it upon the introduction of Shays-Meehan in the Senate in 1999: “The prevalence – no – the dominance of money in our system of elections and our legislature will…cause them to crumble.” (Cong. Rec. S422, 423, daily ed., Jan. 19, 1999)
democracy
Statement on wasteful foreign aid to Colombia
March 6, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 14:4
At the time Plan Colombia was introduced, President Clinton promised the American people that this action would in no way drag us into the Colombian civil war. This current legislation takes a bad policy and makes it much worse. This legislation calls for the United States “to assist the Government of Colombia protect its democracy from United States-designated foreign terrorist organizations . . .” In other words, this legislation elevates a civil war in Colombia to the level of the international war on terror, and it will drag us deep into the conflict.
democracy
Statement on wasteful foreign aid to Colombia
March 6, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 14:6
As with much of our interventionism, if you scratch the surface of the high-sounding calls to “protect democracy” and “stop drug trafficking” you often find commercial interests driving U.S. foreign policy. This also appears to be the case in Colombia. And like Afghanistan, Kosovo, Iraq, and elsewhere, that commercial interest appears to be related to oil. The U.S. administration request for FY 2003 includes a request for an additional $98 million to help protect the Cano-Limon Pipeline- jointly owned by the Colombian government and Occidental Petroleum. Rebels have been blowing up parts of the pipeline and the resulting disruption of the flow of oil is costing Occidental Petroleum and the Colombian government more than half a billion dollars per year. Now the administration wants American taxpayers to finance the equipping and training of a security force to protect the pipeline, which much of the training coming from the U.S. military. Since when is it the responsibility of American citizens to subsidize risky investments made by private companies in foreign countries? And since when is it the duty of American service men and women to lay their lives on the line for these commercial interests?
democracy
Statement against Meddling in Domestic Ukrainian Politics
Wednesday, March 20, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 18:2
Mr. Speaker, Ukraine has been the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid from the United States. In fiscal year 2002 alone, Ukraine was provided $154 million. Yet after all this money- which we were told was to promote democracy- and more than ten years after the end of the Soviet Union, we are told in this legislation that Ukraine has made little if any progress in establishing a democratic political system.
democracy
Honoring Calhoun High School
29 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 26:2
The “We the People” program was begun in 1987, with the goal of enhancing students’ understanding of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, while guiding them to discover modern day applications of the Constitution and the Bill if Rights. It is a time consuming study requiring many hours of preparation, both in and out of the classroom. Each participant takes a multiple-choice test, and prepares for a simulated Congressional hearing in which students “testify” before a panel of judges.
democracy
Honoring San Marcos High School
29 April 2002 2002 Ron Paul 27:2
The “We the People” program was begun in 1987, with the goal of enhancing students’ understanding of the institutions of American constitutional democracy, while guiding them to discover modern day applications of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is a time consuming study requiring many hours of preparation, both in and out of the classroom. Each participant takes a multiple-choice test, and prepared for a simulated Congressional hearing in which students “testify” before a panel of judges.
democracy
Seeks More Balance Of Interests
2 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 34:6
There is a lot of talk about democracy and peace. I take a position of nonintervention in the affairs of other people. I believe very sincerely that it is consistent with the Constitution and very sincerely that it works to our best interest for national security and for defense; and that even though this is intended very sincerely to help Israel, motions like this, resolutions like this, can very well backfire and actually hurt Israel more so than they will help.
democracy
Don’t Force Taxpayers to Fund Nation-Building in Afghanistan
May 21, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 43:14
Madam Chairman, the problem with nation-building and social-engineering, as experience tells us time and time again is that it simply doesn’t work. We cannot build multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, gender-sensitive civil society and good governance in Afghanistan on a top-down basis from afar. What this bill represents is a commitment to deepening involvement in Afghanistan and a determination to impose a political system on that country based on a blueprint drawn up thousands of miles away by Washington elites. Does anyone actually believe that we can buy Afghan democracy with even the staggering sum of 1.2 billion dollars? A real democracy is the product of shared values and the willingness of a population to demand and support it. None of these things can be purchased by a foreign power. What is needed in Afghanistan is not just democracy, but freedom- the two are not the same.
democracy
Don’t Force Taxpayers to Fund Nation-Building in Afghanistan
May 21, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 43:15
Release of funds authorized by this legislation is dependent on the holding of a traditional Afghan assembly of tribal representatives –a “loya jirga” – as a first step toward democratization. It authorizes $10 million dollars to finance this meeting. That this traditional meeting will produce anything like a truly representative body is already in question, as we heard earlier this month that seven out of 33 influential tribal leaders have already announced they will boycott the meeting. Additionally, press reports have indicated that the U.S. government itself was not too long ago involved in an attempted assassination of a non-Taliban regional leader who happened to be opposed to the rule of the American-installed Hamid Karzai. More likely, this “loya jirga” will be a stage-managed showpiece, primarily convened to please Western donors. Is this any way to teach democracy?
democracy
Don’t Force Taxpayers to Fund Nation-Building in Afghanistan
May 21, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 43:21
The occupation of Afghanistan is unnecessary. It is going to be very costly, and it is very dangerous. My colleagues might say, well, this is all for democracy. For democracy? Well, did we care about democracy in Venezuela? It seemed like we tried to undermine that just recently. Do we care about the democracy in Pakistan? A military dictator takes over and he becomes our best ally, and we use his land, and yet he has been a friend to the Taliban, and who knows, bin Laden may even be in Pakistan. Here we are saying we are doing it all for democracy. Now, that is just pulling our leg a little bit too much. This is not the reason that we are over there. We are over there for a lot of other reasons and, hopefully, things will be improved.
democracy
Opposing The Amendment
21 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 45:9
My colleagues might say, well, this is all for democracy. For democracy? Well, did we care about democracy in Venezuela? It seemed like we tried to undermine that just recently. Do we care about the democracy in Pakistan? A military dictator takes over and he becomes our best ally, and we use his land, and yet he has been a friend to the Taliban, and who knows, bin Laden may even be in Pakistan. Here we are saying we are doing it all for democracy. Now, that is just pulling our leg a little bit too much. This is not the reason that we are over there. We are over there for a lot of other reasons and, hopefully, things will be improved.
democracy
No More Taxpayer Funds for the Failed Drug War in Colombia
May 23, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 49:9
It just happens that we have spread ourselves around the world; we are now in nine countries of the 15 countries that used to be part of the Soviet Union. And every country has something to do with oil. The Caspian Sea, Georgia, and why are we in the Persian Gulf? We are in the Persian Gulf to protect “our” oil. Why are we involved with making and interfering with the democratically elected leader of Venezuela? I thought we were for democracy, and yet the reports are that we may well have participated in the attempt to have a democratically elected official in Venezuela removed. I think there is a little bit of oil in Venezuela as well. Could that have been the reason.
democracy
Inspection or Invasion in Iraq?
June 24, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 57:6
In the meeting last month, Scott Ritter reminded members of Congress that a nation cannot go to war based on assumptions and guesses, that a lack of knowledge is no basis on which to initiate military action. Mr. Ritter warned those present that remaining quiescent in the face of the administration’s seeming determination to exceed the authority granted to go after those who attacked us, will actually hurt the president and will hurt Congress. He concluded by stating that going in to Iraq without Congressionally-granted authority would be a “failure of American democracy.” Those pounding the war drums loudest for an invasion of Iraq should pause for a moment and ponder what Scott Ritter is saying. Thousands of lives are at stake.
democracy
Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq
September 10, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 85:19
18. Are we willing to bear the economic burden of a 100 billion dollar war against Iraq, with oil prices expected to skyrocket and further rattle an already shaky American economy? How about an estimated 30 years occupation of Iraq that some have deemed necessary to "build democracy" there?
democracy
Questions That Will Not Be Asked About Iraq
September 10, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 85:24
23. How can our declared goal of bringing democracy to Iraq be believable when we prop up dictators throughout the Middle East and support military tyrants like Musharaf in Pakistan, who overthrew a democratically-elected president?
democracy
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 102:1
Mr. Speaker, government efforts at benevolence always backfire. Inevitably, unintended consequences overwhelm the short-term and narrow benefits of authoritarian programs designed to make the economic system fair, the people morally better, and the world safe for democracy. One hundred years of intense government "benevolence" in the United States has brought us to the brink of economic collapse, a domestic police state, and perpetual war overseas. And now our obsession with conquering and occupying Iraq is about to unleash consequences that no one can accurately foresee. The negative possibilities are unlimited and the benefits negligible.
democracy
Unintended Consequences
November 14, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 102:9
Islamic fundamentalism in the entire region will get a shot in the arm once the invasion of Iraq begins, especially in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Turkey. Our placing the Shah in power in Iran in the 1950’s was a major reason that the Ayatollah eventually made it to power in the late 1970’s- a delayed but nevertheless direct consequence of our policy. Balance of power in this area of the world has always been delicate, and outside interference serves only to destabilize. There’s no evidence that our current efforts will lead to more stability. Promoting democracy, as it’s said we’re doing, is a farce. If elections were to occur in most of the Arab countries today, Osama bin Laden and his key allies would win. Besides, it seems we adapt quite well to working with military dictators that have ousted elected leaders, as we do in Pakistan by rewarding their cooperation with huge subsidies and future promises.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, at the close of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin told an inquisitive citizen that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention gave the people a Republic, if you can keep it. We should now apologize to Mr. Franklin. It is obvious that the Republic is gone, and we are wallowing in a pure democracy against which the Founders had strongly warned.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:6
There seems to be complete aversion to defending the Republic and the Constitution that established it. The Founders clearly understood the dangers of a democracy. Edmond Randolph of Virginia described the effort to deal with the issue at the Constitutional Convention: “The general object was to produce a cure for evils under which the United States labored; that in tracing these evils to their origins, every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy.”
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:7
These strongly held views regarding the evils of democracies and the benefit of a constitutional republic were shared by all the Founders. For them, a democracy meant centralized power, controlled by majority opinion, which was up for grabs and, therefore, completely arbitrary.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:9
The difference between a democracy and a republic was simple. Would we live under the age old concept of the rule of man or the enlightened rule of law?
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:11
Although the United States Constitution was by far the best ever written for the protection of liberty, with safeguards against the dangers of a democracy, it, too, was flawed from the beginning. Instead of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded to the democratic majority’s demands that they compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, culminated in a civil war that surely could have been prevented with clearer understanding and a more principled approach to the establishment of a constitutional republic.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:14
The ideas of democracy, not the principles of liberty, were responsible for the passage of the 16th amendment. It imposed the income tax on the American people and helped us usher in the modern age of the welfare warfare State. Unfortunately, the 16th amendment has not been repealed as was the 18th. As long as the 16th amendment is in place, the odds are slim that we can restore a constitutional republic dedicated to liberty. The personal income tax is more than symbolic of a democracy; it is a predictable consequence.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:15
The transition from republic to democracy was gradual and insidious. Its seeds were sown early in our history. In many ways, the Civil War and its aftermath laid the foundation for the acute erosion that took place over the entire 20th century.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:17
The marketplace, driven by voluntary cooperation, private property ownership, and sound money was severely undermined with the acceptance of the principles of true democracy. Unfortunately, too many people confused the democratic elections of leaders in a Republic for democracy by accepting the rule of majority opinion in all affairs. For majorities to pick leaders is one thing. It is something quite different for majorities to decide what rights are, to redistribute property, to tell people how to manage their personal lives, and to promote undeclared, unconstitutional wars.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:19
This trend toward authoritarian democracy was tolerated because, unlike a military dictatorship, it was done in the name of benevolence, fairness, and equity. The pretence of love and compassion by those who desire to remold society and undermine the Constitution convinced the recipients and even the victims of its necessity.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:21
The resolution to the problems we face as a result of this profound transition to pure democracy will be neither quick nor painless. This transition has occurred even though the word “democracy” does not appear in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The Founders explicitly denounced it.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:22
Over the last hundred years the goal of securing individual liberties within the framework of a constitutional republic has been replaced with incessant talk of democracy and fairness. Rallying support for our ill-advised participation in World War I, Wilson spoke glowingly of making the world safe for democracy and never mentioned national security. This theme has to this day persisted in all our foreign affairs. Neoconservatives now brag of their current victories in promoting what they call “hard Wilsonism.”
