U.S. Rep. Ron Paul | national security |
national security
State Of The Republic
28 January 1998 1998 Ron Paul 2:4
In contemplating what needs to be done and why we have not done better, we should consider several philosophic infractions in which Members of Congress participate that encourage a loss of liberty and endanger our national security and the republic while perpetuating the status quo.
national security
America Should Move Cautiously Regarding Iraq
4 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 3:2
In the next week or two, we may have a resolution coming to this floor endorsing the bombing and, in essence, allowing for a declaration of war. Saddam Hussein does not pose any threat to our national security. We should be going very cautiously. Bombing might cause some accident regarding biological warfare. It may cause an irrational act by Saddam Hussein with one of his neighbors. It is bound to kill innocent lives, innocent civilians in Iraq. It could kill many American flyers as well. It costs a lot of money.
national security
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 7:12
Just look at what we have been able to do since World War II without a declaration of war. Precisely. Why are we doing this? And precisely because when we do it, what generally happens is that we are not fighting these wars, and they are not police actions, these are wars, and we are not fighting them because of national interests. We are not fighting them for national security, and therefore, we do not fight to win, and subsequently, what war can we really be proud of since World War II? We have not won them. We set the stage for more problems later on. The Persian Gulf War has led to the stalemate that we have here today, and it goes on and on. I think this is a very important subject.
national security
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 7:15
Congress should have and take more responsibility for these actions. It is only the Congress that should pursue an act of war. Bombing is an act of war, especially if it is a country halfway around the world and a country that has not directly threatened our national security.
national security
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 7:60
I think the responsibility of the Members of Congress here is to protect the national interest, to provide national security, to take care of national defense, to follow the rules that say, we should not go to war unless the war is declared. If we go to war, we go to war to fight and win the war. But we do not go to war because we like one country over another country and we want to support them.
national security
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 7:63
Why is it that we have no more concern about our national security concern about China? I think China can pose a national threat. I do not think we should be doing it to China. I do not think we should be looking to find out what kind of weapons they have. We know they sell weapons to Iraq. And we know they are a very capable nation when it comes to military. But what do we do with China? We give them foreign aid. They are one of the largest recipients of foreign aid in the whole world.
national security
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 7:70
So we have a responsibility. If the responsibility is that Saddam Hussein is a threat to our national security, we should be more honest with the American people. We should tell them what the problem is. We should have a resolution, a declaration of war.
national security
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 7:72
So I see this as really a sad time for us and not one that we should be proud of. I do know that the two weakest arguments I can present here would be that of a moral argument, that wars ought to be fought only for defense and for national security. I have been told that is too old-fashioned and we must police the world, and we have the obligation. We are the only superpower.
national security
Three Important Issues For America
11 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 7:114
We here in the Congress should be talking about defending this country, providing national security, providing for a strong currency, not deliberately distorting the currency. We should be protecting private property rights and making sure that there is no incentive for the special interests of this country to come and buy their influence up here.
national security
Iraq
12 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 9:3
I would like to remind my colleagues that bombing a country, especially one halfway around the world that is not a direct threat to our security, is not a moral act. A moral war is one that is defensive and a legal war is one that is declared by Congress. We should only pursue an act of war when our national security is threatened.
national security
Urging Caution On Action Taken In Iraq
12 February 1998 1998 Ron Paul 11:3
Morally, the only justifiable war is a war of defense, a war when our national security is threatened. A legal war in this country is one that is declared by the Congress acting for the people.
national security
Removing U.S. Armed Forces From Bosnia And Herzegovina
17 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 26:5
Our national security is not threatened. There was no justification for our troops to be sent there. There are always good reasons, though, given because there are problems. Well, there are problems every place in the world. If we try to solve all the problems of the world, we would not have troops in a hundred countries like we have now, we would have them in three or four hundred countries. But it is true that we send troops with the most amount of pressure put upon us to do it.
national security
Bombing Iraq
18 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 27:6
Today, ever since World War II, we have reneged on that responsibility. We have turned it over to the President and allowed him to be involved. We have given him words of encouragement that implies that we support his position. We do so often and, as far as I am concerned, too carelessly. But when we do this, the President then assumes this responsibility; and, unfortunately, since World War II, it has not even been for national security reasons.
national security
Bombing Iraq
18 March 1998 1998 Ron Paul 27:9
We have a responsibility here. The Congress has a responsibility to the American people. We are here to defend the national sovereignty and the protection of the United States. Troops in Bosnia threatens our national security and threatens the lives of the American citizen who is protecting or fighting in this region. So it is up to us to assume this responsibility.
national security
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.
national security
Iraq — Part 3
5 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 109:3
There is some merit to that argument, but there is also a very good reason why that does not happen and will not happen. It is because when we fight a war for non-national security reasons, when it is limited to protecting oil or some other interest, then there is a limitation, there is no wanting to expand it.
national security
Iraq — Part 3
5 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 109:4
When we fight a war for national security reasons, we declare the war, the people join, they are willing to support it financially, they volunteer to go into the military, and they fight to win. But we have not done that since World War II, precisely because we have this namby-pamby foreign policy of being everything to everybody and we do not even defend our national security adequately enough.
national security
Iraq — Part 3
5 October 1998 1998 Ron Paul 109:13
I think the conclusions we have today are logical. I do not think they lack logic. I think that if one decides that we are fighting for our national security reasons, we never stop short of victory. So this would go along with the gentleman’s argument that we stopped too soon in Iraq. But we were not there for national security reasons. They were not about to invade us, and they are not about to invade us. The only way we should fear an invasion by these hoodlums is if we incite them to terrorism.
national security
Resolution On Saddam Hussein
17 December 1998 1998 Ron Paul 124:2
Mr. Speaker, it is clearly stated in the Constitution that only Congress has the authority to declare war. It is precisely because of the way we go to war these days that we are continuing to fight the Persian Gulf War. We did not win the Persian Gulf War because we did not declare war since there was no justification to because there was no national security interests involved.
national security
Resolution On Saddam Hussein
17 December 1998 1998 Ron Paul 124:3
Saddam Hussein is not threatening our national security. This is a concocted scheme to pursue bombing for oil interests and other reasons, but it has nothing to do with national security.
national security
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:8
But as bad as these abuses are, the power of a single person, the President, to wage war is the most egregious of all presidential powers, and Congress deserves the blame for allowing such power to gravitate into the hands of the President. The fact that nary a complaint was made in Congress for the recent aggressive military behavior of our President in Iraq for reasons that had nothing to do with national security should not be ignored. Instead, Congress unwisely and quickly rubber stamped this military operation. We should analyze this closely and decide whether or not we in the Congress should promote a war powers policy that conforms to the Constitution or continue to allow our Presidents ever greater leverage to wage war any time, any place and for any reason.
national security
Congress Relinquishing The Power To Wage War
2 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 4:14
Without an actual declaration of war and support from the American people, victory is unachievable. This has been the case with the ongoing war against Iraq. Without a legitimate concern for our national security, the willingness to declare war and achieve victory is difficult. The war effort becomes narrowly political, serving special interests, and not fought for the defense of the United States against a serious military threat. If we can win a Cold War against the Soviets, we hardly need a hot war with a third world nation, unable to defend itself, Iraq.
national security
President Should Get Authority From Congress To Send Troops
9 February 1999 1999 Ron Paul 5:11
Troops in Kosovo will not serve the interests of the United States. They will not help our national security. It will drain funds that should be spent on national defense. At the same time it will jeopardize our national security by endangering our troops and raising the possibility of us becoming involved in a war spreading through the Balkans. This should not occur.
national security
Crisis in Kosovo
14 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 25:5
I believe that our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. CAMPBELL), deserves to be complemented because he is making a determined effort to put the burden on the Members of Congress to vote one way or the other. Since World War II we have fought numerous wars, and they have never been fought with a declaration of war, and it is precisely for that reason, because they have not been fought for truly national security reasons, that we have not won these wars. If a war is worth fighting, it is worth declaring, and it is worth winning.
national security
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 29:35
The foolishness of this policy has become apparent, but Western leaders are quick to justify their warmongering. It was not peace or liberty or national security they sought as they sent the bombs flying. It was to save face for NATO.
national security
U.S. Foreign Policy and NATO’s Involvement in Yugoslavia and Kosovo
21 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 29:39
Most politicians and the public do not know what NATO’s real mission is, and today’s policy cannot be explained by reading its mission statement written in 1949. Certainly our vital interests and national security cannot justify our escalation of the war in Yugoslavia.
national security
Whether, And How, To Go To War
28 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 34:4
Today we are trying to deal legally with a half a war. A half a war is something like a touch of pregnancy. You can’t have a half a war. If we do not declare war and if we do not fight a war because it is in our national interest and for national security reasons, we’ll inevitably will not fight to win the war. That has always been our problem, whether it was Korea, Vietnam, or even the Persian Gulf war.
national security
Whether, And How, To Go To War
28 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 34:5
To me, it is so important that you fight war for national security reasons only, you declare a war and you fight to win the war. We are not about to do that today. We are not going to declare war against Serbia. Serbia has done nothing to America. They have been close allies of ours, especially in World War II. We are not going to do that. Are we going to demand the troops be removed? Probably not.
national security
Moral And Constitutional Wars Must Be Fought In Self Defense
28 April 1999 1999 Ron Paul 35:9
Today we saw evidence that the Congress was willing to stand up to some degree and vote on this and take some responsibility. For this reason I am pleased with what happened. So voting against the war that has no significant national security interest makes a lot of sense to me.
national security
Kosovo War Is Illegal
5 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 40:2
This war is immoral because Serbia did not commit aggression against us. We were not attacked and there has been no threat to our national security. This war is illegal. It is undeclared. There has been no congressional authorization and no money has been appropriated for it. The war is pursued by the U.S. under NATO’s terms, yet it is illegal even according to NATO’s treaty as well as the U.N. charter. The internationalists do not even follow their own laws and do not care about the U.S. Constitution.
national security
Supplemental Appropriations
18 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 47:15
NATO must admit its mistake in entering this civil war. It violates the NATO treaty and the U.N. Charter, as well as the U.S. Constitution. The mission has failed. The policy is flawed. Innocent people are dying. It is costing a lot of money. It is undermining our national security and there are too many accidents.
national security
Quietly Restoring Funding For War In Kosovo
27 May 1999 1999 Ron Paul 53:5
We could have had a bill that made a statement against spending this money to perpetuate this illegal NATO war, and yet it was explicitly removed from the bill. I think this is reason to question the efforts on this rule. Certainly it should challenge all of us on the final passage of this bill, because much of this money will not be spent on the national defense, but to perpetuate war, which is a direct distraction from our national defense because it involves increasing threats to our national security. It does not protect our national security.
national security
A Positive Spin On An Ugly War
7 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 54:5
Number four, more Americans every day are discovering that military spending is not equivalent to defense spending. This is a good start. It is clearly evident that when useless immoral wars are pursued, money is wasted, weapons are consumed, and national security is endangered, opposite to everything that is supposed to be achieved through defense spending. A foolish policy of foreign interventionism, no matter how much money is spent on the military, can never substitute for a sensible, pro-American policy of friendship and trade with all those countries willing to engage.
national security
A Positive Spin On An Ugly War
7 June 1999 1999 Ron Paul 54:9
Number eight, interventionism in the affairs of other nations when our national security is not threatened serves no benefit and causes great harm. Our involvement with NATO and Yugoslovia has once again forcefully shown this. Although our Founders knew this and advised against it, and American Presidents for over 100 years acted accordingly, this rediscovery of a vital truth can serve us well in future years.
national security
Selective Service System
8 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 91:4
Ronald Reagan was a strong opponent of the draft. He spoke out against it. We do not need it. It is wasted money. It is absolutely unnecessary. The Department of Defense has spoken out clearly that it is not necessary for national security reasons to have a selective service system, and yet we continually spend $24.5 million annually for this program. So I urge all Members, all my colleagues, to oppose putting this money back in for the Selective Service System.