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:23
A true defense of self-determination for all people, the necessary ingredient of a free society is ignored. Self-determination implies separation of smaller governments from the larger entities that we witnessed in the breakup of the Soviet Union. This notion contradicts the goal of pure democracy and world government. A single world government is the ultimate goal of all social egalitarians who are unconcerned with liberty.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:25
Supporters of democracy are always quick to point out one of the perceived benefits of this system is the redistribution of wealth by government to the poor. Although this may be true in a limited fashion, the champions of this system never concern themselves with the victims from whom the wealth is stolen. The so-called benefits are short lived because democracy consumes wealth with little concern for those who produce it. Eventually, the programs cannot be funded, and the dependency that has developed precipitates angry outcries for even more fairness.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:31
Democracy is promoted in the name of fairness in an effort to help some special interest group receive a benefit that it claims it needs or is entitled to. If only one small group were involved, nothing would come of the demands, but coalitions develop and the various groups ban together to form a majority, to vote themselves all those things that they expect others to provide for them.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:35
Prohibitions placed in the Constitution against programs that serve special interests are the greatest threat to the current system of democracy under which we operate. In order for the benefits to continue, politicians must reject the rule of law and concern themselves only with the control of majority opinion. Sadly, that is the job of almost all politicians. It is clearly the motivation behind the millions spent on constant lobbying, as well as the billions spent on promoting the right candidate in each election.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:37
Democracy encourages the mother of all political corruption, the use of political money to buy influence. If the dollars spent in this effort represent the degree to which democracy has won out over the rule of law and the Constitution, it looks like the American Republic is left wanting. Billions are spent on the endeavor. Money and politics is the key to implementing policy and swaying democratic majorities. It is seen by most Americans, and rightly so, as a negative and danger. Yet the response, unfortunately, is only more of the same.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:40
It was no accident in 1913 when the dramatic shift toward democracy became pronounced that the Federal Reserve was established. A personal income tax was imposed as well. At the same time, popular election of Senators was instituted, and our foreign policy became aggressively interventionist. Even with an income tax, the planners for war and welfare knew that it would become necessary to eliminate restraints on the printing of money. Private counterfeiting was a heinous crime, but government counterfeiting and fractional reserve banking were required to seductively pay for the majority’s demands.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:43
The belief that democratic demands can be financed by deficits, credit creation, and taxation is based on false hope and failure to see how it contributes to the turbulence as the democracy collapses. Once a nation becomes a democracy, the whole purpose of government changes. Instead of the government’s goal being that of guaranteeing liberty, equal justice, private property and voluntary exchange, the government embarks on the impossible task of achieving economic equality and micromanaging the economy and protecting citizens from themselves in all their activities.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:44
The destruction of the wealth-building process, which is inherent in a free society, is never anticipated. Once it is realized it has been undermined, it is too late to easily reverse the attacks against limited government and personal liberty. Democracy, by necessity, endorses special interest interventionism, inflationism and corporatism. In order to carry out the duties now expected of the government, power must be transferred from the citizens to the politicians. The only thing left is to decide which group or groups have the greatest influence over the government officials.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:48
The turmoil and dangers of pure democracy are known. We should get prepared. But it will be the clarity with which we plan its replacement that determines the amount of pain and suffering endured during the transition to another system. Hopefully, the United States Congress and other government leaders will come to realize the seriousness of our current situation and replace the business-as-usual attitude, regardless of political demands and growing needs of a boisterous majority.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:49
Simply stated, our wealth is running out, and the affordability of democracy is coming to an end. History reveals that once majorities can vote themselves largesse, the system is destined to collapse from within. But in order to maintain the special interest system for as long as possible, more and more power must be given to an ever-expanding central government, which of course only makes matters worse. The economic shortcomings of such a system are easily understood. What is too often ignored is that the flip side of delivering power to government is the loss of liberty to the individual. This loss of liberty causes exactly what the government does not want: Less productive citizens who can’t pay taxes.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:51
Like our social welfarism at home, our foreign meddling and empire-building abroad are a consequence of our becoming a pure democracy. The dramatic shift away from the Republic that occurred in 1913, as expected, led to a bold change of purpose in foreign affairs. The goal of making the world safe for democracy was forcefully put forth by Wilson. Protecting national security had become too narrow a goal and selfish in purpose. An obligation for spreading democracy became a noble obligation backed by a moral commitment every bit as utopian as striving for economic equality in an egalitarian society here at home.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:52
With the growing affection for democracy, it was no giant leap to assume that majority opinion should mold personal behavior. It was no mere coincidence that the 18th amendment, alcohol prohibition, was passed in 1919.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:53
Ever since 1913, all our Presidents have endorsed meddling in the internal affairs of other nations and have given generous support to the notion that a world government would facilitate the goals of democratic welfare or socialism. On a daily basis we hear that we must be prepared to send our money and use our young people to police the world in order to spread democracy. Whether it is Venezuela or Colombia, Afghanistan or Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Korea or Vietnam, our intervention is always justified with the tone of moral arrogance that it is for their own good. Our policymakers promote democracy as a cure-all for the various complex problems of the world. Unfortunately, the propaganda machine is able to hide the real reasons for our empire-building.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:54
Promoting democracy overseas merely becomes a slogan for doing things that the powerful and influential strive to do for their own benefit. To get authority for these overseas pursuits, all that is required of the government is that the majority be satisfied with the stated goals no matter how self-serving they may be. The rule of law, that is constitutional restraint, is ignored. But as successful as the policy may be on the short run, and as noble as it may be portrayed, it is a major contributing factor to the violence and chaos that eventually come from pure democracy.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:55
There is abundant evidence that the pretense of spreading democracy contradicts the very policies we are pursuing. We preach about democratic elections, but we are only too willing to accept some for-the-moment friendly dictator who actually overthrew a democratically elected leader or to interfere in some foreign election. This is the case with Pakistan’s Musharraf. For a temporary alliance, he reaped hundreds of millions of dollars, even though strong evidence exists that the Pakistanis have harbored and trained al Qaeda terrorists, that they have traded weapons with North Korea, and that they possess weapons of mass destruction.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:56
No one should be surprised that the Arabs are confused by our overtures of friendship. We have just recently promised billions of dollars to Turkey to buy their support for the new Persian Gulf War. Our support of Saudi Arabia, in spite of its ties to the al Qaeda, is financing and training. It is totally ignored by those obsessed with going to war against Iraq. Saudi Arabia is the furthest thing from a democracy. As a matter of fact, if democratic elections were permitted, the Saudi Government would be overthrown by a bin Laden ally.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:57
Those who constantly preach global government and democracy ought to consider the outcome of their philosophy in a hypothetical Mideast regional government. If these people were asked which country in this region possessed weapons of mass destruction, had a policy of oppressive occupation, and constantly defies U.N. council resolutions, the vast majority would overwhelmingly name Israel. Is this ludicrous? No. This is what democracy is all about and what can come from a one man, one vote philosophy. U.S. policy supports the overthrow of the democratically elected Chavez government in Venezuela because we do not like the economic policy it pursues. We support a military takeover as long as the new dictator will do as we tell him.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:58
There is no credibility in our contention that we really want to impose democracy on other nations, yet promoting democracy is the public justification for our foreign intervention. It sounds so much nicer than saying we are going to risk the lives of young people and massively tax our citizens to secure the giant oil reserves of Iraq. After we take over Iraq, how long would one expect it to take until there are authentic nationwide elections in that country? The odds of that happening in even 100 years are remote. It is virtually impossible to imagine a time when democratic elections would ever occur for the election of leaders in a constitutional republic dedicated to the protection of liberty anyplace in the region.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:62
There will be no peace in the world for the next 50 years or longer if we refuse to believe why those who are attacking us do it. To dismiss terrorism as a result of Muslims hating us because we are rich and free is one of the greatest foreign policy frauds ever perpetuated on the American people. Because the propaganda machine, the media, and the government have restated this so many times, the majority now accept it as face value, and the administration gets the political cover its needs to pursue a holy war for democracy against the infidels who hate us for our goodness.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:66
Relying on authoritarian democracy and domestic and international meddling only moves us sharply away from a constitutional republic and the rule of law and toward the turbulence of a decaying democracy about which Madison and others had warned. Once the goal of liberty is replaced by a preconceived notion of the benefits and the moral justification of a democracy, a trend toward internationalism and world government follows. We certainly witnessed this throughout the 20th century. Since World War II, we have failed to follow the Constitution in taking this country to war, but instead have deferred to the collective democratic wisdom of the United Nations.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:68
In the name of democracy, just as it is done in Washington, powerful nations with the most money will control the United Nations policy. Bribery, threats and intimidation are common practices used to achieve a democratic consensus, no matter how controversial and short-lived the benefits.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:69
Can one imagine what it might be like if true worldwide democracy existed and the United Nations were controlled by a world-wide, one man/one vote philosophy? The masses of China and India could vote themselves whatever they needed from the more prosperous Western countries. How long would a world system last based on this absurdity? Yet this is the principle that we are working so hard to impose on ourselves and others around the world.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:76
The demands that come with pure democracy always lead to an unaffordable system that ends with economic turmoil and political upheaval. Tragically, the worse the problems get, the louder is the demand for more of the same government programs that caused the problems in the first place, both domestic and international. Weaning off of government programs and getting away from foreign meddling because of political pressure are virtually impossible. The end comes only after economic forces make it clear we can no longer afford to pay for the extravagance that comes from the democratic dictates.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:77
Democracy is the most excessive form of government. There is no “king” with an interest in preserving the nation’s capital. Everyone desires something, and the special-interest groups, banding together, dictate to the politicians exactly what they want and need. Politicians are handsomely rewarded for being “effective,” that is, getting the benefits for the groups that support them. Effectiveness is never measured by efforts and achievements in securing liberty, even though it is the most important element in a prosperous and progressive world.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:78
Spending is predictable in a democracy, especially one that endorses foreign interventionism. It always goes up, both in nominal terms and in percentage of the nation’s wealth.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:82
Although this appears to be a convenient and cheap way to pay the bills, the economic consequences of lost employment, inflated prices and economic dislocation make the long-term consequences much more severe than paying as we go. Not only is this costly in terms of national wealth, it significantly contributes to the political chaos and loss of liberty that accompany the death throes of a doomed democracy.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:83
This does not mean that direct taxes will not be continuously raised to pay for out-of-control spending. In a democracy, all earned wealth is assumed to belong to the government. Therefore, not raising taxes, cutting taxes, or granting tax credits are considered “costs” of government. Once this notion is established, tax credits or cuts are given only under condition that the beneficiaries conform to the democratic consensus. Freedom of choice is removed, even if a group is merely getting back control of that which was rightfully theirs in the first place.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:85
The vast majority of the American people have come to accept democracy as a favorable system and are pleased with our efforts to pursue Wilson’s dream of making the world safe for democracy. But the goals of pure democracy and that of a constitutional republic are incompatible. A clear understanding of the difference is paramount, if we are to remain a free and prosperous Nation.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:86
There are certain wonderful benefits in recognizing the guidance that majority opinion offers. It takes a consensus or prevailing attitude to endorse the principles of liberty and a constitution to protect them. This is a requirement for the rule of law to succeed. Without a consensus, the rule of law fails. This does not mean that the majority or public opinion, measured by polls, court rulings or legislative bodies should be able to alter the constitutional restraints on the government’s abuse of life, liberty and property. But in a democracy that happens, and we know today that is happening in this country on a routine basis.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:87
In a free society with totally free markets, the votes by consumers through their purchases or refusal to purchase determine which businesses survive and which fail. This is freechoice democracy, and it is a powerful force in producing and bringing about economic efficiency. In today’s democracy by decree, government laws dictate who receives the benefit and who gets shortchanged. Conditions of employment and sales are taxed and regulated at varying rates, and success or failure is too often dependent on government action than by consumers’ voting in the marketplace by their spending habits. Individual consumers by their decisions should be in charge, not governments armed with mandates from the majority.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:90
Interestingly enough, what is needed is a majority opinion, especially by those who find themselves in leadership roles, whether political, educational or in the media, that rejects democracy and supports the rule of law within the Republic. This majority support is essential for the preservation of the freedom and prosperity with which America is identified.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:119
But they have it backwards. Under democracy and fascism, the pseudocapitalists write the laws that undermine the Constitution and jeopardize the rights and property of all citizens. They fail to realize that the real law, the Constitution, itself guarantees the rights and equal justice and permits capitalism, thus guaranteeing progress.
democracy
Republic Versus Democracy
29 January 2003 2003 Ron Paul 6:120
Arbitrary, ever-changing laws are the friends of dictators. Authoritarians argue constantly that the Constitution is a living document and that rigid obedience to ideological purity is the enemy that we should be most concerned about. They would have us believe that those who cherish strict obedience to the rule of law in the defense of liberty are wrong merely because they demand ideological purity. They fail to demand that their love of relative rights and pure democracy is driven by a rigid obedience to an ideology as well. The issue is never rigid beliefs versus reasonable friendly compromise. In politics it is always competition between two strongly held ideologies. The only challenge for men and women of goodwill is to decide the wisdom and truth of the ideologies offered.
democracy
Big Program Won’t Eliminate AIDS
1 May 2003 2003 Ron Paul 54:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, as a physician I am particularly concerned about terrible diseases like AIDS. I have great sympathy for those — in increasing numbers — who suffer and die around the world. The question is not whether each and every one of us is concerned or would like to do something about this terrible problem. The question is whether yet another massive government foreign aid program will actually do anything at all to solve the problem. The United States has been sending billions and billions of dollars overseas for decades to do fine-sounding things like “build democracy” and “fight drugs” and “end poverty.” Yet decades later we are told that in every category these things have actually gotten worse rather than better. Our money has disappeared into bank accounts of dictators and salaries for extremely well-paid consultants and U.S. Government employees. Yet we refuse to learn from these mistakes; we are about to make another multi-billion dollar mistake with this bill.
democracy
The Flag Burning Amendment
June 3, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 57:28
“I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer out a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away.”
democracy
Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered
19 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 67:10
(10) There is little chance of anything resembling democracy emerging in Iraq any time soon. Any real “democracy” that emerges will likely have a fundamentalist Islamic flavor and will be hostile to other religious and ethnic groups in Iraq.
democracy
Bring Back Honest Money
17 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 82:4
Legal tender laws disadvantage ordinary citizens by forcing them to use money that is vulnerable to vast depreciation. As Stephen T. Byington wrote in the September 1895 issue of the American Federationist : “No legal tender law is ever needed to make men take good money; its only use is to make them take bad money. Kick it out!” Similarly, the American Federation of Labor asked: “If money is good and would be preferred by the people, then why are legal tender laws necessary? And, if money is not good and would not be preferred by the people, then why in a democracy should they be forced to use it?”
democracy
We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq
September 16, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 98:13
There are two main reasons we need to reject the foreign policy of the past 50 years that has been used to rationalize our presence in Iraq. First, the practical: We cannot expect to force western, U.S.-style democracy on a nation that for over 1,000 years learned to live with and accept an Islamic-based legal system. No matter what we say or believe, to the Iraqis they have been invaded by the Christian west, and whether it is the United States, U.N. or European troops that are sent to teach them the ways of the west it will not matter.
democracy
We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq
September 16, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 98:14
Second, we have no constitutional authority to police the world or involve ourselves in nation building, in making the world safe for our style of democracy. Our founders advised against it and the early presidents followed that advice. If we believe strongly in our ideals, the best way to spread them is to set a good example so that others will voluntarily emulate us. Force will not work. Besides, we do not have the money. The $87 billion appropriations request should be rejected.
democracy
Commending The National Endowment For Democracy For Contributions To democratic Development Around The World On The 20th Anniversary Of Its Establishment
7 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 105:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, I rise to express my grave concerns over H. Con. Res 274. The misnamed National Endowment for Democracy (NED) is nothing more than a costly program that takes U.S. taxpayer funds to promote favored politicians and political parties abroad. Madam Speaker, what the NED does in foreign countries, through its recipient organizations the National Democratic Institute (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI), would be rightly illegal in the United States. The NED injects “soft money” into the domestic elections of foreign countries in favor of one party or the other. Imagine what a couple of hundred thousand dollars will do to assist a politician or political party in a relatively poor country abroad. It is particularly Orwellian to call U.S. manipulation of foreign elections “promoting democracy.” How would Americans feel if the Chinese arrived with millions of dollars to support certain candidates deemed friendly to China? Would this be viewed as a democratic development?
democracy
Commending The National Endowment For Democracy For Contributions To democratic Development Around The World On The 20th Anniversary Of Its Establishment
7 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 105:2
In an excellent study of the folly of the National Endowment for Democracy, CATO Institute scholar Barbara Conry notes that:
democracy
Commending The National Endowment For Democracy For Contributions To democratic Development Around The World On The 20th Anniversary Of Its Establishment
7 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 105:4
“. . . the controversy surrounding NED questions the wisdom of giving a quasi-private organization the fiat to pursue what is effectively an independent foreign policy under the guise of “promoting democracy.” Proponents of NED maintain that a private organization is necessary to overcome the restraints that limit the activities of a government agency, yet they insist that the American taxpayer provide full funding for this initiative. NED’s detractors point to the inherent contradiction of a publicly funded organization that is charged with executing foreign policy (a power expressly given to the federal government in the Constitution) yet exempt from nearly all political and administrative controls . . .
democracy
Commending The National Endowment For Democracy For Contributions To democratic Development Around The World On The 20th Anniversary Of Its Establishment
7 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 105:6
The National Endowment for Democracy is dependent on the U.S. taxpayer for funding, but because NED is not a government agency, it is not subject to Congressional oversight. It is indeed a heavily subsidized foreign policy loose cannon.
democracy
Commending The National Endowment For Democracy For Contributions To democratic Development Around The World On The 20th Anniversary Of Its Establishment
7 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 105:7
Since its founding in 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy has been headed by Carl Gershman, a member of the neo-Trotskyite Social Democrats/USA.
democracy
Commending The National Endowment For Democracy For Contributions To democratic Development Around The World On The 20th Anniversary Of Its Establishment
7 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 105:9
Both (IRI and NDI) are largely funded by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) . . . which, in turn, receive money from the American taxpayer. Both have favoured the return to power of former highranking Communists which has also meant co-opting foot-soldiers from the new left who have extremely liberal ideas . . .
democracy
Commending The National Endowment For Democracy For Contributions To democratic Development Around The World On The 20th Anniversary Of Its Establishment
7 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 105:12
In Slovakia, NED funded several initiatives aimed at defeating the freely-elected government of Prime Minister Vladimir Meciar, who, interestingly, had been persecuted by the previous Communist regime. After the election, an IRI newsletter boasted that “IRI polls changed the nature of the campaign,” adding that IRI efforts secured “a victory for reformers in Slovakia.” What the IRI does not say is that many of these “reformers” had been leading members of the former Communist regime of then-Czechoslovakia. Is this democracy?
democracy
Commending The National Endowment For Democracy For Contributions To democratic Development Around The World On The 20th Anniversary Of Its Establishment
7 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 105:13
More recently, IRI president George A. Folsom last year praised a coup against Venezuela’s democratically-elected president, saying, “Last night, led by every sector of civil society, the Venezuelan people rose up to defend democracy in their country.” It was later revealed that the National Endowment for Democracy provided funds to those organizations that initiated the violent revolt in the streets against Venezuela’s legal leaders. More than a dozen civilians were killed and hundreds were injured in this attempted coup. Is this promoting democracy?
democracy
Commending The National Endowment For Democracy For Contributions To democratic Development Around The World On The 20th Anniversary Of Its Establishment
7 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 105:14
Madam Speaker, the National Endowment for Democracy, by meddling in the elections and internal politics of foreign countries, does more harm to the United States than good. It creates resentment and ill-will toward the United States among millions abroad. It is beyond time to de-fund this Cold War relic and return to the foreign policy of our founders, based on open relations and trade with all countries and free from meddling and manipulation in the internal affairs of others.
democracy
Borrowing Billions to Fund a Failed Policy in Iraq
October 17, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 110:9
Conservatives often proclaim that they are opposed to providing American welfare to the rest of the world. I agree. The only way to do that, however, is to stop supporting a policy of military interventionism. You cannot have one without the other. If a military intervention against Syria and Iran are next, it will be the same thing: we will pay to bomb the country and we will pay even more to rebuild it - and as we see with the plan for Iraq, this rebuilding will not be done on the cheap. The key fallacy in the argument of the militarists is that there is some way to fight a war without associated costs - the costs of occupation, reconstruction, “institution-building,” “democracy programs.”
democracy
Borrowing Billions to Fund a Failed Policy in Iraq
October 17, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 110:11
Our continued occupation of Iraq is not producing the promised results, despite efforts to paint a brighter picture of the current situation. What once was a secular dictatorship appears to be moving toward being a fundamentalist Islamic regime – not the democracy we were promised. As repulsive as Saddam’s regime was, the prospect of an Iraq run by Islamic clerics, aligned with Iranian radicals and hostile to the United States, is no more palatable. There are signs that this is the trend. The press reports regularly on attacks against Iraq’s one million Christians. Those hand-picked by the United States to run Iraq have found themselves targets for assassination. Clerics are forming their own militias. The thousands of non-combatants killed in the US intervention are seeking revenge against the unwanted American occupiers.
democracy
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 111:9
Basically, we have come to the acceptance, at least especially throughout the 20th century, of accepting the notion that we have some moral obligation to make the world safe for democracy. And we have heard so much about this that we are over there to spread democracy. Well, if you look to the Constitution, there is no grant of authority even to the Congress or to the President that that should be a goal. That does not mean that our values should not be looked upon and spread; but to be done through the military and by force, that is an entirely different story.
democracy
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 111:14
There have been others, in particular the neo-conservatives who have been very influential in foreign policy the last several years and who have been associated with the Project for a New American Century. They have been explicit in their goals. And one of their explicit goals has been to redraw the lines of the Middle East and to have preemptive regime change. These are serious beliefs that they have; and everybody has a right to their beliefs. Their beliefs that we have this obligation to remove regimes that we do not like and to redraw lines and to spread our way of life and our democracy by the use of force, they sincerely hold those beliefs; and I sincerely disagree with them.
democracy
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 111:30
I think this was a problem going into Iraq in 1990. It was an undeclared war. It was a U.N. war. It did not end it. It continued and it is still continuing into its 15th year, and here we are still arguing over the financing which I think is at very early stages. How long will we be there and how many men are going to die and how is it going to end? I am convinced as long as we follow this principle of foreign interventionism that we take it upon ourselves to spread democracy around the world, we are going to be running into trouble like this.