national security
East Timor
28 September 1999 1999 Ron Paul 99:6
Our Security Council has already decided to send troops to East Timor. What we are doing today is rubber stamping this effort to send troops into another part of the world in a place where we have no national security interests. We do not know what victory means. We do not know what lies ahead.
national security
U.S. Foreign Policy of Military Interventionism Brings Death, Destruction and Loss of Life
17 November 1999 1999 Ron Paul 115:10
Our foreign policy is deeply flawed and does not serve our national security interest. In the Middle East, it has endangered some of the moderate Arab governments and galvanized Muslim militants.
national security
A Republic, If You Can Keep It
31 January 2000 2000 Ron Paul 2:25
Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt. For the true believers in big government, they see this technology as a great advantage for their cause. We are currently witnessing an ongoing effort by our government to develop a national ID card, a medical data bank, a work data bank, “Know Your Customer” regulations on banking activity, a national security agent all-pervasive telephone snooping system called Echelon, and many other programs. There are good reasons to understand the many ramifications of the many technological advancements we have seen over the century to make sure that the good technology is not used by the government to do bad things.
national security
A Republic, If You Can Keep It – Part 2
2 February 2000 2000 Ron Paul 5:15
For national security purposes, the Echelon system of monitoring all overseas phone calls has been introduced, yet the details of this program are not available to any inquiring Member of Congress.
national security
CONGRATULATING THE PEOPLE OF TAIWAN FOR SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSION OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS AND REAFFIRMING UNITED STATES POLICY TOWARD TAIWAN AND PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
March 28, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 18:3
* Just as it is wrong to force our preferences on other countries and cultures, it is wrong to dictate politics. The United States has absolutely no moral or constitutional right to do so. In fact, action of that sort could rightfully be considered an act of aggression on our part, and our founding fathers made it very, very clear that war should be contemplated only when national security is immediately threatened. to play the part of policemen of the world degrades all who seek to follow the Constitution. The Constitution does not allow our government to participate in actions against a foreign country when there is no immediate threat to the United States.
national security
2000 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT
March 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 21:10
So I think that, unfortunately, this could end up in a real mess. Maybe then we would have enough sense to leave. But we, in the Congress, ought to have enough sense not to go down there. This money can be better spent on national defense. We should be concerned about national security.
national security
2000 EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT
March 29, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 21:12
Under the Constitution, we should have a strong national defense, and we should provide for national security. Going into Colombia has nothing to do with national security and serves to undermine national defense.
national security
Fiscal 2000 Supplemental Appropriations/DEA Funding Cuts Amendment
30 March 2000 2000 Ron Paul 23:8
This is the furtherest stretch of the imagination to believe that what we are spending here on this budget, especially what we are going to do in Colombia, has anything to do with national security. What are we worried about? Are the Colombians going to attack us? This is not national security. This is special interest spending. This is conservative welfarism; that is what it is.
national security
Minding Our Own Business Regarding Colombia Is In The Best Interest Of America
September 6, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 69:1
Mr. Speaker, those of us who warned of the shortcomings of expanding our military presence in Colombia were ignored when funds were appropriated for this purpose earlier this year. We argued at that time that clearly no national security interests were involved; that the Civil War was more than 30 years old, complex with three factions fighting, and no assurance as to who the good guys were; that the drug war was a subterfuge, only an excuse, not a reason, to needlessly expand our involvement in Colombia; and that special interests were really driving our policy: Colombia Oil Reserves owned by American interests, American weapons manufacturers, and American corporations anxious to build infrastructure in Colombia.
national security
Minding Our Own Business Regarding Colombia Is In The Best Interest Of America
September 6, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 69:7
Our policy is doomed to fail. There is no national security interest involved; therefore, no goals can be set and no victory achievable. A foreign policy of non-intervention designed only to protect our sovereignty with an eagerness to trade with all nations willing to be friends is the traditional American foreign policy and would give us the guaranteed hope of peace, the greatest hope of peace and prosperity.
national security
OUR FOOLISH WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST
November 15, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 95:4
* It is clear that we are not in the Middle East for national security reasons but instead to protect powerful commercial interests. This assures we protect oil supplies for the West, and provides us with an excuse to keep the military industrial complex active.
national security
OUR FOOLISH WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST
November 15, 2000 2000 Ron Paul 95:12
* The greatest threat to our national security is our own bad policy. Our policy has continued to permit our own military technology, developed by our taxpayers, to get into the hands of our so-called allies as well as our potential enemies like China.
national security
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:81
National security is usually cited to justify our foreign involvement, but this excuse distracts from the real reason we venture so far from home. Influential commercial interests dictate policy of when and where we go. Persian Gulf oil obviously got more attention than genocide in Rwanda. If one were truly concerned about our security and enhancing peace, one would always opt for a less militarist policy. It’s not a coincidence that US territory and US citizens are the most vulnerable in the world to terrorist attacks. Escalation of the war on terrorism and not understanding its cause is a dangerous temptation.
national security
CHALLENGE TO AMERICA: A CURRENT ASSESSMENT OF OUR REPUBLIC —
February 07, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 7:97
Our policy should change for several reasons. It’s wrong for our foreign policy to serve any special interest, whether it’s for financial benefits, ethnic pressures, or some contrived moral imperative. Too often the policy leads to an unintended consequence, and more people are killed and more property damaged than was intended. Controlling world events is never easy. It’s better to avoid the chance of one bad decision leading to another. The best way to do that is to follow the advice of the Founders and avoid all entangling alliances and pursue a policy designed solely to protect US national security interests.
national security
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:5
But both types of conflicts result from the same flawed foreign policy of foreign interventionism. Both types of conflict can be prevented. National security is usually cited to justify our foreign involvement, but this excuse distracts from the real reason we venture so far from home. Influential commercial interests dictate policy of when and where we go. Persian Gulf oil obviously got more attention than genocide in Rwanda.
national security
POTENTIAL FOR WAR
February 08, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 10:27
Controlling world events is never easy. It is better to avoid the chance of one bad decision leading to another. The best way to do that is to follow the advice of the Founders and avoid all entangling alliances, and pursue a policy designed solely to protect U.S. national security interests.
national security
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 25:7
Although there is no doubt that we technically have legal grounds for making these flights, the question really is whether or not it is wise to do so or necessary for our national security. Actually a strong case can be made that our national security is more threatened by our patrolling the Chinese coast than if we avoided such flights altogether. After a half a century it’s time to reassess the need for such flights. Satellite technology today gives us the ability to watch and to listen to almost everyone on earth. If there is a precise need for this type of surveillance for the benefit of Taiwan, then the Taiwanese ought to be involved in this activity, not American military personnel. We should not feel so insecure that we need to threaten and intimidate other countries in order to achieve some vague psychological reassurance that we’re still the top military power in the world. This is unnecessary and may well represent a weakness rather than strength.
national security
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 25:17
During the Cuban missile crisis a resolution was achieved under very dangerous circumstances. Quietly, President Kennedy had agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey that were pointed at the Soviets, making the point that American missiles on the Soviet borders was not unlike the Soviets missiles on the American borders. A few months later, quietly, the United States removed these missiles, and no one suffered. The Cold War was eventually won by the United States, but our national security was not threatened by the removal of those missiles.
national security
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 25:18
It could be argued that the fact that our missiles were in Turkey and pointed at the Soviets was more of a threat to our national security because that motivated the Soviets to put their missiles in Cuba. It would do no harm to our national security for us to quietly, in time, stop the potentially dangerous and unnecessary spy missions that we have pursued for over 50 years along the Chinese border.
national security
A New China Policy
April 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 25:21
Bellicose and jingoistic demands for retaliation and retribution are dangerous, and indeed are a greater threat to our national security than relying on satellite technology for gathering the information that we might need. A policy of peaceful, non-subsidized trade with China would go a long way to promoting friendly and secure relations with the Chinese people. By not building up the military arsenal of the Taiwanese, Taiwan will be forced to pursue their trade policies and investments with China, leading to the day where the conflict between these two powers can be resolved peacefully.
national security
Sudan Peace Act
13 June 2001 2001 Ron Paul 40:2
But I do question a few things. First, I question whether this is a proper function for our government. I raised this question in the committee, suggesting that it could not be for national security reasons, and it more or less was conceded this has nothing to do with national security but it had to do with America’s soul. I was fascinated that we are in the business of saving souls these days.
national security
A BAD OMEN
July 17, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 52:19
We cannot have it both ways. We cannot expect to use the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia when it pleases us and oppose the permanent International Criminal Court where the rules would apply to our own acts of aggression. This cynical and arrogant approach, whether it’s dealing with Milosevic , Hussein, or Kadafi, undermines peace and presents a threat to our national security. Meanwhile, American citizens must suffer the tax burden from financing the dangerous meddling in European affairs, while exposing our troops to danger.
national security
Prosecuting Milosevic
18 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 55:3
The second part is that this stirs up tremendous anti-American sentiment. This is the reason why we are the greatest target in the world for terrorism, because of our intrusion into these areas, pretending that we always know best and that we will trample the law because it serves our self-interests. But I believe our national security and our interests are not best served in this manner. This policy is very dangerous.
national security
Banning U.S. Contributions To United Nations
18 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 57:6
But back to what I said earlier, I just think the approach of using a United Nations standing army, which is what we are getting closer to, to go around and police the world in areas that we do not have justification based only on our national security, I see this money as being dangerously used and it invites trouble for us.
national security
Iran/Libya Sanctions Act
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 64:3
Furthermore, the sanctions are being extended from a period of five years to ten years. If the original five year sanction period has not been effective in allaying the fears about these governments why do we believe an extra five years will be effective? In fact, few companies have actually been sanctioned under this Act, and to the best of my knowledge no oil companies have been so sanctioned. Still, the sanctions in the Act are not against these nations but are actually directed at “persons” engaged in certain business and investments in these countries. There are already Executive Orders making it illegal for US companies to undertake these activities in these sanctioned countries, so this Act applies to companies in other countries, mostly our allied countries, almost all of whom oppose and resent this legislation and have threatened to take the kinds of retaliatory action that could lead to an all out trade war. In fact, the former National Security Advisor Brent Scrowcroft recently pointed out how these sanctions have had a significant adverse impact upon our Turkish allies.
national security
Iran/Libya Sanctions Act
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 64:4
Mr. Speaker, I support those portions of this bill designated to prohibit US financing through government vehicles such as the Export-Import Bank. I also have no problem with guarding against sales of military technology which could compromise our national security. Still, on a whole, this bill is just another plank in the failed sanctions regime from which we ought to loosen ourselves.
national security
Iran/Libya Sanctions Act
24 July 2001 2001 Ron Paul 64:6
I also have to point out the inconsistency in our policy. Why would we sanction Iran but not Sudan, and why would we sanction Libya but not Syria? I hear claims related to our national security but surely these are made in jest. We subsidize business with the People’s Republic of China but sanction Europeans from helping to build oil refineries in Iran.
national security
The US Dollar and the World Economy
September 6, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 75:45
Only reining in the welfare-warfare state will suffice. This eliminates the need for the Fed to monetize the debt that politicians depend on to please their constituents and secure their reelection. We must reject our obsession with policing the world by our endless foreign commitments and entanglements. This would reduce the need for greater expenditures while enhancing our national security. It would also remove pressure on the Federal Reserve to continue a flawed monetary policy of monetizing endless government debt.
national security
Statement on the New York City and Washington, DC Terrorist Attacks
September 12, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 78:5
In our grief, we must remember our responsibilities. The Congress’ foremost obligation in a constitutional republic is to preserve freedom and provide for national security. Yesterday our efforts to protect our homeland came up short. Our policies that led to that shortcoming must be reevaluated and changed if found to be deficient.
national security
Statement on the Congressional Authorization of the Use of Force
September 14, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 79:1
Mr, Speaker, Sadly we find ourselves today dealing with our responsibility to provide national security under the most difficult of circumstances.
national security
Statement on the Congressional Authorization of the Use of Force
September 14, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 79:8
Too often over the last several decades we have supported both sides of many wars only to find ourselves needlessly entrenched in conflicts unrelated to our national security. It is not unheard of that the weapons and support we send to foreign nations have ended up being used against us. The current crisis may well be another example of such a mishap.
national security
Statement on the Congressional Authorization of the Use of Force
September 14, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 79:9
Although we now must fight to preserve our national security we should not forget that the founders of this great nation advised that for our own sake we should stay out of entangling alliances and the affairs of other nations.
national security
Foreign Interventionism
September 25, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 80:7
It is obviously no easy task to destroy an almost invisible, ubiquitous enemy spread throughout the world, without expanding the war or infringing on our liberties here at home. But above all else, that is our mandate and our key constitutional responsibility- protecting liberty and providing for national security. My strong belief is that in the past, efforts in the US Congress to do much more than this, have diverted our attention and hence led to our neglect of these responsibilities.
national security
Intelligence Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 2002
5 October 2001 2001 Ron Paul 81:4
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is inexcusable for members to be denied crucial facts regarding the intelligence program authorized by this bill, especially at a time when the nation’s attention is focused on security issues. Therefore, I hope my colleagues will reject HR 2883 and all other intelligence authorization or funding bills until every member of Congress is allowed to fully perform their constitutional role of overseeing these agencies and participating in the debate on this vital aspect of America’s national security policy.
national security
AIR PIRACY REPRISAL AND CAPTURE ACT OF 2001 -- HON. RON PAUL
October 10, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 84:2
* All of America stood horrified at the brutal attacks of September 11 and all of us stand united in our determination to exact just retribution on the perpetrators of this evil deed. This is why I supported giving the President broad authority to use military power to respond to these attacks. When Congress authorized the use of force to respond to the attacks of September 11 we recognized these attacks were not merely criminal acts but an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security.”
national security
The War On Terrorism
November 29, 2001 2001 Ron Paul 98:64
The executive order that has gotten the most attention by those who are concerned that our response to 9-11 is overreaching and dangerous to our liberties is the one authorizing military justice, in secret. Nazi war criminals were tried in public, but plans now are laid to carry out the trials and punishment, including possibly the death penalty, outside the eyes and ears of the legislative and judicial branches of government and the American public. Since such a process threatens national security and the Constitution, it cannot be used as a justification for their protection.
national security
Too Many Federal Cops
6 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 104:6
In 1878 Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act to prohibit the military from performing civilian police functions. Over Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger’s opposition, President Ronald Reagan declared drug trafficking a threat to national security as the rationale for committing the military to the war on drugs. (Weinberger argued that “reliance on military forces to accomplish civilian tasks is detrimental to . . . the democratic process.”) Reagan’s action gives George Bush a precedent for committing the military and National Guard to civilian police duty at airports and borders.
national security
Saddam Hussein
19 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 107:2
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to start off by thanking the chairman for having made some changes in this bill. The bill is not nearly as bad as it was at the beginning. However, I obviously cannot support it. But changing the tone was helpful in talking about Saddam Hussein versus Iraq, “Iraq” suggesting the people of Iraq, who are hardly enemies of the American people. Saddam Hussein is a different subject. Also changing the word “aggression” to “a mounting threat.” Aggression means that we have to immediately retaliate, I would suppose. Even “a mounting threat” is a bit threatening to me, but at least it is better and moving in the direction of less confrontation with a nation 6,000 miles from our shore that I hardly see as a threat to our national security.
national security
Opposing Resolution For War With Iraq
19 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 110:9
He was on a television interview the other day, and had an opinion as to what is going on in Iraq. I do not think Members can jump up and say Scott Ritter is not a true American, that he is not a true internationalist, that he does not know what he is talking about. But this is what he said on television when they asked about whether or not he thought Saddam Hussein and Iraq was a threat to our national security.
national security
Opposing Resolution For War With Iraq
19 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 110:10
He said, “In terms of military threat, absolutely nothing. His military was devastated in 1991 in Operation Desert Storm, and Iraq has not had the ability to reconstitute itself in terms of weapons of mass destruction. We know that we achieved a 90 to 95 percent level of disarmament. Diplomatically, politically, Saddam is a little bit of a threat. In terms of a real national security threat to the United States, no, none.”
national security
Opposing Resolution For War With Iraq
19 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 110:15
We are going into Iraq for other reasons, other than reasons of national security. That is my firm belief. It has a lot to do with the announcement when our government propagandized to go to war in the Persian Gulf War and it was to go to defend our oil. I still believe that is a major motivation that directs our foreign policy in the Middle East.
national security
19 December 2001 2001 Ron Paul 111:8
Absent Iraqi involvement in the attack on the United States, I can only wonder why so many in Congress seek to divert resources away from our efforts to bring those who did attack us to justice. That hardly seems a prudent move. Many will argue that it doesn’t matter whether Iraq had a role in the attack on us, Iraq is a threat to the United States and therefore must be dealt with. Some on this committee have made this very argument. Mr. Speaker, most of us here have never been to Iraq, however those who have, like former UN chief Arms Inspector Scott Ritter — who lead some 30 inspection missions to Iraq — come to different conclusions on the country. Asked in November on Fox News Channel by John Kasich sitting in for Bill O’Reilly about how much of a threat Saddam Hussein poses to the United States, former Chief Inspector Ritter said, “In terms of military threat, absolutely nothing . . . Diplomatically, politically, Saddam’s a little bit of a threat. In terms of real national security threat to the United States, no, none.” Mr. Speaker, shouldn’t we even stop for a moment to consider what some of these experts are saying before we move further down the road toward military confrontation?
national security
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:12
What we have done so far since last September is not very reassuring. What we do here in the Congress in the coming months may well determine the survival of our Republic. Fear and insecurity must not drive our policy. Sacrificing personal liberty should never be an option. Involving ourselves in every complex conflict around the globe hardly enhances our national security.
national security
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:41
Born in Afghanistan, Khalilzad is a controversial figure, to say the least, due to his close relationship with the oil industry and previously with the Taliban. His appointment to the National Security Council, very conveniently, did not require confirmation by the Senate. Khalilzad also is a close ally of the Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in promoting early and swift military action against Iraq.
national security
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:56
I am fearful that an unlimited worldwide war against all terrorism will distract from the serious consideration that must be given to our policy of foreign interventionism, driven by the powerful commercial interests and a desire to promote world government. This is done while ignoring our principal responsibility of protecting national security and liberty here at home.
national security
The Case For Defending America
24 January 2002 2002 Ron Paul 1:67
I am certain that national security and defense of our own cities can never be adequately provided unless we reconsider our policy of foreign interventionism. Conventional wisdom in Washington today is that we have no choice but to play the role of the world’s only superpower. Recently we had to cancel flights of our own Air Force over our cities because of spending restraints, and we rely on foreign AWACS to fly over to protect our air spaces.
national security
Before We Bomb Iraq...
February 26, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 9:12
Could it be that only through war and removal of certain governments we can maintain control of the oil in this region? Could it be all about oil, and have nothing to do with US national security?
national security
Do Not Initiate War On Iraq
March 20, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 19:3
Number two, Iraq has not initiated aggression against the United States. Invading Iraq and deposing Saddam Hussein, no matter how evil a dictator he may be, has nothing to do with our national security. Iraq does not have a single airplane in its air force and is a poverty-ridden third world nation, hardly a threat to U.S. security. Stirring up a major conflict in this region will actually jeopardize our security.
national security
America’s Entangling Alliances in the Middle East
April 10, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 21:14
Foreign interventionism is bad for America. Special interests control our policies, while true national security is ignored. Real defense needs, the defense of our borders, are ignored, and the financial interests of corporations, bankers, and the military-industrial complex gain control- and the American people lose.
national security
Statement in Support of a Balanced Approach to the Middle East Peace Process
May 2, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 32:3
It is, when speaking of the dead, the one-sidedness of this bill that is so unfortunate. How is it that the side that loses seven people to every one on the other side is portrayed as the sole aggressor and condemned as terrorist? This is only made worse by the fact that Palestinian deaths are seen in the Arab world as being American-inspired, as it is our weapons that are being used against them. This bill just reinforces negative perceptions of the United States in that part of the world. What might be the consequences of this? I think we need to stop and think about that for a while. We in this body have a Constitutional responsibility to protect the national security of the United States. This one-sided intervention in a far-off war has the potential to do great harm to our national security.
national security
Expressing Solidarity With Israel In Its Fight Against Terrorism
2 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 33:3
It is, when speaking of the dead, the onesidedness of this bill that is so unfortunate. How is it that the side that loses seven people to every one on the other side is portrayed as the sole aggressor and condemned as terrorist? This is only made worse by the fact that Palestinian deaths are seen in the Arab world as being American-inspired, as it is our weapons that are being used against them. This bill just reinforces negative perceptions of the United States in that part of the world. What might be the consequences of this? I think we need to stop and think about that for a while. We in this body have a Constitutional responsibility to protect the national security of the United States. This one-sided intervention in a far-off war has the potential to do great harm to our national security.
national security
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.
national security
Don’t Force Taxpayers to Fund Nation-Building in Afghanistan
May 21, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 43:9
If we are operating under the premise that global poverty itself poses a national security threat to the United States, then I am afraid we have an impossible task ahead of us.
national security
Don’t Force Taxpayers to Fund Nation-Building in Afghanistan
May 21, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 43:17
I repeat that t he President has not been interested in this legislation. I do not see a good reason to give him the burden of reporting back to us in 45 days to explain how he is going to provide for Afghan security for the long term. How long is long term? We have been in Korea now for 50 years. Are we planning to send troops that provide national security for Afghanistan? I think we should be more concerned about the security of this country and not wondering how we are going to provide the troops for long-term security in Afghanistan. We should be more concerned about the security of our ports.
national security
Opposing The Amendment
21 May 2002 2002 Ron Paul 45:2
Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The President has not been interested in this legislation. I do not see a good reason to give him the burden of reporting back to us in 45 days to explain how he is going to provide for Afghan security for the long term. How long is long term? We have been in Korea now for 50 years. Are we planning to send troops that provide national security for Afghanistan? I think we should be more concerned about the security of this country and not wondering how we are going to provide the troops for longterm security in Afghanistan. We should be more concerned about the security of our ports.
national security
No More Taxpayer Funds for the Failed Drug War in Colombia
May 23, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 49:8
So I would ask, once again, where is the authority? Where does the authority exists for our President to go down and expand a war in Colombia when it has nothing to do with our national defense or our security? It has more to do with oil than our national security, and we know it. There is a pipeline down there that everybody complains that it is not well protected. It is even designated in legislation, and we deal with this at times. So I would say think about the real reasons behind us going down there.
national security
Oppose the "Supplemental" Spending Bill
May 24, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 50:2
Despite being sold as a national security bill, most of the spending in this bill bears little relationship to protecting the American people from terrorism. For example, this bill contains funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, federal courts, and various welfare programs. In addition, this bill spends millions on unconstitutional foreign aid. Mr. Speaker, some may say that foreign aid promotes national security, but if that were true America would be the most beloved country on earth. After all, almost every country in the world has in some way benefited from Congress’ willingness to send the American people’s money oversees.
national security
Oppose the "Supplemental" Spending Bill
May 24, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 50:3
Even much of the military spending in this bill has no relationship to legitimate national security needs. Instead it furthers an interventionist foreign policy which is neither constitutional nor in the best interests of the American people. For example, this supplemental contains a stealth attempt to shift our policy toward Colombia, expanding our already failed drug war to include direct participation in Colombia’s 38-year civil war. Though a bill on Colombia was scheduled for markup in the International Relations committee, for some reason it was pulled at the last minute. Therefore, the committee has not been able to debate this policy shift on Colombia. We are instead expected just not to notice, I suppose, that the policy shift has been included in this bill.
national security
Oppose the "Supplemental" Spending Bill
May 24, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 50:8
US commercial interests — not national security — are a big factor in our shifting policy toward Colombia. We have already seen an administration request for an additional $98 million to help protect the Caño-Limon Pipeline - jointly owned by the Colombian national oil company and Occidental Petroleum. This supplemental will provide for the first installment of this money to be paid to protect Occidental’s pipeline.
national security
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:91
The publicly announced plan to murder Saddam Hussein in the name of our national security draws nary a whimper from Congress. Support is overwhelming, without a thought as to its legality, morality, constitutionality, or its practicality. Murdering Saddam Hussein will surely generate many more fanatics ready to commit their lives to suicide terrorist attacks against us.
national security
Is America a Police State?