democracy
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 111:43
We cannot achieve some of these goals that we have set for ourselves through force. We have what comes close to an obsession with democracy. You hear it constantly. We are over in Iraq because we are going to make it a democracy. Well, democratic elections are the way we all get here; but this obsession with democracy, well, democracy means there is a ruling of the majority. But what if the majority does not support freedom?
democracy
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 111:44
I would like to see a time come to this place where we talk a lot less about democracy and more about liberty. Liberty is where the minority is protected. Under democracy, the majority is protected, and they can obliterate the minority. And this, in a sense, is what we keep talking about. But let us say they do not want democracy. Are we going to force it upon them? It looks like that is our goal; that we will, by gosh, force them into it if we have to.
democracy
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 122:6
Since the original reasons for the war never existed, it is now claimed that we’re there to make Iraq a western-style democracy and to spread western values. And besides, it’s argued, it’s nice that Saddam Hussein has been removed from power. But does the mere existence of evil somewhere in the world justify preemptive war at the expense of the American people? Utopian dreams, fulfilled by autocratic means, hardly qualify as being morally justifiable.
democracy
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 122:10
Unpopular wars invite conscription. Volunteers disappear, as well they should. A truly defensive just war prompts popular support. A conscripted, unhappy soldier is better off on the long run than the slaves of old since the “enslavement” is only temporary. But in the short run the draft may well turn out to be more deadly and degrading, as one is forced to commit life and limb to a less than worthy cause – like teaching democracy to unwilling and angry Arabs. Slaves were safer in that their owners had an economic interest in protecting their lives. Endangering the lives of our soldiers is acceptable policy, and that’s why they are needed. Too often, though, our men and women who are exposed to the hostilities of war and welcomed initially are easily forgotten after the fighting ends. Soon afterward, the injured and the sick are ignored and forgotten.
democracy
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:19
Promoting Democracy — An Obsession Whose Time Has Passed : Promoting democracy is now our nation’s highest ideal. Wilson started it with his ill-advised drive to foolishly involve us in World War I. His utopian dream was to make the world safe for democracy. Instead, his naiveté and arrogance promoted our involvement in the back-to-back tragedies of World War I and World War II. It’s hard to imagine the rise of Hitler in World War II without the Treaty of Versailles. But this has not prevented every president since Wilson from promoting U.S.-style democracy to the rest of the world.
democracy
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:20
Since no weapons of mass destruction or al Qaeda have been found in Iraq, the explanation given now for having gone there was to bring democracy to the Iraqi people. Yet we hear now that the Iraqis are demanding immediate free elections not controlled by the United States. But our administration says the Iraqi people are not yet ready for free elections. The truth is that a national election in Iraq would bring individuals to power that the administration doesn’t want. Democratic elections will have to wait.
democracy
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:21
This makes the point that our persistence in imposing our will on others through military force ignores sound thinking, but we never hear serious discussions about changing our foreign policy of meddling and empire building, no matter how bad the results. Regardless of the human and financial costs for all the wars fought over the past hundred years, few question the principle and legitimacy of interventionism. Bad results, while only sowing the seeds of our next conflict, concern few here in Congress. Jingoism, the dream of empire, and the interests of the military-industrial complex generate the false patriotism that energizes supporters of our foreign entanglements. Direct media coverage of the more than 500 body bags coming back from Iraq is now prohibited by the administration. Seeing the mangled lives and damaged health of thousands of other casualties of this war would help the American people put this war in proper perspective. Almost all war is unnecessary and rarely worth the cost. Seldom does a good peace result. Since World War II, we have intervened 35 times in developing countries, according to the LA Times, without a single successful example of a stable democracy. Their conclusion: “American engagement abroad has not led to more freedom or more democracy in countries where we’ve become involved.” So far, the peace in Iraq — that is, the period following the declared end of hostilities — has set the stage for a civil war in this forlorn Western-created artificial state. A U.S.- imposed national government unifying the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites will never work. Our allies deserted us in this misadventure. Dumping the responsibility on the UN, while retaining control of the spoils of war, is a policy of folly that can result only in more Americans being killed. This will only fuel the festering wounds of Middle East hatred toward all Western occupiers. The Halliburton scandals and other military-industrial connections to the occupation of Iraq will continue to annoy our allies, and hopefully a growing number of American taxpayers.
democracy
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:22
I have a few suggestions on how to alter our consistently foolish policy in Iraq. Instead of hiding behind Wilson’s utopianism of making the world safe for democracy, let’s try a new approach:
democracy
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:25
-We should give up our obsession with democracy, both for ourselves and others, since the dictatorship of the majority is just as destructive to a minority, especially individual liberty, as a single Saddam Hussein-like tyrant. (Does anyone really believe the Shiite majority can possibly rule fairly over the Sunnis and the Kurds?)
democracy
A Wise Consistency
February 11, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 2:31
First: The large majority, especially all the militant Muslims, see us as invaders, occupiers, and crusaders. We have gone a long way from home and killed a lot of people, and none of them believe it’s to spread our goodness. Whether or not some supporters of this policy of intervention are sincere in bringing democracy and justice to this region, it just doesn’t matter — few over there believe us.
democracy
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 27:7
The neo-conservative defenders of our policy in Iraq speak of the benefits that we have brought to the Iraqi people: removal of a violent dictator, liberation, democracy, and prosperity. If all this were true, the resistance against our occupation would not be growing. We ought to admit we have not been welcomed as liberators as was promised by the proponents of the war.
democracy
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 27:12
Pursuing our policy has boiled down to “testing our resolve.” It is said by many — even some who did not support the war — that now we have no choice but to “stay the course.” They argue that it’s a noble gesture to be courageous and continue no matter how difficult. But that should not be the issue. It is not a question of resolve, but rather a question of wise policy. If the policy is flawed and the world and our people are less safe for it, unshakable resolve is the opposite of what we need. Staying the course only makes sense when the difficult tasks are designed to protect our country and to thwart those who pose a direct threat to us. Wilsonian idealism of self-sacrifice to “make the world safe for democracy” should never be an excuse to wage preemptive war — especially since it almost never produces the desired results. There are always too many unintended consequences.
democracy
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 27:13
In our effort to change the political structure of Iraq, we continue alliances with dictators and even develop new ones with countries that are anything but democracies. We have a close alliance with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, many other Arab dictatorships, and a new one with Kadafi of Libya. This should raise questions about the credibility of our commitment to promoting democracy in Iraq — which even our own government wouldn’t tolerate.
democracy
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 27:14
Show me one neo-con that would accept a national election that put the radical Shiites in charge. As Secretary Rumsfeld said, it’s not going to happen. These same people are condemning the recent democratic decisions made in Spain. We should remember that since World War II, in 35 U.S. attempts to promote democracy around the world none have succeeded.
democracy
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 27:38
Understanding why both political parties agree on the principle of continuous foreign intervention is crucial. Those reasons are multiple and varied. They range from the persistent Wilsonian idealism of making the world safe for democracy to the belief that we must protect “our” oil.
democracy
The Lessons of 9/11
April 22, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 27:44
Conclusion I’m sure the Commission will not deal with the flaw in the foreign policy endorsed by both parties for these many decades. I hope the Commission tells us why members of the bin Laden family were permitted, immediately after 9/11, to leave the United States without interrogation, when no other commercial or private flights were allowed. That event should have been thoroughly studied and explained to the American people. We actually had a lot more reason to invade Saudi Arabia than we did Iraq in connection with 9/11, but that country, obviously no friend of democracy, remains an unchallenged ally of the United States with few questions asked.
democracy
Introducing Cassandra Tamez’s Essay Into The Congressional Record
2004 Ron Paul 29:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to enter into the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the following essay by Miss Cassandra Tamez, a high school student who resides in my Congressional district. Miss Tamez’s essay, entitled “My Commitment to America’s Future,” earned her a Voice of Democracy Scholarship award from the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I am very proud of Miss Tamez’s efforts and I wish her well in her future endeavors.
democracy
The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq
June 3, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 37:18
Instead of the incessant chant about us forcing democracy on others, why not read our history and see how thirteen nations joined together to form a loose-knit republic with emphasis on local self-government. Part of the problem with our effort to re-order Iraq is that the best solution is something we have essentially rejected here in the United States. It would make a lot more sense to concentrate on rebuilding our Republic, emphasizing the principles of private property, free markets, trade, and personal liberty here at home rather then pursuing war abroad. If this were done, we would not be a militaristic state spending ourselves into bankruptcy, and government benefits to the untold thousands of corporations and special interest would be denied.
democracy
Opposing Aid To Pakistan
15 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 61:3
Essentially for 100 years, we have accepted the foreign policy of Woodrow Wilson. It is a flawed idealism that we should, and it is our responsibility to, make the world safe for democracy. That did not just exist for World War I, which led to a peace treaty which caused a lot of problems leading up to World War II; but those notions are well engrained in the current neoconservative approach to foreign policy and the policy that this administration follows. But I do not think it is in the best interests of our country to follow this.
democracy
Opposing Aid To Pakistan
15 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 61:5
I believe that this policy is a failure and has been very costly. If we think about the last 100 years how many lives were lost, how much blood has been spilled, how many dollars have been spent in this effort to make the world safe for democracy, the world is probably as unsafe now as it has ever been. And here we are. We are proposing that we send $300 million under this policy to Pakistan.
democracy
Opposing Aid To Pakistan
15 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 61:6
We are in Iraq to promote democracy, but here we send money to a military dictator who overthrew an elected government. And there just seems to be a tremendous inconsistency here. There was a military coup in 1999. There is the strong possibility that Osama bin Laden may well be in Pakistan. And to actually send money there, we are prohibited from really going in there and looking for Osama bin Laden; so we give the government of Pakistan money in the hopes that they will be helpful to us.
democracy
Opposing Aid To Pakistan
15 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 61:9
But, specifically, is it a wise expenditure to put $300 million into the government of Pakistan with the pretense that we are promoting democracy by supporting a military dictator at the same time our young men are dying in Iraq promoting democracy? It does not add up, and it suggests that there are other motives for some of these expenditures and some of our motivations around the world.
democracy
Opposes Commemorating 9/11
9 September 2004 2004 Ron Paul 66:3
What this legislation does not do is address some of the real causes of the hatred that lead others to wish to harm us. Why should we bother to understand the motivations of madmen and murderers? It is not to sympathize with them or their cause. It is to ensure our self-preservation. Those who oppose us and who have attacked us have made it very clear: They oppose our foreign policy of interventionism and meddling, and they oppose our one-sided approach to the Middle East. Therefore, mitigating the anger against us could be as simple as returning to the foreign policy recommended by our forefathers. We should not be stationing hundreds of thousands of our troops in more than 100 foreign countries, guarding their borders while our own remain open to terrorist infiltration. We should not be meddling in the internal affairs of foreign countries, nor should we be involving ourselves in foreign conflicts that have nothing to do with the United States. We should not be sending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars overseas to “build nations” and “export democracy” at the barrel of a gun.
democracy
The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom
October 8, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 77:11
Among the most ill-considered foreign policy components of H.R. 10 is a section providing for the United States to increase support for an expansion of the United Nations “Democracy Caucus.” Worse still, the bill encourages further integration of that United Nations body into our State department. The last thing we should do if we hope to make our country safer from terrorism is expand our involvement in the United Nations.
democracy
The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom
October 8, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 77:12
This bill contains a provision to train American diplomats to be more sensitive and attuned to the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) — which will be in the US to monitor our elections next month — and other international non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Even worse, this legislation actually will create an “ambassador-at-large” position solely to work with non-governmental organizations overseas. It hardly promotes democracy abroad to accord equal status to NGOs, which, after all, are un-elected foreign pressure groups that, therefore, have no popular legitimacy whatsoever. Once again, we are saying one thing and doing the opposite.
democracy
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:71
4. The Christian concept of just war rejects all the excuses given for marching off to Iraq with the intention of changing the whole region into a western-style democracy by force, with little regard for the cost in life and limb and the economic consequences here at home.
democracy
U.S. Hypocrisy in Ukraine
December 7, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 82:12
Dozens of organizations are granted funds under the PAUCI program alone, and this is only one of many programs that funneled dollars into Ukraine. We do not know how many millions of US taxpayer dollars the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) sent to Ukraine through NED’s National Democratic Institute and International Republican Institute. Nor do we know how many other efforts, overt or covert, have been made to support one candidate over the other in Ukraine.
democracy
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:41
What if the invasion and occupation of Iraq actually distracted from pursuing and capturing Osama bin Laden? What if we discover that democracy cannot be spread with force of arms?
democracy
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:42
What if democracy is deeply flawed and, instead, we should be talking about liberty, property rights, free markets, the rule of law, localized government, weak centralized government, and self-determination promoted through persuasion, not force?
democracy
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:65
Policing the world, spreading democracy by force, nation-building and frequent bombing of countries that pose no threat to us, while leaving the homeland and our borders unprotected, result from a foreign policy that is contradictory and not in our self-interest.
democracy
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 35:2
The information Congress was given prior to the war was false. There were no weapons of mass destruction; the Iraqis did not participate in the 9/11 attacks; Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were enemies and did not conspire against the United States; our security was not threatened; we were not welcomed by cheering Iraqi crowds as we were told; and Iraqi oil has not paid any of the bills. Congress failed to declare war, but instead passed a wishy-washy resolution citing UN resolutions as justification for our invasion. After the fact we’re now told the real reason for the Iraq invasion was to spread democracy, and that the Iraqis are better off. Anyone who questions the war risks being accused of supporting Saddam Hussein, disapproving of democracy, or “supporting terrorists.” It’s implied that lack of enthusiasm for the war means one is not patriotic and doesn’t support the troops. In other words, one must march lock-step with the consensus or be ostracized.
democracy
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 35:7
One news report claimed that the Shiites actually received 56% of the vote, but such an outcome couldn’t be allowed for it would preclude a coalition of the Kurds and Shiites from controlling the Sunnis and preventing a theocracy from forming. This reminds us of the statement made months ago by Secretary Rumsfeld when asked about a Shiite theocracy emerging from a majority democratic vote, and he assured us that would not happen. Democracy, we know, is messy and needs tidying up a bit when we don’t like the results.
democracy
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 58:10
At the beginning of an offensive war the people are supportive because of the justifications given by government authorities, who want the war for ulterior reasons. But the demands to sacrifice liberty at home to promote freedom and democracy abroad ring hollow after the cost and policy shortcomings become evident. Initially, the positive propaganda easily overshadows the pain of the small number who must fight and suffer injury.
democracy
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 58:14
Ideologues use war to pursue personal ambitions unrelated to national defense, and convert the hesitant with promises of spreading democracy, freedom, and prosperity. The tools they use are unrestrained state power to force their ideals on others, no matter how unjust it seems to the unfortunate recipients of the preemptive war. For some, the more chaos the greater the opportunity to jump in and remake a country or an entire region. At times in history the opening salvo has been deliberately carried out by the ones anxious to get the war underway while blaming the opposition for the incident. The deceptions must stir passion for the war through an appeal to patriotism, nationalism, machismo, and jingoistic manliness of proving oneself in great feats of battle.
democracy
Statement on the Flag Burning Amendment
June 22, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 71:18
Former Secretary of State, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and two-time winner of the Presidential Medal of Freedom Colin Powell also has expressed opposition to amending the Constitution in this manner: “I would not amend that great shield of democracy to hammer out a few miscreants. The flag will be flying proudly long after they have slunk away.”
democracy
The Republican Congress Wastes Billions Overseas
July 20, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 86:5
This bill continues to fund organizations such as the National Endowment for Democracy, which as I have written before has very little to do with democracy. It is an organization that uses US tax money to actually subvert democracy, by showering funding on favored political parties or movements overseas. It underwrites color-coded “people’s revolutions” overseas that look more like pages out of Lenin’s writings on stealing power than genuine indigenous democratic movements. The NED used American taxpayer dollars to attempt to guarantee that certain candidates overseas are winners and others are losers in the electoral processes overseas. What kind of message do we think this sends to foreign states? The National Endowment for Democracy should receive no funding at all, but this bill continues to funnel tens of millions of dollars to that unaccountable organization.
democracy
The Republican Congress Wastes Billions Overseas
July 20, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 86:7
Another amendment will create a chilling “Active Response Corps,” to be made up of US government bureaucrats and members of “non-governmental organizations.” Its purpose will be to “stabilize” countries undergoing “democratic transition.” This means that as soon as the NED-funded “people’s revolutionaries” are able to seize power in the streets, US funded teams will be deployed to make sure they retain power. All in the name of democracy, of course.
democracy
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:10
As these reasons for the war lost credibility and support, other reasons were found for why we had to fight. As the lone superpower, we were told we had a greater responsibility to settle the problems of the world lest someone else gets involved. Maintaining and expanding our empire is a key element of the neo-conservative philosophy. This notion that we must fight to spread American goodness was well received by these neo-Jacobins. They saw the war as a legitimate moral crusade, arguing that no one should be allowed to stand in our way! In their minds using force to spread democracy is legitimate and necessary.
democracy
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:27
Pursuing this war merely to save face, or to claim it’s a way to honor those who already have died or been wounded, is hardly a reason that more people should die. We’re told that we can’t leave until we have a democratic Iraq. But what if Iraq votes to have a Shiite theocracy, which it looks like the majority wants as their form of government-- and women, Christians, and Sunnis are made second-class citizens? It’s a preposterous notion and it points out the severe shortcomings of a democracy where a majority rules and minorities suffer.
democracy
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:28
Thankfully, our founding fathers understood the great dangers of a democracy. They insisted on a constitutional republic with a weak central government and an executive branch beholden to the legislative branch in foreign affairs. The sooner we realize we can’t afford this war the better. We’ve gotten ourselves into a civil war within the Islamic community.
democracy
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:30
If democracy is not all it’s cracked up to be, and a war for oil is blatantly immoral and unproductive, the question still remains-- why do we fight? More precisely, why should we fight? When is enough killing enough? Why does man so casually accept war, which brings so much suffering to so many, when so little is achieved? Why do those who suffer and die so willingly accept the excuses for the wars that need not be fought? Why do so many defer to those who are enthused about war, and who claim it’s a solution to a problem, without asking them why they themselves do not fight? It’s always other men and other men’s children who must sacrifice life and limb for the reasons that make no sense, reasons that are said to be our patriotic duty to fight and die for. How many useless wars have been fought for lies that deserved no hearing? When will it all end?
democracy
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:43
Eventually, we will come to realize that the Wilsonian idealism of using America’s resources to promote democracy around the world through force is a seriously flawed policy. Wilson pretended to be spreading democracy worldwide, and yet women in the U.S. at that time were not allowed to vote. Democracy, where the majority dictates the rules, cannot protect minorities and individual rights. And in addition, using force to impose our will on others almost always backfires. There’s no reason that our efforts in the 21 st century to impose a western style government in Iraq will be any more successful than the British were after World War I. This especially can’t work if democracy is only an excuse for our occupation and the real reasons are left unrecognized.
democracy
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:53
Instead, we have been forcing on the people of Iraq a type of democracy that, if implemented, will mean an Islamic state under Sharia’ law. Already we read stories of barbers no longer being safe shaving beards; Christians are threatened and forced to leave the country; and burqas are returning out of fear. Unemployment is over 50%, and oil production is still significantly below pre-war levels. These results are not worth fighting and dying for.
democracy
The Iraq War
18 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 104:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, supporters of the preemptive war against Iraq say it was justified by the unprovoked 9/11 attacks. They claim that Muslim hatred for our democracy, freedom, Western values, and prosperity inspired the 19 suicide terrorists who attacked us on that dreadful day.
democracy
The Iraq War
18 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 104:12
For literally hundreds of years, Europe has continually challenged Muslim and Arab domination of the Middle East. We have never, Europe or the United States, denied our interest in controlling Middle East oil. From Woodrow Wilson to the current neoconservative brand of foreign policy, the zeal for spreading democracy and Western values through force of arms has antagonized most Muslims.
democracy
The Iraq War
18 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 104:15
It is time to say no to undeclared wars. It is time to say no to political and U.N. wars. It is time to say no to preemptive war. It is time to say no to nation building. It is time to say no to assuming it is our duty to make the world safe for democracy. It is time to say no to meddling in the affairs of others. It is time to say no to fighting countries that have never threatened our national security. It is time to stop financing extravagant war spending by printing more money. It is time to say yes to more sensible diplomacy.
democracy
The Blame Game
December 7, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 124:10
The percentages are even higher for the Iraqis. 82% want us to leave, while 67% claim they are less secure with our troops there. Ironically, our involvement has produced an unusual agreement among the Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis, the three factions at odds with each other. At the recent 22-member Arab League meeting in Cairo, the three groups agreed on one issue: they all want foreign troops to leave. At the end of the meeting an explicit communiqué was released: “We demand the withdrawal of foreign forces in accordance with a timetable, and the establishment of a national and immediate program for rebuilding the armed forces… that will allow them to guard Iraq’s borders and get control of the security situation.” Since the administration is so enamored with democracy, why not have a national referendum in Iraq to see if the people want us to leave?
democracy
Foreign Policy
17 December 2005 2005 Ron Paul 128:11
Since the administration is so enamored of democracy, why not have a national referendum in Iraq to see if the people want us to leave? After we left Lebanon in the 1980s, the Arab League was instrumental in brokering an end to that country’s 15-year civil war. Its chances of helping to stop the fighting in Iraq are far better than depending on the United Nations, NATO, or the United States.
democracy
Eliminating Foreign Aid That Helps Manipulate Elections
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 2:4
I find it interesting that the same proponents of the United States government exporting democracy overseas are now demanding that something be done when people overseas do not vote the way the U.S. Government thinks they should. It seems that being for democracy means respecting that people overseas may not always vote the way Washington wants them to vote. If our aim is to ensure that only certain parties or individuals are allowed to lead foreign nations, why not just admit that democracy is the last thing we want? That attitude is evident in the fact that the U.S. Government spent more than $2 million trying to manipulate the Palestinian vote in favor of parties supported by Washington. You cannot have it both ways. Although it is always a good idea to eliminate foreign aid, we should be careful about calling the manipulation of elections overseas an exercise in “democracy promotion.”
democracy
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:75
There are quite a few reasons a relatively free country allows itself to fall into such an ethical and financial mess. One major contributing factor for the past 100 years is our serious misunderstanding of the dangers of pure democracy.
democracy
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:76
The Founders detested democracy and avoided the use of the word in all the early documents. Today, most Americans accept without question a policy of sacrificing life, property and dollars to force democracy on a country 6,000 miles away. This tells us how little opposition there is to democracy. No one questions the principle that a majority electorate should be allowed to rule the country, dictate rights, and redistribute wealth. Our system of democracy has come to mean worshiping the notion that a majority vote for the distribution of government largesse, loot confiscated from the American people through an immoral tax system, is morally and constitutionally acceptable.
democracy
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:78
Buying influence is much more lucrative than working and producing for a living. The trouble is in the process; the process invites moral corruption. The dollars involved grow larger and larger because of the deficit financing and inflation that pure democracy always generates.