June 27, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 64:95
We all can agree that aggression should be met with force and that providing national security is an ominous responsibility that falls on Congress’ shoulders. But avoiding useless and unjustifiable wars that threaten our whole system of government and security seems to be the more prudent thing to do.
national security
Congress Sgould Think Twice Before Thrusting U.S. Into War
September 4, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 81:3
We have for months now heard plenty of false arithmetic and lame excuses for why we must pursue a preemptive war of aggression against an impoverished third world nation 6000 miles from our shores that doesn’t even possess a navy or air force, on the pretense that it must be done for national security reasons.
national security
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:15
The result then is that the action taken turns out to be actually detrimental to our national security interest; yet no effort is made to challenge the fundamental principle behind our foreign policy. It is this failure to adhere to a set of principles that has allowed us to slip into this role and, if unchallenged, could well undo the liberties we all cherish.
national security
The Price Of War
5 September 2002 2002 Ron Paul 83:28
This continuous escalation of our involvement overseas has been widespread. We have been in Korea for more than 50 years. We have promised to never back away from the China-Taiwan conflict over territorial disputes. Fifty-seven years after World War II we still find our military spread throughout Europe and Asia. And now the debate ranges over whether our national security requires that we, for the first time, escalate this policy of intervention to include anticipatory self-defense and preemptive war.
national security
A Political Mistake
September 18, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 87:8
Since no one wants to hear anymore of morality and constitutionality and justice, possibly some will listen to the politics of war, since that is what drives so many. A token victory at the polls this fall by using a vote on the war as a lever will be to little avail. It may not even work in the short run. Surely, history shows that war is never a winner, especially when the people who have to pay, fight, and die for it come to realize that the war was not even necessary and had nothing to do with national security or fighting for freedom, but was promoted by special interests who stood to gain from taking over a sovereign country.
national security
Can We Afford this War?
September 24, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 89:15
The tragedy is that once the flaw in policy is discovered, it is too late to prevent the pain and suffering, and only finger pointing occurs. Now is the only time we can give serious attention to the true cost of assuming the burden of an endless task of being the world’s policeman and starting wars that have nothing to do with defense or national security.
national security
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 96:1
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. The wisdom of the war is one issue, but the process and the philosophy behind our foreign policy are important issues as well. But I have come to the conclusion that I see no threat to our national security. There is no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country, and, therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a war.
national security
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
October 8, 2002 2002 Ron Paul 96:3
It does something else, though. One-half of the resolution delivers this power to the President, but it also instructs him to enforce U.N. resolutions. I happen to think I would rather listen to the President when he talks about unilateralism and national security interests, than accept this responsibility to follow all of the rules and the dictates of the United Nations. That is what this resolution does. It instructs him to follow all of the resolutions.
national security
“You Are A Suspect”
14 November 2002 2002 Ron Paul 103:5
Remember Poindexter? Brilliant man, first in his class at the Naval Academy, later earned a doctorate in physics, rose to national security adviser under President Ronald Reagan. He had this brilliant idea of secretly selling missiles to Iran to pay ransom for hostages, and with the illicit proceeds to illegally support contras in Nicaragua.
national security
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.”
national security
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.
national security
The Myth of War Prosperity
March 4, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 28:8
It is hard to judge the future. Nobody can know the future because of the unintended consequences of war. We do not know how long the war will last. How much it will spread? So there are a lot of uncertainties about this. There is fear. Fear comes from the potential for war and a lot of confusion. And unfortunately, when wars are not fought for national security reasons, the popularity of the war is questioned- and this may alienate our allies. And I believe we are seeing some of that already. There is no doubt that during wartime government expands in size and scope. And this of course is a great danger. And after war, the government rarely shrinks to its original size. It grows. It may shrink a little, but inevitably the size of the government grows because of war. This is a danger because when government gets bigger, the individual has to get smaller; therefore, it diminishes personal individual liberty.
national security
Reconsider The Direction Of Our Foreign Policy
20 March 2003 2003 Ron Paul 37:3
Once this war has ended we should seriously reconsider the direction of our foreign policy. The American people have seen the ineffectiveness of our reliance upon our socalled “NATO allies” and the United Nations. Hopefully this will lead us to reconsider our role in these organizations. I hope this will be the last time Americans fight under the color of U.N. resolutions. Once this war is completed I hope we will reassess our foreign entanglements, return to the traditional U.S. foreign policy of non-intervention, and return to the standard of our own national security.
national security
War No Excuse For Frivolous Spending
3 April 2003 2003 Ron Paul 46:6
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 1559 endangers America’s economy by engaging in pork-barrel spending and corporate welfare unrelated to national security. This bill endangers America’s economic health by adding almost $80 billion to the already bloated federal deficit. Additions to the deficit endanger our financial independence because America will have to increase its reliance on foreign borrowers to finance our debt. H.R. 1599 also shortchanges Americans by giving lower priority to funding homeland security than to funding unreliable allies and projects, like the Middle Eastern TV Network, that will do nothing to enhance America’s security. Therefore, I must oppose this bill.
national security
America National Sovereignty vs. UN “International Law” – Time for Congress to Vote
April 29, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 51:2
Obviously many Americans now want to get out of the UN because they resent its refusal to sanction our war in Iraq. The administration deserves some credit for ultimately upholding the principle that American national security is not a matter of international consensus, and that we don’t need UN authorization to act. But the administration sent mixed signals by doing everything possible to obtain such authorization, and by citing UN resolutions as justification for our actions. The message seems to be that the UN is credible when we control it and it does what we want, but lacks all credibility when it refuses to do our bidding.
national security
Results Of The Attack On Iraq: What Have We Discovered
19 June 2003 2003 Ron Paul 67:7
(7) Considering the apparent lack of WMD and the total failure of the Iraqi army, claims that Iraq was a threat to United States national security appear to have been inaccurate. I publicly doubted such claims before the attack.
national security
Neo – CONNED !
July 10, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 73:65
Yes, but who is to lead the charge and decide which borders we are to fight for? What about borders 6,000 miles away unrelated to our own contiguous borders and our own national security? Stating a relative truism regarding the frequency of war throughout history should hardly be the moral justification for expanding the concept of war to settle man’s disputes. How can one call this progress?
national security
The Justifications for War
July 21, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 85:12
The sad fact is that we have lost our way. A legitimate threat to national security is no longer a litmus test for sending troops hither and yon, and the American people no longer require Congress to declare the wars we fight. Hopefully, some day this will change.
national security
Stay out of Liberia!
24 July 2003 2003 Ron Paul 90:2
We all recognize the tragedy in Liberia. A civil war has raged there for the past 14 years, leaving thousands dead and a million without homes. Horrific stories of atrocities abound. We wish for peace and a resolution to the conflict. But we must recognize that this resolution should come through regional West African efforts. These are the countries involved and affected; these are the countries with the most incentive to resolve the problem. Simply stated, there is no US national security interest at stake in the conflict - no matter how widely “national interest” is defined.
national security
We Cannot Afford Another $87 Billion in Iraq
September 16, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 98:3
The President recently reminded us that we went into Iraq to force its compliance with U.N. resolutions, since the U.N. itself was not up to the task. It was not for national security reasons. Yet we all know that the U.N. never endorsed this occupation.
national security
Defense Production Reauthorization Act
15 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 107:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, no one questions the need for the Federal Government to obtain the necessary resources to fill its constitutional role of providing for the common defense. However, the federal government must fulfill this duty in a manner that does not conflict in any way with the Constitution or endanger republican government. The Defense Production Reauthorization Act (DPA), which gives almost unchecked power to the executive to interfere in the economy in the name of “national security,” fails both of these standards. In fact, when I inquired at the sole hearing the House Financial Services Committee held on this issue as to which section of the Constitution authorized such sweeping grants of power to the Executive, I was greeted by silence from the “expert” witnesses!
national security
Supplemental Appropriation
16 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 108:7
I was a strong opponent of the war for two reasons: one, I sincerely believed our national security was not threatened, and I also was convinced that it had no relationship to 9–11; and I think those two concerns have been proven to be correct. Many who had voted against the war now suggest that they might vote for this appropriation because they feel it is necessary to vote to support the troops. I think that is a red herring argument because if we take a poll, and there have been some recent polls of the troops in Iraq, we find out that probably all of them would love to come home next week. So I do not see how a vote against this appropriation can be construed. As a matter of fact, that is challenging the motivation of those of us who will oppose the legislation, that we do not support the troops. So I am in support of voting against this appropriation.
national security
Borrowing Billions to Fund a Failed Policy in Iraq
October 17, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 110:10
I opposed our action against Iraq for two main reasons. I sincerely believed that our national security was not threatened and I did not believe that Saddam Hussein’s regime was involved in the attack on the United States on 9/11. I believe what we have learned since the intervention has supported my view. Meanwhile, while our troops are trying to police the border between Syria and Iraq our own borders remain as porous as ever. Terrorists who entered our country could easily do so again through our largely un-patrolled borders. While we expend American blood and treasure occupying a country that was not involved in the attack on the US, those who were responsible for the attack most likely are hiding out in Pakistan - a military dictatorship we are now allied with and to which this supplemental sends some $200 million in loan guarantees.
national security
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 111:2
I think so rarely we deal with policy and we deal only with technicality and accounting and an attempt made at oversight. So I would like to spend a little bit of time emphasizing a different type of foreign policy that we have become unaccustomed to. Because there was an American foreign policy once well known to us, to our country and especially to our founders, a policy of nonintervention. Today, and essentially for a hundred years, we have been following a policy of foreign intervention, that is, that we assume more than I believe we should overseas. And I object to that because I see it as not gaining a constitutional mandate as well as I see it as being a great danger to us both in the area of national defense, national security, as well as the economic dangers it presents.
national security
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 111:6
It may be that the lack of affordability may bring us to our senses before the logic of a foreign policy. That might make more sense than what we have been doing. Before the Iraqi war, the 18 months, actually there was a pretty strong debate here in the Congress. Several of us, quite a few of us, got to the floor and talked about the potentiality of war and why we thought it was a bad idea. My conclusion in October of 2002, 6 months or so before the invasion, was that we should not go in to Iraq. And it was a deeply held conviction, not only philosophically, because of a strong belief I have in nonintervention and the restraints that are placed on us by the Constitution, but also because I was convinced that our national security was not threatened by Saddam Hussein and that 9–11 had nothing to do with Iraq and Iraq had nothing to do with 9–11 nor Saddam Hussein. And I think the events since that time have proven that assumption to be correct.
national security
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 111:28
Going into Vietnam, we went once again into Vietnam without a declaration of war. It really came to no resolution other than the fact that we walked away. We had to get out because we were not winning. The determination to win was not there because the Vietnamese were not a threat to our national security. Nobody was going to declare war, but look at the difference.
national security
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 111:37
My answer is, what if you do find something? What does it prove? Does it prove that he was a threat to our national security? No way. Does it prove that it was a relationship to Iraq and 9/ 11? No way. So this obsession is for saving face and nothing more. If there was a major nuclear or chemical weapon available that was about to be unleashed against us, it would have surely been found by now, but that was not debated, but I am sure that search will go on, and “when something is found,” and I put that in quotes, there will be a lot of questions asked. More questions will be asked than answers given.
national security
Misguided Policy Of Nation Building In Iraq
17 October 2003 2003 Ron Paul 111:56
Further reading on from the Coalition for a Realistic Foreign Policy: “The defenders of empire assert that the horrific acts of terrorism on September 11 demand that we assume new financial burdens to fund an expensive national security strategy, relax our commitment to individual liberty at home, and discard our respect for stated sovereignty abroad. Nothing could be further from the truth. Following 9– 11, we should have refocused our attention on the very threats facing us in the 21st century. As a nation, we must not allow the events of 9–11 to be used as a pretext for reshaping American foreign policy in a manner inconsistent with our traditions and values and contrary to our interests.”
national security
Say No To Involuntary Servitude
November 21, 2003 2003 Ron Paul 122:5
We were told we had to support this pre-emptive war against Iraq because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (and to confront al Qaeda). It was said our national security depended on it. But all these dangers were found not to exist in Iraq. It was implied that lack of support for this Iraqi invasion was un-American and unpatriotic.
national security
Congress Abandoned its Duty to Debate and Declare War
February 4, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 1:3
But before Congress gets too carried away with condemning the administration or the intelligence gathering agencies, it ought to look to itself. A proper investigation and debate by this Congress — as we’re now scrambling to accomplish — clearly was warranted prior to any decision to go to war. An open and detailed debate on a proper declaration of war certainly would have revealed that U.S. national security was not threatened — and the whole war could have been avoided. Because Congress did not do that, it deserves the greatest criticism for its dereliction of duty.
national security
Don’t Expand NATO!