democracy
Tribute To Harry Browne
15 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 16:5
Harry’s efforts were not limited to the economic realm. He understood the threat to liberty and prosperity posed by global crusades for democracy, as well as the importance of opposing restrictions on civil liberties. Harry’s outspoken defense of civil liberties and the Framers’ foreign policy of nonintervention took on added importance in the last years of his life when too many self-styled advocates of liberty attempted to curry favor with the political establishment by focusing solely on issues of economic liberty or combined advocacy of low taxes and regulations with active support for militarism and restrictions on personal liberty.
democracy
Amendment No. 9 Offered By Mr. Paul — Part 2
16 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 18:9
Long term, to come up with a solution, it will not occur with tinkering with the budget. It will not happen today, nor tomorrow. The only way that we can make any sense out of our spending in this country and on this floor will be to reassess our policies. We must ask: Do we want to continue to be the policemen of the world? Do we really believe we can nation-build around the world and that we can spread democracy by force? The result is then, if we do not like the results of the democratic elections then we say, well, it did not work. We cannot support that democratically elected leader.
democracy
Making The World Safe For Christianity
28 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 19:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, the top neoconservative of the 20th century was Woodrow Wilson. His supposed idealism, symbolized in the slogan, “Make the world safe for democracy,” resulted in untold death and destruction across the world for many decades.
democracy
Making The World Safe For Christianity
28 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 19:5
Our bombs and guns have not changed the fact that the new puppet Afghan Government still follows Sharia law. The same loyalty to Sharia exists in Iraq where we are trying hard to stabilize things, and all this is done in the name of spreading democracy.
democracy
Making The World Safe For Christianity
28 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 19:6
The sad fact is that even under the despicable rule of Saddam Hussein, Christians were safer in Iraq than they are today. Saddam Hussein’s foreign minister was a practicing Christian. Today, thousands of Christians have fled Iraq following our occupation to countries like Jordan and Syria. Those Christians who have remained in Iraq fear for their lives every day. That should tell us something about the shortcomings of a policy that presumes to make the world safe for democracy.
democracy
Making The World Safe For Christianity
28 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 19:7
The Muslim world is not fooled by our talk of spreading democracy and values. The evidence is too overwhelming that we do not hesitate to support dictators and install puppet governments when it serves our interests. When democratic elections result in the elevation of a leader or a party not to our liking, we do not hesitate for a minute to undermine that government.
democracy
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:5
Though Iran is hardly a perfect democracy, its system is far superior to most of our Arab allies, about which we never complain. Already the coordinated propaganda has galvanized the American people against Iran for the supposed threat it poses to us with weapons of mass destruction that are no more present than those Saddam Hussein was alleged to have had.
democracy
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:10
Our obsession with democracy, which is clearly conditional when one looks at our response to the recent Pakistani elections, will allow the majority Shia to claim leadership title if Iraq’s election actually leads to an organized government. This delights the Iranians, who are close allies of the Iraqi Shia.
democracy
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:46
If we accepted the traditional American and constitutional foreign policy of nonintervention across the board, there would be no temptation to go along with these unnecessary military operations. A foreign policy of intervention invites all kinds of excuses for spreading ourselves around the world. The debate shifts from nonintervention versus intervention, to where and for what particular reason should we involve ourselves. Most of the time, it is for less than honorable reasons. Even when cloaked in honorable slogans, like making the world safe for democracy, the unintended consequences and the ultimate costs cancel out the good intentions.
democracy
Disadvantages To Intervention
26 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 26:9
I see the way we are dealing with Iran as just spreading a problem that we contributed to in the Middle East. Too many innocent lives are lost, innocent American lives, GIs that go over and are killed so needlessly, especially since we don’t achieve the goal of bringing freedom and liberty and democracy to these countries.
democracy
Bill Would Authorize Force
26 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 31:11
But I am asking you to reconsider the fact that moving in this direction is the same thing as we did against Iraq, and it won’t do us any good. It is going to cost us a lot of money, and it is going to cost a lot of lives, and it is un-American. It is not constitutional. It is not moral. We should not pursue this type of foreign policy. We should take care of ourselves, and we should be more friendly with nations. We should be willing to trade. And if you are concerned about the world, why not set a good example? When our house is clean, when we have a good democracy and a worthy Republic, and we do well, believe me, they will want to emulate us.
democracy
Conference Report On H.R. 4939, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act For Defense, The Global War On Terror, And Hurricane Recovery, 2006
2006 Ron Paul 43:2
When this bill was first before the House, I offered an amendment to redirect to Texas for Hurricane Rita recovery some $546 million from such non-emergency “emergency” items funded in this bill as the State Department “Democracy Fund,” aid to foreign military forces, international broadcasting funds, and others. This spending was not in any way a response to legitimate emergencies and therefore I believed it would be better spent helping the Texas victims of Hurricane Rita. I also redirected some of this nonemergency spending to go toward our crippling deficit. Unfortunately this amendment was not allowed. Thus, recovery from true emergencies that have caused terrible destruction to the lives and property of American citizens is woefully underfunded while pork-barrel projects and wasteful foreign aid are funded most generously.
democracy
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:8
In the United States over the last century we have witnessed the coming and going of various intellectual influences by proponents of the free market, Keynesian welfarism, varieties of socialism, and supply-side economics. In foreign policy we’ve seen a transition from the founder’s vision of non-intervention in the affairs of others to internationalism, unilateral nation building, and policing the world. We now have in place a policy, driven by determined neo-conservatives, to promote American “goodness” and democracy throughout the world by military force — with particular emphasis on remaking the Middle East.
democracy
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:79
We must move quickly toward a more traditional American foreign policy of peace, friendship, and trade with all nations; entangling alliances with none. We must reject the notion that we can or should make the world safe for democracy. We must forget about being the world’s policeman. We should disengage from the unworkable and unforgiving task of nation building. We must reject the notion that our military should be used to protect natural resources, private investments, or serve the interest of any foreign government or the United Nations. Our military should be designed for one purpose: defending our national security. It’s time to come home now, before financial conditions or military weakness dictates it.
democracy
Whom to Blame
19 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 66:13
So we are fighting and dying to spread democracy. And it is probably one of the most dangerous things for us with our current foreign policy, is that when they do vote and elect Hezbollah and Hamas, then we have to reject the principle of democracy.
democracy
Whom to Blame
19 July 2006 2006 Ron Paul 66:37
So there is reason to reconsider the total policy that has been followed in this country essentially for 100 years. And it hasn’t been productive for us. Essentially, Woodrow Wilson started it. We are going to make the world safe for democracy. And look how safe the world has been since Woodrow Wilson introduced that. We are less safe than ever. And our financial condition is worse than ever.
democracy
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:35
They keep hoping there will be less harmful complications from the solution that they are currently supporting. Free market economics teaches us that for every government action to solve an economic problem, two new ones are created. The same unwanted results occur with foreign policy meddling. The law of opposites is just a variation of the law of unintended consequences. When we attempt to achieve a certain goal, like, say, make the world safe for democracy, a grandiose scheme of World War I, one can be sure the world will become less safe and less democratic regardless of the motivation. The First World War was sold to the American people as the war to end all wars.
democracy
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:60
We talk of democracy and self-determination, but the masses of people in the Middle East see through our hypocrisy when we support the Sunni secular dictators in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan and, at one time, Saddam Hussein.
democracy
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:76
We are looking in all of the wrong places for an Iraqi army to bring stability to that country. The people have spoken, and these troops that represent large segments of the population need no training. It is not a lack of training, weapons or money that hinders our efforts to create a new superior Iraqi military. It is the lack of inspiration and support for such an endeavor that is missing. Developing borders and separating the various factions, which our policy explicitly prohibits, is the basic flaw in our plan for a forced, unified Western-style democracy for Iraq. Allowing self-determination for different regions is the only way to erase the artificial nature of Iraq, an Iraq designed by Western outsiders nearly 80 years ago. It is our obsession with control of the oil in the region and imposing our will on the Middle East and accommodating the demands of Israel that is the problem. And the American people are finally getting sick and tired of all of their sacrifices. It is time to stop the bleeding.
democracy
Escalation Is Hardly The Answer
11 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 12:7
We claim to be spreading democracy in Iraq. But al Sadr has far more democratic support with the majority Shiites than our troops enjoy. The problem is not a lack of democratic consensus; it is the antipathy among most Iraqis.
democracy
Statement On The Iraq War Resolution
14 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 26:11
For all the misinformation given the American people to justify our invasion, such as our need for national security, enforcing U.N. resolutions, removing a dictator, establishing a democracy, protecting our oil, the argument has been reduced to this: If we leave now, Iraq will be left in a mess; implying the implausible, that if we stay, it won’t be a mess.
democracy
Introduction Of The Congressional Responsibility And Accountability Act
2007 Ron Paul 82:2
According to some legal experts, at least three-quarters of all federal laws consist of regulations promulgated by federal agencies without the consent, or even the review of, Congress. Allowing unelected, and thus unaccountable, executive agencies to make law undermines democracy. Law-making by executive agencies also violates the intent of the drafters of the Constitution to separate legislative and executive powers. The drafters of the Constitution correctly viewed separation of powers as a cornerstone of republican government and a key to protecting individual liberty from excessive and arbitrary government power.
democracy
Statement on H Res 997
1 April 2008 2008 Ron Paul 16:2
This current round of NATO expansion is a political reward to governments in Georgia and Ukraine that came to power as a result of US-supported revolutions, the so-called Orange Revolution and Rose Revolution. The governments that arose from these street protests were eager to please their US sponsor and the US , in turn, turned a blind eye to the numerous political and human rights abuses that took place under the new regimes. Thus the US policy of “exporting democracy” has only succeeding in exporting more misery to the countries it has targeted.
democracy
Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran
June 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 72:5
Yet with the results of the recent election, there was no chance for Iranian citizens to participate in democracy. On June 12, 2009 Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was ostensibly re- elected to his second term as President, as a result of the tenth Presidential elections in Iran, held and calculated on June 13, 2009. Subject to official results released by Iran’s election headquarters, out of a total of 39,165,191 ballots cast in the presidential election, Ahmadinejad allegedly won 24,527,516 votes, which accounts for approximately 62.6 percent of the votes, while his opponent and former Prime Minister of Iran Mir- Hossein Mousavi purportedly secured only 13,216,411 (37.4 percent) of the votes. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei announced that he envisions Ahmadinejad as president in the next five years, a comment interpreted as indicating support for Ahmadinejad’s reelection.
democracy
Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran
June 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 72:8
Following the results of the June l2th Iranian election, President Obama released a statement in reaction to then elections in Iran, stating “I am deeply troubled by the violence that I’ve been seeing on television,” Obama said in Washington. “I can’t state definitively one way or another what happened with respect to the election. But what I can say is that there appears to be a sense on the part of people who were so hopeful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed.”
democracy
INTRODUCTION OF THE CONGRESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
July 29, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 86:2
According to some legal experts, at least three-quarters of all federal laws consist of regulations promulgated by federal agencies without the consent, or even the review of, Congress. Allowing unelected, and thus unaccountable, executive agencies to make law undermines democracy and violates the intent of the drafters of the Constitution to separate legislative and executive powers. The drafters of the Constitution correctly viewed separation of powers as a cornerstone of republican government and a key to protecting individual liberty from excessive and arbitrary government power.
democracy
Afghanistan, Part 1
November 18, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 96:2
Of course, a lot of people in this country are asking, What should we do about Afghanistan? It’s a pretty important question. It might be one of the most important questions that we are asking right now. And yet nobody seems to have an answer. I think the difficulty in finding an answer comes sometimes from not having fully understood why we got there. I just can’t imagine this debate that’s going on within our government today, the executive branch, the legislative branch, and with the people – can you imagine this going on during World War II? How many troops should we have? What is our exit strategy? Who is our enemy? How are we going to impose democracy? It’s so far removed from what a traditional responsibility is of our government, which is to provide national security.
democracy
Never sacrifice liberty for "campaign reform"
02 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 3 ... Cached
Freedom and democracy should be enhanced by campaign reform
democracy
Never sacrifice liberty for "campaign reform"
02 March 1998 Texas Straight Talk 02 March 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
Despite the rhetoric, the proposed "campaign finance reforms" have little to do with liberty, freedom and democracy, and much to do with narrowing the choices available to the American people and limiting their ability to participate in the free exchange of ideas. And above all else, these "reforms" are designed to preserve the status quo and protect those in power. To maintain their authority, many in Congress are willing to limit the choices of Americans and trample First Amendment rights.
democracy
"Wagging" imperialism as bad as the Dog
24 August 1998 Texas Straight Talk 24 August 1998 verse 12 ... Cached
The excuse for the U.S. to strike back, given by the President, was to "protect U.S. sovereignty" and to "spread democracy" throughout the world. Prior to last week, though, how many Americans were lying awake at night worrying about an attack by the Sudanese, let alone from our old friends the Freedom Fighters of Afghanistan? Until last week, not one American in 10 million had ever heard of this week's "Hitler"-- Osama bin Laden.
democracy
"Wagging" imperialism as bad as the Dog
24 August 1998 Texas Straight Talk 24 August 1998 verse 15 ... Cached
Let us hear no more of our "obligation" to spread democracy around the world in the name of preserving our national security. We're not doing a very good job of respecting individual liberty or the Rule of Law here at home, and it is unlikely we can simply bully others into our mode of thinking.
democracy
How Americans are Subsidizing Organized Crime in Russia
06 March 2000 Texas Straight Talk 06 March 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
Organized crime in Russia is a well-known problem. One of the arguments used for not sending IMF funds to Russia was the pervasive corruption throughout their government. As quickly as the funds were appropriated, they were laundered through New York banks and off to a numbered Swiss account - probably with very little actually ever passing through to Moscow. But the proponents of aid won't give up; our tax dollars, they argue, are vital for the successful transition from totalitarianism to democracy. What is generally forgotten is that the process of taking funds from someone who earned them is every bit as morally reprehensible as the corruption that results when sent hither and yon around the world.
democracy
The Electoral College Serves to Protect Liberty and Statehood
13 November 2000 Texas Straight Talk 13 November 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
This argument ignores the fundamental nature of our constitutional system. The Founding Fathers sought to create a loose confederacy of states, joined together by a federal government with very little power. They created a constitutionally limited republic, not a direct democracy. They did so to protect fundamental liberties against the whims of the masses. The electoral college likewise was created in the Constitution to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The President was to be elected by the states rather than the citizenry as a whole, with votes apportioned to states according to their representation in Congress. The will of the people was to be tempered by the wisdom of the electoral college.
democracy
The Electoral College Serves to Protect Liberty and Statehood
13 November 2000 Texas Straight Talk 13 November 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
Not surprisingly, calls to abolish the electoral college system are heard most loudly among the liberal/collectivist elites concentrated largely on the two coasts. Liberals favor a very strong centralized federal government, and have contempt for the concept of states' rights. They believe the federal government is omnipotent, and that individual states should not have the power to challenge directives sent down from Washington. Their real goal is the abolition of statehood, because strong states represent a threat to their centralized collectivist agenda. The electoral college system threatens liberals because it allows states to elect the President, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Citizens in southern and western states in particular tend to value individual liberty, property rights, gun rights, and religious freedom, values which are abhorrent to the collectivist elites. The collectivists care about centralized power, not democracy. Their efforts to discredit the electoral college system are an attempt to limit the voting power of pro-liberty states.
democracy
The Conflict Between Collectivism and Liberty is Reflected in the Presidential Election
27 November 2000 Texas Straight Talk 27 November 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
As with communism and socialism, the interventionist-welfare system increasingly endorsed by our politicians and popular media is unworkable. Even before the current election fiasco, signs of an impasse within our system have been evident. Inevitably, a system which decides almost everything through pure democracy will sharply alienate two groups: the producers, and the recipients of the goods distributed by the popularly elected Congress.
democracy
A Republic, Not a Democracy
12 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 12 December 2000 verse 2 ... Cached
A Republic, Not a Democracy
democracy
A Republic, Not a Democracy
12 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 12 December 2000 verse 3 ... Cached
Throughout the presidential election controversy, we have been bombarded with references to our sacred "democracy." Television and radio shows have been inundated with politicians worried about the "will of the people" being thwarted by the courts. Solemn warnings have been issued concerning the legitimacy of the presidency and the effects on our "democratic system" if the eventual winner did not receive the most popular votes. "I'm really in love with our democracy," one presidential candidate gushed to a reporter. Apparently, the United States at some point become a stealth democracy at the behest of news directors and politicians.
democracy
A Republic, Not a Democracy
12 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 12 December 2000 verse 4 ... Cached
The problem, of course, is that our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic, as any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago (remember the Pledge of Allegiance: "and to the Republic for which it stands"...?). The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. On the contrary, Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: "The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government (emphasis added). The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis.
democracy
A Republic, Not a Democracy
12 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 12 December 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
In fact, the Constitution is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. The electoral college is an obvious example. Small states are represented in national elections with greater electoral power than their populations would warrant in a purely democratic system. Similarly, sparsely populated Wyoming has the same number of senators as heavily populated New York. The result is not democratic, but the Founders knew that smaller states had to be protected against overreaching federal power. The Bill of Rights provides individuals with similar protections against the majority. The First Amendment, for example, is utterly undemocratic. It was designed to protect unpopular speech against democratic fervor. Would the same politicians so enamored with democracy be willing to give up freedom of speech if the majority chose to do so?
democracy
A Republic, Not a Democracy
12 December 2000 Texas Straight Talk 12 December 2000 verse 6 ... Cached
Our Founders instituted a republican system to protect individual rights and property rights from tyranny, regardless of whether the tyrant was a king, a monarchy, a congress, or an unelected mob. They believed that a representative government, restrained by the Bill of Rights and divided into three power sharing branches, would balance the competing interests of the population. They also knew that unbridled democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny suffered by the colonies under King George. In other words, the Founders had no illusions about democracy. Democracy represented unlimited rule by an omnipotent majority, while a constitutionally limited republic was seen as the best system to preserve liberty. Inalienable individual liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights would be threatened by the "excesses of democracy."
democracy
Our Incoherent Foreign Policy Fuels Middle East Turmoil
02 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 02 December 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
The tired assertion that America "supports democracy" in the Middle East is increasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil, and it’s false today when we back an unelected military dictator in Pakistan- just to name two examples. If honest popular elections were held throughout the Middle East tomorrow, the people in most countries would elect religious fundamentalist leaders hostile to the United States. Cliche or not, the Arab Street really doesn’t like America, so we should stop the charade about democracy and start pursuing a coherent foreign policy that serves America’s long-term interests.
democracy
Buying Friends with Foreign Aid
24 February 2003 Texas Straight Talk 24 February 2003 verse 2 ... Cached
With an American invasion of Iraq imminent, nations in the region are increasingly worried about the political, social, and economic consequences of a second Gulf war. Not surprisingly, Jordan, Israel, Kuwait, and Turkey are demanding more money from the U.S. to offset the costs, economic and otherwise, of such a war. Other Middle East countries are sure to follow. Yet the more foreign aid we send to the Middle East, the more hopelessly entangled we become in the intractable conflicts that define it. Worse yet, the practice of buying friends casts very serious doubt on the lofty claims that we are promoting democracy. If our plans for Iraq will bring peace and stability to the region, why do we have to buy off the Middle East governments that stand to benefit? The truth is that those governments, even our ostensible allies, have very serious doubts about the wisdom of our proposed invasion of Iraq. Money- lots of it- makes them more amenable to our cause.
democracy
So Much for Social Conservatism in Congress
05 May 2003 Texas Straight Talk 05 May 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
The United States has sent billions and billions of dollars overseas for decades to do fine-sounding things like “building democracy,” “fighting drugs,” and “ending poverty.” Yet decades later we are told that in every category these problems have actually gotten worse. Most of the money has disappeared into the bank accounts of dictators, or into salaries for well-paid consultants who administer our foreign aid; very little has changed in the impoverished nations themselves. Yet we refuse to learn from these mistakes, and now Congress has made another multi-billion dollar mistake with the AIDS bill.
democracy
The Terrible Cost of Government
28 July 2003 Texas Straight Talk 28 July 2003 verse 7 ... Cached
The American people are also responsible for the growth in government, however. We have allowed our constitutional republic to deteriorate into a virtually unchecked direct democracy. Today’s political process is nothing more than a street fight between various groups seeking to vote themselves other people’s money. Individual voters tend to support the candidate that promises them the most federal loot in whatever form, rather than the candidate who will uphold the rule of law. As the brilliant writer and professor Thomas Sowell said, “If you have been voting for politicians who promise to give you goodies at someone else's expense, then you have no right to complain when they take your money and give it to someone else, including themselves.”
democracy
Can We Afford to Occupy Iraq?
01 September 2003 Texas Straight Talk 01 September 2003 verse 5 ... Cached
The American public deserves clear goals and a definite exit strategy in Iraq. It’s not enough for our political and military leaders to make vague references to some future time when democratic rule and a civil society somehow will emerge in Iraq. It’s patently unrealistic to expect that nation’s various warring factions to suddenly embrace representative democracy and accept the outcome of a western-style vote. Even if open elections could be held, the majority might well choose an anti-American fundamentalist regime. This puts Washington in a Catch 22: The U.S. clearly will influence the creation of a new Iraqi government to ensure it is friendly to America, yet the perception that we installed the government will create further hostility toward America. There obviously are no easy solutions to the dilemmas we face in Iraq, and the complexity of the political and social realities begs the question: How do we ever hope to get out? If real stability and democratic rule simply cannot be attained in Iraq, are we prepared to occupy it for decades to come?
democracy
War and Red Ink
15 September 2003 Texas Straight Talk 15 September 2003 verse 6 ... Cached
We can never hope to impose western, American-style democracy upon a nation that has been rooted in Islam for more than a thousand years. No matter what we say or do, millions of Iraqis and Muslims believe Iraq has simply been invaded by the Christian west. It makes no difference whether American, European, or UN military forces are involved; all are viewed as outsiders seeking to colonize and rule Iraq according to western values. We cannot expect to overcome their resistance and bitterness quickly or easily, and, if we truly intend to stay the course until democracy flourishes in Iraq, we better be prepared to stay quite a long time.
democracy
The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule
01 November 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 November 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
This argument is hostile to the Constitution, however, which expressly established the United States as a constitutionally limited republic and not a direct democracy. The Founding Fathers sought to protect certain fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of speech, against the changing whims of popular opinion. Similarly, they created the electoral college to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The president was to be elected by the 50 states rather than the American people directly, to ensure that less populated states had a voice in national elections. This is why they blended electoral college votes between U.S. House seats, which are based on population, and U.S. Senate seats, which are accorded equally to each state. The goal was to balance the inherent tension between majority will and majority tyranny. Those who wish to abolish the electoral college because it’s not purely democratic should also argue that less populated states like Rhode Island or Wyoming don’t deserve two senators.