March 30, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 25:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. I do so because further expansion of NATO, an outdated alliance, is not in our national interest and may well constitute a threat to our national security in the future.
national security
The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq
June 3, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 37:19
True defense is diminished when money and energy are consumed by activities outside the scope of specifically protecting our national security. Diverting resources away from defense and the protection of our borders while antagonizing so many around the world actually serves to expose us to greater danger from more determined enemies.
national security
Spending Billions on our Failed Intelligence Agencies
June 23, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 41:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. Though I certainly recognize the legitimate national security role of our intelligence community, I have concerns about this authorization and the questionable role played by components of the intelligence community.
national security
Taiwan Relations Act — Part 1
14 July 2004 2004 Ron Paul 54:8
Most people interpret the Taiwan Relations Act as a commitment for our troops to go in and protect the Taiwanese if the Chinese would ever attack. Although it is not explicit in the act, many people interpret it that way. But I do not believe that we or a generation 25 years ago has the moral right to obligate another generation to such an overwhelming commitment, especially if it does not involve an attack on our national security. Some say that if Taiwan would be attacked, it would be. But, quite frankly, it is a stretch to say that settling that dispute over there has something to do with an attack on our national security.
national security
The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom
October 8, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 77:14
Finally, I am skeptical about the reorganization of the intelligence community in this legislation. In creating an entire new bureaucracy, the National Intelligence Director, we are adding yet another layer of bureaucracy to our already bloated federal government. Yet, we are supposed to believe that even more of the same kind of government that failed us on September 11, 2001 will make us safer. At best, this is wishful thinking. The constitutional function of our intelligence community is to protect the United States from foreign attack. Ever since its creation by the National Security Act of 1947, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has been meddling in affairs that have nothing to do with the security of the United States. Considering the CIA’s overthrow of Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadeq in the 1950s, and the CIA’s training of the Muhajadin jihadists in Afghanistan in the 1980s, it is entirely possible the actions of the CIA abroad have actually made us less safe and more vulnerable to foreign attack. It would be best to confine our intelligence community to the defense of our territory from foreign attack. This may well mean turning intelligence functions over to the Department of Defense, where they belong.
national security
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:24
There will be little resistance to spending and deficits because it will be claimed they are necessary to “fight terrorism.” The irony is that Patriot Act-type regulations were all proposed before 9-11, and are now becoming a costly burden to American businesses. I’m getting more calls every day from constituents who are being harassed by government bureaucrats for “infractions” of all kinds totally unrelated to national security. This immeasurable cost from the stepped-up activity of government bureaucrats will further burden our economy as it slips toward recession — and do little to enhance homeland security.
national security
Where To From Here?
November 20, 2004 2004 Ron Paul 81:51
Fifth : Arguing that the war in Iraq is necessary for our national security is pure fiction; that it has something to do with the 9-11 attack or WMDs is nonsense. Our meddling in the Middle East and the rest of the world actually increases the odds of us being attacked again by suicidal guerrillas here at home. Tragically, this is something the neo-cons will never admit.
national security
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:31
What if it is true that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein did nothing to enhance our national security?
national security
America’s Foreign Policy Of Intervention
26 January 2005 2005 Ron Paul 6:61
Mr. Speaker, why do I believe these are such important questions? Because the number one function of the Federal Government is to provide for national security. And national security has been severely undermined.
national security
HR 418- A National ID Bill Masquerading as Immigration Reform
February 9, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 19:11
H.R. 418 does nothing to solve the growing threat to national security posed by people who are already in the U.S. illegally. Instead, H.R. 418 states what we already know: that certain people here illegally are “deportable.” But it does nothing to mandate deportation.
national security
Consequences Of Foreign Policy — Part 2
16 March 2005 2005 Ron Paul 31:14
That statement is so appropriate. It looks like we are just looking for problems; and since the results are so poor and we cannot afford it, once again, I want to state my position that I am suggesting not so much that I know or we know exactly what is best for other people. It is that precisely we do not know and we do not have the authority, the moral, the legal, the constitutional authority to do what we do. And besides, it is a threat to our national security.
national security
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 35:3
However, conceding that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein is a far cry from endorsing the foreign policy of our own government that led to the regime change. In time it will become clear to everyone that support for the policies of pre-emptive war and interventionist nation-building will have much greater significance than the removal of Saddam Hussein itself. The interventionist policy should be scrutinized more carefully than the purported benefits of Saddam Hussein’s removal from power. The real question ought to be: “Are we better off with a foreign policy that promotes regime change while justifying war with false information?” Shifting the stated goals as events unravel should not satisfy those who believe war must be a last resort used only when our national security is threatened.
national security
Who’s Better Off?
April 6, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 35:22
Because of the war, fewer dollars are available for real national security and defense of this country. Military spending is up, but the way the money is spent distracts from true national defense and further undermines our credibility around the world.
national security
Introducing A Bill To Postpone The 2005 Round Of Defense Base Closure And Realignment
19 May 2005 2005 Ron Paul 50:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill to postpone the 2005 round of military base closure and realignment. This bill would postpone the conclusion of the Realignment report issued by the Department of Defense on 13 May 2005, as well as any preceding or subsequent plans that may ultimately be enacted to close or realign military bases on U.S. territory. This bill will postpone such closures and realignments until a specific set of criteria have been fulfilled, including until both the Defense Department and Congress have had the opportunity to fully study the recommendations and their implications for the national security and defense of the United States.
national security
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 58:12
In almost all wars, governments use deception about the enemy that needs to be vanquished to gain the support of the people. In our recent history, just since 1941, our government has entirely ignored the requirement that war be fought only after a formal congressional declaration-- further setting the stage for disenchantment once the war progresses poorly. Respect for the truth is easily sacrificed in order to rally the people for the war effort. Professional propagandists, by a coalition of the media and government officials, beat the war drums. The people follow out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic and weak in the defense of our nation-- even when there is no national security threat at all.
national security
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 58:15
This early support, before the first costs are felt, is easily achieved. Since total victory may not come quickly, however, support by the people is gradually lost. When the war is questioned, the ill-conceived justifications for getting involved are reexamined and found to have been distorted. Frequently, the people discover they were lied to, so that politicians could gain support for a war that had nothing to do with national security.
national security
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 58:37
The neo-conservatives who took us to war under false pretenses either didn’t know or didn’t care about the history and traditions of the Iraqi people. Surely they must have heard of an Islamic defensive jihad that is easy to promote when one’s country is being attacked by foreign forces. Family members have religious obligations to avenge all killings by foreign forces, which explains why killing insurgents only causes their numbers to multiply. This family obligation to seek revenge is closely tied to achieving instant eternal martyrdom through vengeful suicide attacks. Parents of martyrs do not weep as the parents of our soldiers do; they believe the suicide bombers and their families are glorified. These religious beliefs cannot simply be changed during the war. The only thing we can do is remove the incentives we give to the religious leaders of the jihad by leaving them alone. Without our presence in the Middle East, whether on the Arabian Peninsula or in Iraq, the rallying cry for suicidal jihadists would ring hollow. Was there any fear for our national security from a domestic terrorist attack by Islamists before we put a base in Saudi Arabia?
national security
The Hidden Cost of War
June 14, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 58:47
5. Ulterior motives too often preempt national security in offensive wars.
national security
Tribute To Rear Admiral John D. Butler
24 June 2005 2005 Ron Paul 74:5
Admiral Butler has also acted as an emissary with allied nation’s undersea forces, especially with both the Royal Australian Navy and with Great Britain’s Royal Navy. In doing so, he has not only strengthened our bonds with these most trusted allies, but has also enhanced national security.
national security
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:1
Many reasons have been given for why we fight and our youth must die in Iraq. The reasons now given for why we must continue this war bear no resemblance to the reasons given to gain the support of the American people and the United States Congress prior to our invasion in March of 2003. Before the war, we were told we faced an imminent threat to our national security from Saddam Hussein. This rationale, now proven grossly mistaken, has been changed. Now we’re told we must honor the fallen by “completing the mission.” To do otherwise would demean the sacrifice of those who have died or been wounded. Any lack of support for “completing the mission” is said, by the promoters of the war, to be unpatriotic, un-American, and detrimental to the troops. They insist the only way one can support the troops is to never waver on the policy of nation building, no matter how ill-founded that policy may be. The obvious flaw in this argument is that the mission, of which they so reverently speak, has changed constantly from the very beginning.
national security
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:5
In 1998 Congress capitulated to the desires of the Clinton administration and overwhelmingly passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which stated quite clearly that our policy was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. This act made it official: “The policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein.” This resolution has been cited on numerous occasions by neo-conservatives as justification for the pre-emptive, deliberate invasion of Iraq. When the resolution was debated, I saw it as a significant step toward a war that would bear no good fruit. No legitimate national security concerns were cited for this dramatic and serious shift in policy.
national security
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:11
We also were told the war was necessary for national security purposes because of the threat Saddam Hussein presented, although the evidence was fabricated. Saddam Hussein’s ability to attack us was non-existent, but the American people were ripe for alarming predictions by those who wanted this war.
national security
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:21
1. “To defend the national security of the U.S. against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and”
national security
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:47
By rejecting the advice of the Founders and our early presidents, our leaders have drifted away from the admonitions against entangling alliances and nation building. Policing the world is not our calling or our mandate. Besides, the Constitution doesn’t permit it. Undeclared wars have not enhanced our national security.
national security
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:50
Congress at any time can prevent or stop all undue foreign entanglements pursued by the executive branch merely by refusing to finance them. The current Iraq war, now going on for 15 years, spans the administration of three presidents and many congresses controlled by both parties. This makes Congress every bit as responsible for the current quagmire as the president. But the real problem is the acceptance by our country as a whole of the principle of meddling in the internal affairs of other nations when unrelated to our national security. Intervention, no matter how well intended, inevitably boomerangs and comes back to haunt us. Minding our own business is not only economical; it’s the only policy that serves our national security interests and the cause of peace.
national security
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:56
Already the suffering has begun. A lackluster recovery, low paying jobs, outsourcing, and social unrest already are apparent. This economic price we pay, along with the human suffering, is an extravagant price for a war that was started with false information and now is prolonged for reasons unrelated to our national security.
national security
Why We Fight
September 8, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 95:57
This policy has led to excessive spending overseas and neglect at home. It invites enemies to attack us, and drains the resources needed to defend our homeland and care for our own people. We are obligated to learn something from the tragedy of Katrina about the misallocation of funds away from our infrastructure to the rebuilding of Iraq after first destroying it. If ever there was a time for us to reassess our policy of foreign interventionism, it is today. It’s time to look inward and attend to the constitutional needs of our people, and forget about the grandiose schemes to remake the world in our image through the use of force. These efforts not only are doomed to fail, as they have for the past one hundred years, but they invite economic and strategic military problems that are harmful to our national security interests.
national security
The Iraq War
18 October 2005 2005 Ron Paul 104:3
Opponents of the war argue that al Qaeda radicals who planned the attacks were not allies of Saddam Hussein, and that Iraq posed no threat to our national security. They further argue that our occupation of Iraq now inspires a growing number of radical Islamists to join the ranks of al Qaeda and support its war against U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.
national security
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.
national security
Big Lies and Little Lies
November 2, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 116:6
The decision to go to war is profound. It behooves Congress to ask more questions and investigate exactly how the President, Congress, and the people were misled into believing that invading Iraq was necessary for our national security.
national security
Congress Erodes Privacy
November 16, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 121:4
From the 1970s forward, national security letters were used sparingly in circumventing the legal process and search warrant requirements. Since 9-11 and the subsequent passage of the Patriot Act, however, use of these instruments has skyrocketed, from 300 annually to over 30,000. There is essentially no oversight nor understanding by the U.S. Congress of the significance of this pervasive government surveillance. It’s all shrugged off as necessary to make us safe from terrorism. Sacrificing personal liberty and privacy, the majority feels, is not a big deal.
national security
Congress Erodes Privacy
November 16, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 121:7
But if we’re honest with ourselves we would admit that the 4 th amendment is essentially a dead letter. There has been no effort to curb the abuse of national security letters nor to comprehend the significance of Echelon. Hard-fought liberties are rapidly slipping away from us.
national security
The Blame Game
December 7, 2005 2005 Ron Paul 124:35
Personal liberty at home is under attack; assaults on free speech and privacy, national ID cards, the Patriot Act, National Security letters, and challenges to habeas corpus all have been promoted;
national security
Foreign Policy
17 December 2005 2005 Ron Paul 128:25
Personal liberty at home is under attack; assaults on free speech and privacy, national ID cards, the PATRIOT Act, National Security Letters, and challenges to habeas corpus all have been promoted.
national security
The End Of Dollar Hegemony
15 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 3:89
Considering the war had nothing to do with our national security, we are talking big bucks being wasted in lining the pockets of well-connected American corporations. Waste, fraud, stupidity, and no-bid contracts characterize the process; and it is all done in the name of patriotism and national security. Dissenters are accused of supporting the enemy. Now, this is a ripoff that a little tinkering with House rules and restraints on lobbyists won’t do much to solve.
national security
Don’t Rush To War In Iran
16 February 2006 2006 Ron Paul 4:6
There has been no talk, it has been implied, but there has been no serious talk that Iran is a threat to our national security. There is no way. Even if they had nuclear weapons, they are not going to be a threat to our national security. Pakistan, that is not a democratic nation. It happens to be a military dictatorship. They have nuclear weapons. India has nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact, the nuclear weapons serve as a balance of power between two countries. The Soviets, had 30,000 nuclear weapons, and we followed a policy of containment. We did not say we have to go into the Soviet Union and bomb their establishment. No. Finally that problem dissipated. And yet we create unnecessary problems for ourselves. We go looking for trouble, and I see this as very detrimental for what we are doing with this resolution.
national security
S. 2271 Fails To Address The Constitutional Flaws In The PATRIOT Act
7 March 2006 2006 Ron Paul 9:4
Among S. 2271’s flaws are provisions restricting recipients of a “gag” order regarding government seizure of private records from seeking judicial review of such orders for a year and requiring that recipients prove government officials acted in “bad faith,” a ridiculously high standard, simply to be able to communicate that the government has ordered them to turn over private records. The bill also requires that recipients of National Security Letters, which can be abused to sidestep the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, provide the FBI with the names of any attorneys from whom they have sought legal counsel from. S. 2271 would thus prohibit a National Security Letter recipient from even asking a lawyer for advice on complying with the letter without having to report it to the FBI. In fact, S. 2271 requires National Security Letter recipients to give the FBI the names of anyone they tell about the letter. This provision will likely have a chilling effect on a recipient of a National Security Letters ability to seek legal advice or other assistance in challenging or even complying with the National Security Letter.
national security
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:3
The significant question we must ask ourselves is, what have we learned from these 3 years in Iraq? With plans now being laid for regime change in Iran, it appears we have learned absolutely nothing. There still are plenty of administration officials who daily paint a rosy picture of the Iraq we have created. But I wonder, if the past 3 years were nothing more than a bad dream and our Nation suddenly awakened, how many would for national security reasons urge the same invasion? Or would we instead give a gigantic sigh of relief that it was only a bad dream, that we need not relive the 3- year nightmare of death, destruction, chaos and stupendous consumption of tax dollars? Conceivably, we would still see oil prices under $30 a barrel, and, most importantly, 20,000 severe U.S. casualties would not have occurred. My guess is 99 percent of all Americans would be thankful it was only a bad dream and would never support the invasion knowing what we know today.
national security
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:15
For the past 3 years, it has been inferred that, if one is not in support of the current policy, one is against the troops and supports the enemy. Lack of support for the war in Iraq was said to be supportive of Saddam Hussein and his evil policies. This is an insulting and preposterous argument. Those who argued for the containment of the Soviets were never deemed sympathetic to Stalin or Kruschev. Lack of support for the Iraq war should never be used as an argument that one was sympathetic to Saddam Hussein. Containment and diplomacy are far superior to confront an enemy, and are less costly and far less dangerous, especially when there is no evidence that our national security is being threatened.
national security
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:41
The President’s 2006 National Security Strategy, just released, is every bit as frightening as the one released in 2002 endorsing preemptive war. In it he claims, “We face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran.” He claims the Iranians have for 20 years hidden key nuclear activities, though the IAEA makes no such assumption, nor has the Security Council in at least 20 years ever sanctioned Iran. The clincher in the National Security Strategy document is if diplomatic efforts fail, confrontation will follow. The problem is the diplomatic effort, if one wants to use that term, is designed to fail by demanding the Iranians prove an unprovable negative. The West, led by the U.S., is in greater violation by demanding Iran not pursue any nuclear technology, even peaceful, that the NPT guarantees is their right.
national security
Iran, The Next Neocon Target
5 April 2006 2006 Ron Paul 21:67
Intervention just doesn’t work. It backfires and ultimately hurts the American citizens both at home and abroad. Spreading ourselves too thin around the world actually diminishes our national security through a weakened military. As the only superpower of the world, a constant interventionist policy is perceived as arrogant, and greatly undermines our ability to use diplomacy in a positive manner.
national security
Society For Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications
29 June 2006 2006 Ron Paul 49:3
Congress should examine all government programs that monitor the financial transactions of American citizens to ensure they are effective and they do not violate the rights of Americans. Unfortunately, many of my colleagues are attacking newspapers that inform the American people about government surveillance on the grounds that revealing that the federal government is monitoring financial transactions somehow damages national security. It is odd to claim that, until last Friday, neither the American people nor America’s enemies had any idea that the government is engaging in massive surveillance of financial transactions, since the government has been openly operating major financial surveillance programs since the 1970s and both the administration and Congress have repeatedly discussed increasing the government’s power to monitor financial transactions. In fact, such an expansion of the government’s ability to spy on Americans’ banking activites was a major part of the PATRIOT Act.
national security
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:38
Short wars, with well-defined victories, are tolerated by the American people even when they are misled as to the reasons for the war. Wars entered into without a proper declaration tend to be politically motivated and not for national security reasons. These wars, by their very nature, are prolonged, costly, and usually require a new administration to finally end them. This certainly was true with the Korean and Vietnam wars. The lack of a quick military success, the loss of life and limb, and the huge economic costs of lengthy wars precipitate anger. This is overwhelmingly true when the war propaganda that stirred up illegitimate fears is exposed as a fraud. Most soon come to realize the promise of guns and butter is an illusion. They come to understand that inflation, a weak economy, and a prolonged war without real success are the reality.
national security
Why Are Americans So Angry?
June 29, 2006 2006 Ron Paul 52:47
But no one is allowed to ask the obvious. How have the 2,500 plus deaths, and the 18,500 wounded, made us more free? What in the world does Iraq have to do with protecting our civil liberties here at home? What national security threat prompted America’s first pre-emptive war? How does our unilateral enforcement of UN resolutions enhance our freedoms?
national security
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.
national security
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:40
In both instances, Korea and Vietnam, neither country attacked us, and neither country posed a threat to our national security.
national security
Big-Government Solutions Don’t Work
7 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 74:69
We are constantly being told that we cannot abandon Iraq, and we are obligated to stay forever if necessary. This admonition is similar to a rallying cry from a determined religious missionary bent on proselytizing to the world with a particular religious message. Conceding that leaving may not be a panacea for Iraqi tranquility, this assumption ignores two things: One, our preemptive war ignited the Iraqi civil war; and, two, abandoning the Iraqi people is not the question. The real question is whether or not we should abandon the American people by forcing them to pay for an undeclared war with huge economic and human costs while placing our national security in greater jeopardy by ignoring our borders and serious problems here at home.
national security
Warrantless Wiretaps
28 september 2006 2006 Ron Paul 91:6
Warrantless wiretapping may hinder the ability to identify true threats to safety. This is because experience has shown that, when Congress makes it easier for the federal government to monitor the activities of Americans, there is a tendency to collect so much information that it becomes impossible to weed out the true threats. My colleagues should consider how the over-filing of “suspicious transaction reports” regarding financial transactions hampers effective anti-terrorism efforts. According to investigative journalist James Bovard, writing in the Baltimore Sun on June 28, “[a] U.N. report on terrorist financing released in May 2002 noted that a ‘suspicious transaction report’ had been filed with the U.S. government over a $69,985 wire transfer that Mohamed Atta, leader of the hijackers, received from the United Arab Emirates. The report noted that ‘this particular transaction was not noticed quickly enough because the report was just one of a very large number and was not distinguishable from those related to other financial crimes.’ ” Congress should be skeptical, to say the least, regarding the assertion that allowing federal bureaucrats to accumulate even more data without having to demonstrate a link between the data sought and national security will make the American people safer.
national security
Introducing The Sunlight Rule
12 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 15:1
Mr. PAUL. Madam Speaker, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.” In order to shine sunlight on the practices of the House of Representatives, and thus restore public trust and integrity to this institution, I am introducing the sunlight rule, which amends House rules to ensure that members have adequate time to study a bill before being asked to vote on it. One of the chief causes of increasing public cynicism regarding Congress is the way major pieces of legislation are brought to the floor without members having an opportunity to read the bills. For example, concerns have been raised that in the opening days of the 110th Congress, legislation dealing with important topics such as national security are being brought to the floor before members have had an opportunity to adequately study the legislation.
national security
Mr. Bush, Meet Walter Jones
17 January 2007 2007 Ron Paul 18:12
On ABC last Sunday, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, while denying Bush intends to attack Iran, nonetheless did not deny Bush had the authority to escalate the war — right into Iran.
national security
Does Anybody Care? Has Anybody Noticed?
7 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 23:12
We completely ignore the leaders of Iran’s National Security Council who have made reasonable statements about the United States and are open to direct talks with us?
national security
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.
national security
Statement On The Iraq War Resolution
14 February 2007 2007 Ron Paul 26:14
There is no logical reason to reject the restraints placed in the Constitution regarding our engaging in foreign conflicts unrelated to our national security. The advice of the founders and our early Presidents was sound then, and it is sound today.
national security
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:9
It is conveniently ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of danger’s undeclared no-win wars that are politically inspired. Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national security and, for that matter, may even damage our security, is hardly a way to patriotically support the troops.
national security
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:32
These errors in judgment in understanding the motive of the enemy and the constant fear that is generated have brought us to this crisis where our civil liberties and privacy are being steadily eroded in the name of preserving national security.
national security
In The Name Of Patriotism (Who Are The Patriots?)