democracy
The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule
01 November 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 November 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
A presidential campaign in a purely democratic system would look very strange indeed, as any rational candidate would focus only on a few big population centers. A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California, Texas, Florida, and New York, for example, could win the presidency with very little support in dozens of other states. Moreover, a popular vote system would only intensify political pandering, as national candidates would face even greater pressure than today to take empty, middle-of-the-road, poll-tested, mainstream positions. Direct democracy in national politics would further dilute regional differences of opinion on issues, further narrow voter choices, and further emasculate political courage.
democracy
The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule
01 November 2004 Texas Straight Talk 01 November 2004 verse 8 ... Cached
Sadly, we have forgotten that states created the federal government, not the other way around. The electoral college system represents an attempt, however effective, to limit federal power and preserve states’ rights. It is an essential part of our federalist balance. It also represents a reminder that pure democracy, mob rule, is incompatible with liberty.
democracy
Ignoring Reality in Iraq
13 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 13 December 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
These recent reports are not the product of some radical antiwar organization. They represent the US government’s own assessment of our “progress” in Iraq after two and a half years and the loss of thousands of lives. We are alienating the Islamic world in our oxymoronic quest to impose democracy in Iraq.
democracy
Ignoring Reality in Iraq
13 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 13 December 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
The reality is that current-day Iraq contains three distinct groups of people whom have been at odds with each other for generations. Pundits and politicians tell us that a civil war will erupt if the US military departs. Yet our insistence that Iraq remain one indivisible nation actually creates the conditions for civil war. Instead of an artificial, forced, nationalist unity between the Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds, we should allow each group to seek self-government and choose voluntarily whether they wish to associate with a central government. We cannot impose democracy in Iraq any more than we can erase hundreds of years of Iraqi history.
democracy
Hands Off the Electoral College
27 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 27 December 2004 verse 3 ... Cached
The intense media focus on the divide between “red” and “blue” states in the wake of the presidential election has raised new questions regarding our federal voting system. One U.S. Senator has promised to introduce legislation to abolish the electoral college, claiming it is an anachronism that serves no good purpose in modern politics. Her stated goal is “simply to allow the popular will of the American people to be expressed every four years when we elect our president.” Many Americans agree, arguing that the man receiving the most votes should win; anything else would be unfair. In other words, they believe the American political system should operate as a direct democracy.
democracy
Hands Off the Electoral College
27 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 27 December 2004 verse 4 ... Cached
The problem, of course, is that our country is not a democracy. Our nation was founded as a constitutionally limited republic, as any grammar school child knew just a few decades ago. Remember the Pledge of Allegiance: “and to the Republic for which it stands”? The Founding Fathers were concerned with liberty, not democracy. In fact, the word democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. On the contrary, Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government” (emphasis added).
democracy
Hands Off the Electoral College
27 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 27 December 2004 verse 5 ... Cached
The emphasis on democracy in our modern political discourse has no historical or constitutional basis. Yet we have become obsessed with democracy, as though any government action would be permissible if a majority of voters simply approved of it. Democracy has become a sacred cow, a deity which no one dares question. Democracy, we are told, is always good. But the founders created a constitutionally limited republic precisely to protect fundamental liberties from the whims of the masses, to guard against the excesses of democracy. The electoral college likewise was created in the Constitution to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The President was to be elected by the states rather than the citizenry as a whole, with votes apportioned to states according to their representation in Congress. The will of the people was to be tempered by the wisdom of the electoral college.
democracy
Hands Off the Electoral College
27 December 2004 Texas Straight Talk 27 December 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
Not surprisingly, calls to abolish the electoral college system are heard most loudly among left elites concentrated largely on the two coasts. Liberals favor a very strong centralized federal government, and have contempt for the concept of states' rights (a contempt now shared, unfortunately, by the Republican Party). They believe in federalizing virtually every area of law, leaving states powerless to challenge directives sent down from Washington. The electoral college system threatens liberals because it allows states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Citizens in southern and western states in particular tend to value individual liberty, property rights, gun rights, and religious freedom, values which are abhorrent to the collectivist elites. The collectivists care about centralized power, not democracy. Their efforts to discredit the electoral college system are an attempt to limit the voting power of pro-liberty states.
democracy
UN Scandals Are Not the Issue
17 January 2005 Texas Straight Talk 17 January 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
The real problem, however, is not that the UN is corrupt, or ineffective, or run by scoundrels. The real problem is that the UN is inherently illegitimate, because supra-national government is an inherently illegitimate concept. The ultimate test for the ostensible validity of any government is whether its authority comes from the people it governs, rather than from the use of force or arbitrary edicts. In other words, legitimate governments operate only by the consent of those they govern. This is the fundamental democratic principle. It is ludicrous to suggest that billions of people across the globe have in any way consented to UN governance, or have even the slightest influence over their own governments. Yet so many of those on the political left in America, who claim to believe in democracy above all, vigorously champion the inherently undemocratic UN.
democracy
What does Freedom Really Mean?
07 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2005 verse 4 ... Cached
We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.
democracy
What does Freedom Really Mean?
07 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2005 verse 5 ... Cached
George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” that are endlessly repeated in the political arena*. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.
democracy
What does Freedom Really Mean?
07 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?
democracy
What does Freedom Really Mean?
07 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.
democracy
What does Freedom Really Mean?
07 February 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 February 2005 verse 12 ... Cached
Orwell certainly was right about the use of meaningless words in politics. If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.
democracy
Theology, Not Politics
11 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 11 April 2005 verse 11 ... Cached
Historically, religion always represented a threat to government because it competes for the loyalties of the people. In modern America, however, most religious institutions abandoned their independence long ago, and now serve as cheerleaders for state policies like social services, faith-based welfare, and military aggression in the name of democracy. Few American churches challenge state actions at all, provided their tax-exempt status is maintained. This is why Washington politicians ostensibly celebrate religion-- it no longer threatens their supremacy. Government has co-opted religion and family as the primary organizing principle of our society. The federal government is boss, and everybody knows it. But no politician will ever produce even a tiny fraction of the legacy left by Pope John Paul II.
democracy
Can the UN Really be Reformed?
20 June 2005 Texas Straight Talk 20 June 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
The problem is not that the UN is corrupt, or ineffective, or run by scoundrels. The real problem is that the UN is inherently illegitimate, because supra-national government is an inherently illegitimate concept. Legitimate governments operate only by the consent of those they govern. Yet it is ludicrous to suggest that billions of people across the globe have in any way consented to UN governance, or have even the slightest influence over their own governments. The UN is perhaps the least democratic institution imaginable, but both Democrats and Republicans insist on using it to “promote democracy.” We should stop worrying about the UN and simply walk away from it by withdrawing our membership and our money. We should demand a return to real national sovereignty, and respect other nations by rejecting our failed interventionist foreign policy. By doing so we would make the world a more peaceful place.
democracy
Borrowing, Spending, Counterfeiting
22 August 2005 Texas Straight Talk 22 August 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
Third, future administrations are unlikely to challenge a foreign policy orthodoxy that views America as the world’s savior. We are hemorrhaging billions of dollars every month in Iraq, and we waste billions more every year through foreign aid and overseas meddling. A foreign policy based on nation-building and the imposition of “democracy” abroad, in direct contravention of our founders’ admonitions, is not economically sustainable. In Korea alone, U.S. taxpayers have spent nearly one trillion in today’s dollars over 55 years. A permanent military presence in Iraq and the wider Middle East will cost enormous amounts of money.
democracy
Empowering the UN in the Guise of Reform
03 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 03 October 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
Last month at its “World Summit” in New York, the United Nations took another big step toward destroying national sovereignty - a step that could threaten the United States in the future. The UN passed a resolution at this summit that, among other things, establishes a “Peacebuilding Commission,” creates a worldwide UN “democracy fund,” and most troublingly codifies the dangerous “Responsibility to Protect” report as part of UN policy. The three are certainly interrelated.
democracy
Empowering the UN in the Guise of Reform
03 October 2005 Texas Straight Talk 03 October 2005 verse 6 ... Cached
The misnamed “Democracy Fund” created at the World Forum may well provide the funding for this UN army. We must ask ourselves whether this “global democracy fund” will be used to undermine or overthrow elected governments that do not meet some UN-created democratic criteria. Will it be used to further the kinds of color-coded revolutions we have seen from East Europe to the Middle East, which far from being genuine expressions of popular will are in fact fomented with outside money and influence? Could it eventually be used against the United States? What if the US is determined lacking when it comes to UN-defined democratic responsibilities such as providing free public housing or universal healthcare?
democracy
Deficts at Home, Welfare Abroad
07 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 07 November 2005 verse 10 ... Cached
* $95 million in new money for the United Nations Democracy Fund, which meddles with foreign governments but never seems to change them;
democracy
Peace and Prosperity in 2006?
02 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 02 January 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
Regardless of the outcome, we must have the courage and integrity to admit that our founders' wise counsel against foreign entanglements was correct. Once the rationale for the war shifted from weapons of mass destruction to installing democracy, our credibility became dependent on true Iraqi sovereignty-- even if the government that emerges is not to our liking. True sovereignty for Iraq cannot be realized unless and until we end our occupation and stop trying to engineer political outcomes.
democracy
New Rules, Same Game
23 January 2006 Texas Straight Talk 23 January 2006 verse 6 ... Cached
I don’t believe the problem is corrupt lobbyists or even corrupt politicians per se. The fundamental problem, in my view, is the very culture of Washington. Our political system has become nothing more than a means of distributing government largesse, through tax dollars confiscated from the American people-- always in the name democracy. The federal budget is so enormous that it loses all meaning. What’s another million or so for some pet project, in an annual budget of $2.4 trillion? No one questions the principle that a majority electorate should be allowed to rule the country, dictate rights, and redistribute wealth.
democracy
True Foreign Aid
01 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 01 May 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
There are also practical reasons to oppose governmental foreign aid. Though it may be given with the best intentions, government agencies simply cannot do the kind of job that private charities do in actually helping people in need. Government-to-government assistance seldom helps those really in need. First, because it comes from governments it usually has political strings attached to it, and as such is really a cover for political interventionism. Take our own National Endowment for Democracy for example. The “aid” money it spends is usually spent trying to manipulate elections overseas so that a favored foreign political party wins “democratic” elections. This does no favor to citizens of foreign countries, who vote in the hope that they may choose their own leaders without outside interference.
democracy
Hypocrisy in the Middle East
26 February 2007 Texas Straight Talk 26 February 2007 verse 7 ... Cached
The tired assertion that America "supports democracy" in the Middle East is increasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil, and it’s false today when we back an unelected military dictator in Pakistan- just to name two examples. If honest democratic elections were held throughout the Middle East tomorrow, many countries would elect religious fundamentalist leaders hostile to the United States. Cliché or not, the Arab Street really doesn’t like America, so we should stop the charade about democracy and start pursuing a coherent foreign policy that serves America’s long-term interests.
democracy
Globalism
16 July 2007 Texas Straight Talk 16 July 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
We must remain focused on what ideology underlies the approach being taken by those who see themselves as our ruling-class, and not get distracted by the passions of the moment or the rhetorical devices used to convince us how their plans will be “good for us.” Whether it is managed trade being presented under the rhetoric of “free trade,” or the ideas of “regime change” abroad and “making the world safe for democracy” -- the underlying principle is globalism.
democracy
Entangling Alliances
11 November 2007 Texas Straight Talk 11 November 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
So much for a War on Terror. So much for making the world safe for democracy.
Texas Straight Talk from 20 December 1996 to 23 June 2008 (573 editions) are included in this Concordance. Texas Straight Talk after 23 June 2008 is in blog form on Rep. Paul’s Congressional website and is not included in this Concordance.
Remember, not everything in the concordance is Ron Paul’s words. Some things he quoted, and he added some newspaper and magazine articles to the Congressional Record. Check the original speech to see.