22 May 2007 2007 Ron Paul 55:49
Unsound policy can never help the troops. Keeping the troops out of harm’s way and out of wars unrelated to our national security is the only real way of protecting the troops. With this understanding, just who can claim the title of “patriot”?
national security
Introducing A Bill To establish A Sunset For The Authorization For The Use Of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution Of 2002 (Public Law 107-243)
7 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 60:2
The rationale for this sunset is that according to the 2002 authorization for Iraq, the President was authorized to use military force against Iraq to achieve the following two specific objectives only: “( 1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.”
national security
Calling On The United Nations Security Council To Charge Iranian President With Certain Violations Because Of His Calls For Destruction Of Israel
18 June 2007 2007 Ron Paul 70:4
I strongly urge my colleagues to consider a different approach to Iran, and to foreign policy in general. GEN William Odom, President Reagan’s director of the National Security Agency, outlined a much more sensible approach in a recent article titled “Exit From Iraq Should Be Through Iran.” General Odom wrote: “Increasingly bogged down in the sands of Iraq, the US thrashes about looking for an honorable exit. Restoring cooperation between Washington and Tehran is the single most important step that could be taken to rescue the U.S. from its predicament in Iraq.” General Odom makes good sense. We need to engage the rest of the world, including Iran and Syria, through diplomacy, trade, and travel rather than pass threatening legislation like this that paves the way to war. We have seen the limitations of force as a tool of U.S. foreign policy. It is time to try a more traditional and conservative approach. I urge a “no” vote on this resolution.
national security
Statement on HR 2956, the Responsible Redeployment From Iraq
12 July 2007 2007 Ron Paul 75:6
A discussion of United States national security interests in Iraq and the broader Middle East region and the diplomatic, political, economic, and military components of a comprehensive strategy to maintain and advance such interests as the Armed Forces are redeployed from Iraq pursuant to section 3 of this Act.
national security
Statement on HR 2956, the Responsible Redeployment From Iraq
12 July 2007 2007 Ron Paul 75:7
In other words, far from extricating ourselves from the debacle in Iraq, this bill would set in motion a policy that could lead to a wider regional commitment, both financially and militarily. Such a policy would be disastrous for both our overextended national security forces and beleaguered taxpayers. This could, in fact, amount to an authorization for a region-wide “surge.”
national security
Statement on FISA Amendments
14 March 2008 2008 Ron Paul 15:5
Just today, we read in the news that the federal government has massively abused its ability to monitor us by improperly targeting Americans through the use of “national security letters.” Apparently some 60 percent of the more than 50,000 national security letters targeted Americans, rather than foreign terrorists, for surveillance.
national security
Statement on H Res 1194, “Reaffirming the support of the House of Representatives for the legitimate, democratically-elected Government of Lebanon under Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.”
May 20, 2008 2008 Ron Paul 30:2
This language is eerily similar to a key clause in the 2002 Iraq war authorization, H.J. Res. 114, which read: (a) AUTHORIZATION—The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to— (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;
national security
WHAT IF?
February 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 15:2
What if our foreign policy of the past century is deeply flawed and has not served our national security interests?
national security
WHAT IF?
February 12, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 15:17
What if the American people learn the truth: that our foreign policy has nothing to do with national security and it never changes from one administration to the next?
national security
Statement on War Supplemental Appropriations
June 16, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 67:4
Mr. Speaker, I continue to believe that the best way to support our troops is to bring them home from Iraq and Afghanistan. If one looks at the original authorization for the use of force in Afghanistan, it is clear that the ongoing and expanding nation-building mission there has nothing to do with our goal of capturing and bringing to justice those who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001. Our continued presence in Iraq and Afghanistan does not make us more safe at home, but in fact it undermines our national security. I urge my colleagues to defeat this reckless conference report.
national security
Statement Opposing Resolution on Iran
June 19, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 72:3
I adhere to the foreign policy of our Founders, who advised that we not interfere in the internal affairs of countries overseas. I believe that is the best policy for the United States, for our national security and for our prosperity. I urge my colleagues to reject this and all similar meddling resolutions.
national security
Foreign Policy
September 30, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 92:2
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill. Sometimes I wonder how we can, with a straight face, bring a bill up like this with the conditions of this country, especially financially. I oppose this bill for two reasons. One, we don’t have the money. That would be a pretty good reason not to support it. And the other reason is I do not believe it’s in our national security interests. I know this is being promoted as benefiting our national security, but I do not believe it helps us one bit. This bill was essentially voted on in June, and the vote was 234–185, which means that it is assumed at least 56 or more individuals in the Congress have switched their votes.
national security
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.
national security
Afghanistan, Part 1
November 18, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 96:3
Now they have practically run out of excuses for why we are over in Afghanistan. The only one that is left that they seem to cling to is that we are there for national security; we want to fight the bad guys over there because we don’t want to fight them over here. I will talk a little about that later; but, quite frankly, I think that’s a fallacious argument and actually makes things a lot worse.
national security
Afghanistan, Part 1
November 18, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 96:7
And then, following that, we had decades of bombing in Iraq which didn’t please the Arabs and the Muslims of the world and certainly the Iraqis, but it had nothing to do with national security.
national security
THE QUAGMIRE OF AFGHANISTAN
December 2, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 101:7
Today it is said that we’re over there to protect our national security to go into Afghanistan. Well, it’s down to 100 al Qaedas in Afghanistan, and, quite frankly, the Afghan Government had nothing to do – they said they harbored the al Qaeda, and that is true, but do you think those 19 guys needed to do pushups in Afghanistan to come over here and do what they did? The real planning wasn’t in Afghanistan. It was in Spain. It was in Germany. Where was the real training? The real training was in Florida. The training was in Florida, and the FBI had evidence at the time that they were being trained, and it’s totally ignored. And yet we are concentrating, we are still back to 9/11, fear of nuclear war. We have to go in, scare the people.
national security
Statement Before Foreign Affairs Committee
December 10, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 103:7
Nevertheless, the president’s National Security Advisor, Gen. James Jones, USMC (Ret.), said in a recent interview that less than 100 al-Qaeda remain in Afghanistan and that the chance they would reconstitute a significant presence there was slim. Are we to believe that 30,000 more troops are needed to defeat 100 al-Qaeda fighters? I fear that there will be increasing pressure for the US to invade Pakistan, to where many Taliban and al-Qaeda have escaped. Already CIA drone attacks on Pakistan have destabilized that country and have killed scores of innocents, producing strong anti-American feelings and calls for revenge. I do not see how that contributes to our national security.
national security
Sanctions on Iran, Part 1
December 15, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 104:1
Mr. PAUL. The chairman states that the main purpose of this bill is to prevent the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. That isn’t even as powerful a statement as was made that enticed us into the Iraq war. There was the claim that they already had them. But now, this is a pretense, and yet here we are taking these drastic steps. My main reason for opposing this bill is that I think it’s detrimental to our national security. There’s no other reason. It doesn’t serve our interests. So I am absolutely opposed to it.
national security
Sanctions on Iran, Part 1
December 15, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 104:7
They can’t even make enough gasoline for themselves. I mean, they are not a threat. They don’t have an army worth anything. They don’t have a navy. They don’t have an air force. They don’t have intercontinental ballistic missiles. So it is not a threat to our national security. I see the threat to our national security with this type of policy which could come and backfire and hurt us.
national security
Sanctions on Iran, Part 2
December 15, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 105:3
Anybody who believes that taking gasoline away from the common person in Iran is going to motivate them to get rid of their Ayatollah – it’s the Ayatollah that carries the power – that’s not going to happen. It just does exactly the opposite. So this is why I believe this is a much greater threat to our national security. It does not help us. It doesn’t achieve the goals that are set out.
national security
Sanctions on Iran, Part 2
December 15, 2009 2009 Ron Paul 105:8
And besides, our national security does not depend on what we do in the Middle East. Our national security is threatened by this. We are overstretched. We’re broke. And this is part of the strategy, as I mentioned before. Our archenemies in that region want to bankrupt us. They want to stir up hatred toward us, and they want to bog us down. And they’re achieving what their goals are.
national security
- Paul's legislation focuses on individual liberty
25 August 1997 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 8 ... Cached
But what we have today is not nearly as bad as what the president and his friends have indicated they hope it will become. First, the president has proposed the "Service to America Initiative' which would allow Americorps to use Selective Service resources to promote his brand of federally subsidized, so-called 'volunteerism' in Americorps. To use Selective Service, ostensibly a program designed to enhance our national security, as a means to bolster President Clinton's liberal, failing Americorps is completely ridiculous. And it sets a dangerous precedent.
national security
- Paul's legislation focuses on individual liberty
25 August 1997 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 1997 verse 10 ... Cached
HR 2029 has been sent to my committee, the Education and Workforce Committee, as well as the National Security Committee.
national security
- Congress continues to ignore Constitution in the appropriations process
29 September 1997 Texas Straight Talk 29 September 1997 verse 7 ... Cached
It's almost criminal that we're spreading thin our troops around the globe, putting them dangerously in harms' way, for no national security reasons. Our nation is made weaker by letting the UN commandeer our troops. We need to get our troops back under our command, withdraw them from these regional conflicts, and concentrate on protecting our borders and not policing the world.
national security
- Neutrality and dialogue, not intervention, will secure peace
24 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 7 ... Cached
There is no direct national security interests for us to be in Iraq. We are not the policeman of the world, we can't afford it, and our interventionist efforts usually backfire. Our policy in this region has been designed more to promote the United Nations than to deal with any threat to our national security. Control of the region's huge oil reserves is a much more important factor than U.S. security.
national security
- Neutrality and dialogue, not intervention, will secure peace
24 November 1997 Texas Straight Talk 24 November 1997 verse 15 ... Cached
Policy toward Iraq is based on the special interests of powerful financial and oil interests. It is not designed to protect U.S. national security. It is instead a threat to our security because it may lead to war and loss of American lives, increase terrorism and certainly an additional expense for the US taxpayer. The hyped rhetoric coming from Washington which describes Hussein as the only evil monster with which we must deal in the world is a poor substitute for wise counsel.
national security
- President opts to use taxpayer fund to bailout wealthy investors
29 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 1997 verse 14 ... Cached
And while $1.7 billion may not seem like a lot to the quasi-socialist nations like Korea, it represents a significant amount of money to most Americans. By giving away almost $2 billion to a foreign government at a time when we face a continually growing national debt, proposals to cut benefits to senior citizens and veterans, and an tax rate of over 50 percent, it seems our national security and well-being is weakened by this maneuver, not mystically increased as the president would have us all believe.
national security
- President opts to use taxpayer fund to bailout wealthy investors
29 December 1997 Texas Straight Talk 29 December 1997 verse 15 ... Cached
But then, worrying about real national security, the risk to the taxpayers, and the viability of our own economy, is something upon which most politicians prefer not to dwell.
national security
1998 is a new chance to change government for better
05 January 1998 Texas Straight Talk 05 January 1998 verse 11 ... Cached
I will also continue my work in promoting the popular HR 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act. This measure represents a step toward halting the cessation of power from the federal government to international bodies such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization and the World Bank, by withdrawing the US from the UN. Under our Constitution, the federal government - including the President, the Congress and the courts - is not allowed to give away power and responsibility to these bodies, simply because the power is not theirs to give: Only the people have the power in our nation. Under the auspices of these international bodies, American boys have died in battle not for American interests, or in wars declared by Congress as the Constitution requires. With each of these senseless deaths - from Korea and Vietnam to Haiti and Bosnia - our national security is inherently and irreparably weakened.
national security
US must not trample Constitution to attack Iraq
16 February 1998 Texas Straight Talk 16 February 1998 verse 10 ... Cached
Why does the American soldier and taxpayer have to bear the burden of enforcing UN dictates? It is simply immoral for the US to enter into a war which has no objectives other than to kill people with whom we disagree for the sake of looking tough on the world stage. The only moral war is a defensive war to preserve our national security.
national security
Trade, not aid or isolation, should be US foreign policy
22 June 1998 Texas Straight Talk 22 June 1998 verse 16 ... Cached
A more sensible - constitutionally, morally and economically - alternative to our current foreign policy is one of engagement by individuals in trade, and an end to the imperious system of foreign aid. Unless a nation represents a clear and present danger to our national security, we should allow, even encourage, our best ambassadors - who are our businessmen, our farmers, our ranchers - to engage in mutually beneficial trade with people of all nations and regions. As goods are traded, so are ideas. And just as American products are the finest in the world, so too is the philosophy of liberty.
national security
"Wagging" imperialism as bad as the Dog
24 August 1998 Texas Straight Talk 24 August 1998 verse 14 ... Cached
"Wag the Dog" or not, "wagging" a foreign policy flawed from the start is indeed a great danger to our national security, and we should soon start talking seriously about a policy designed for truly preserving American interests -- freedom and prosperity here at home. Let us soon end the on-going Persian Gulf War. It is not winnable.
national security
"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.
national security
'High crimes and misdemeanors'
07 September 1998 Texas Straight Talk 07 September 1998 verse 15 ... Cached
Congress must move forward now to secure the integrity of our system of justice, protect the liberties of our people, and to ensure our national security. But Congress must move forward with hearings for the sake of this president and the office he holds. If this president has done nothing meriting impeachment, public hearings will vindicate him and the sordid allegations - and purveyors of the falsehoods - will be revealed.
national security
The Ominous Budget Deal
26 October 1998 Texas Straight Talk 26 October 1998 verse 5 ... Cached
But one thing is clear, the omnibus package has ominous implications for those Americans concerned about our national security.
national security
Middle East peace: déjà vu all over again
02 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 02 November 1998 verse 9 ... Cached
Once again the United States is acting out of its league in trying to induce Israel to trade their security for an almost certain temporary peace, while attempting to persuade Palestinians to accept only a fraction of what they want. While past meddling has resulted mostly in US commitments to sending more tax dollars as aid to both sides, this time the costs may be much greater. Costly in lives, costly in national security, and costly in precedence.
national security
Middle East peace: déjà vu all over again
02 November 1998 Texas Straight Talk 02 November 1998 verse 13 ... Cached
We are then faced with an ever-increasing national security risk of protecting citizens abroad and at home from terrorists who blame us for interfering in their holy wars and causes.
national security
Unconstitutional wars gravest of crimes
21 December 1998 Texas Straight Talk 21 December 1998 verse 8 ... Cached
In what should be regarded as the gravest of all crimes, these citizens were sent to their deaths unconstitutionally. And, it should be noted, for actions we lost. We lost those wars simply because they were not matters of urgency in protecting our national security, but political battles waged to appease one interest group or another. Without the full resolve of Congress and a declaration of war to protect our security, our military must deal with such vague politically correct objectives as "reducing the ability" of a foreign leader to potentially do something. How does one define a "reduced ability," let alone bring such an objective to fruition?
national security
Stopping the President's New Little War
15 February 1999 Texas Straight Talk 15 February 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
The issue is one of responsibility. As the history of the last half-century has shown, once troops are sent into a foreign war, it is very difficult to bring them home. Without a pressing national security threat and declaration of war, there are no clear objectives, and, hence, no way to measure when a job is finished.
national security
Stopping the President's New Little War
15 February 1999 Texas Straight Talk 15 February 1999 verse 15 ... Cached
Troops in Kosovo will not serve the interests of the United States, nor further our national security. In fact, national security will be jeopardized as our presence in the region only increases the likelihood of needless involvement in an all-out war. Even Pentagon officials have been critical of a Kosovo operation because troops are already spread so thinly around the world, there are no defined objectives, and the resources could be better utilized.
national security
Playing with matches in the powder keg
05 April 1999 Texas Straight Talk 05 April 1999 verse 9 ... Cached
Of course, what is also not lost on our military is that this Administration does not really worry about things like military morale. After all, the Air Force is trying to wage this mission with a record low number of pilots, diminishing weapons and resorting to cannibalizing pilot-less aircraft for spare parts. The other branches are likewise seeing fewer recruits. And it is no wonder! Why would any young person choose military service -- or to stay in the military -- when it may require being captured by hostile forces, in the most untenable of situations, while performing missions that have no relation to our national security under the command of foreign leaders?
national security
China is only winner in scandals
31 May 1999 Texas Straight Talk 31 May 1999 verse 5 ... Cached
What has come out is not necessarily new -- so much has been dribbled out in leaks to the press that no one could claim to really be surprised -- but the report is nothing if not shocking in what it reveals about the state of our national security.
national security
China is only winner in scandals
31 May 1999 Texas Straight Talk 31 May 1999 verse 12 ... Cached
That the Administration considers as the highest of priorities to kill innocent civilians and spend billions fighting in Yugoslavia's civil war, which does not involve us or even a region of strategic significance, while ignoring what is arguably the greatest breach of national security in our history, probably should not surprise any of us. This is just one more example of our 40-year-old schizophrenic foreign policy.
national security
China is only winner in scandals
31 May 1999 Texas Straight Talk 31 May 1999 verse 13 ... Cached
Almost two years ago, long before Monica Lewinsky and the national soap opera begun, several Members and I introduced an Inquiry into Impeachment because of the then-materializing allegations involving these serious breaches of national security, among other similar charges. Of course, this Congress -- and indeed much of the nation -- was disinterested in pursuing such an investigation, apparently because it is far less ribald than the obsession with sex, though arguably more dangerous.
national security
China is only winner in scandals
31 May 1999 Texas Straight Talk 31 May 1999 verse 14 ... Cached
Congress has an obligation to safeguard our nation from foreign powers. The Constitution clearly defines protection of national security as one of the very few actual powers of the federal government.
national security
Free trade makes sense
07 June 1999 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 1999 verse 16 ... Cached
The correct solution to this seeming quagmire is one which few in (or for that matter, outside) Washington will promote. The US government should immediately end all taxpayer subsidization of China, including funds funneled through the Export-Import Bank and the World Bank. Congress should immediately require that when the government enters into contracts with companies to develop and manufacture goods critical to our national security, those companies agree to do no business with China.
national security
Restricting the Executive Orders
02 August 1999 Texas Straight Talk 02 August 1999 verse 11 ... Cached
I have introduced legislation, along with Rep. Jack Metcalf of Washington, that would bring our federal system into proper balance. The Separation of Powers Restoration Act (HR2655) prohibits a presidential order from having the effect of law by restricting the scope of the directives. In addition, it repeals the 1973 War Powers Act, which -- despite the constitutional prohibition -- granted broad war-making authority to the Office of the President. Further, the legislation suspends all of the "national emergencies" which have been declared since 1976, when Congress last canceled them. Still on the books are "emergencies" relating to Iraq and the Soviet bloc. These emergency declarations give presidents great authority, even if the situation no longer presents a threat to our national security.
national security
The Danger of Military Foreign Aid to Colombia
11 September 2000 Texas Straight Talk 11 September 2000 verse 7 ... Cached
The American people do not support our actions in Colombia. Polls have shown that approximately 70% of Americans do not support defending foreign countries if U.S. soldiers are put in jeopardy. Our primary concern in military affairs should be maintaining a strong national defense and protecting our national security interests. Our actions in Colombia have nothing to with our national defense, and they undermine our national security by creating resentment from factions we do not support. We must remember that money spent in Colombia necessarily reduces spending on a variety of more important issues. We should build up our military, providing our soldiers with better salaries, housing, and medical care. Similarly, foreign aid dollars could be spent on education, Social Security, or Medicare. My constituents do not support our dangerous and expensive involvement in Colombia, and I intend to continue working to eliminate wasteful foreign aid in our next budget.
national security
Our Foolish War in the Middle East
20 November 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 November 2000 verse 5 ... Cached
It is clear that we are not in the Middle East for national security reasons, but rather to protect powerful commercial interests. This assures we protect oil supplies for the West, and provides us with an excuse to keep the military industrial complex active.
national security
Our Foolish War in the Middle East
20 November 2000 Texas Straight Talk 20 November 2000 verse 9 ... Cached
Our many failures in the last fifty years should prompt us to reassess our entire foreign policy of interventionism. We must end our efforts to police the world. Our failures in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, and the Middle East, and our failures yet come to in Bosnia and Kosovo should alert all Americans to this great danger. Instead we continue to expand our military adventurism into more sovereign nations (this time it's the 30-year civil conflict in Columbia). Congress and the administration must understand that the greatest threat to our national security is our own bad policy.
national security
Spy Plane Incident Shows a Need for New Policies
23 April 2001 Texas Straight Talk 23 April 2001 verse 3 ... Cached
The recent incident involving our spy plane in China is not without precedent. In fact, the U.S. has flown spy missions in the region for 50 years. 16 Americans died in 1956 when their Navy reconnaissance plane crashed into the China Sea under remarkably similar circumstances. When told of the tragedy, then-President Dwight Eisenhower remarked that "We seem to be conducting something that we cannot control very well. If planes were flying 20 to 50 miles from our shores we would be very likely to shoot them down if they came in closer, whether through error or not." Eisenhower knew that if the situation was reversed, the U.S. would have reacted even more forcefully than the Chinese. He understood that our spy flights provoked military conflict. To understand this, simply imagine the outcry for a military response today if Chinese spy planes were flying off the gulf Coast of Texas. When our intelligence gathering actually weakens national security by provoking conflict, we must rethink our policies. It is time to accept that the risk of starting a war with China outweighs the marginal benefits obtained from flying spy missions off its coasts.
national security
Statement on the Congressional Authorization of the Use of Force
17 September 2001 Texas Straight Talk 17 September 2001 verse 4 ... Cached
Sadly we find ourselves today dealing with our responsibility to provide national security under the most difficult of circumstances.
national security
Statement on the Congressional Authorization of the Use of Force
17 September 2001 Texas Straight Talk 17 September 2001 verse 11 ... Cached
Too often over the last several decades we have supported both sides of many wars only to find ourselves needlessly entrenched in conflicts unrelated to our national security. It is not unheard of that the weapons and support we send to foreign nations have ended up being used against us. The current crisis may well be another example of such a mishap.
national security
Statement on the Congressional Authorization of the Use of Force
17 September 2001 Texas Straight Talk 17 September 2001 verse 12 ... Cached
Although we now must fight to preserve our national security we should not forget that the founders of this great nation advised that for our own sake we should stay out of entangling alliances and the affairs of other nations.
national security
Sane and Sensible Immigration Policies in the Wake of September 11th
07 January 2002 Texas Straight Talk 07 January 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
Immigration policy must now be considered a matter of national security. America has the same sovereign right to defend itself against enemies when the enemy attacks us from within. Common sense tells us that we currently should not be admitting aliens from nations that sponsor or harbor terrorists, or from nations with whom we are at war. There were many fine German-Americans in the U.S. during World War II, but we certainly did not allow open immigration from Germany until hostilities had ceased and loyalties could be determined. While we generally should welcome people from around the world whenever possible, we cannot allow potential enemies or terrorists to enter the country now under any circumstances. Legislation I introduced in the fall would restrict immigration, including the granting of heavily abused student visas, by individuals from nations listed as terrorist threats by the State department.
national security
Optimism or Pessimism for the Future of Liberty?
11 February 2002 Texas Straight Talk 11 February 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
The dangers facing America in this new era cannot be overstated. Our national security and our economic well-being have been shaken. The prospects for the future of liberty and prosperity seem uncertain.
national security
Before We Bomb Baghdad...
04 March 2002 Texas Straight Talk 04 March 2002 verse 8 ... Cached
Congress should not allow any administration to take our nation to war without the consent of the people. I fear that we are about to embark on an undeclared, unconstitutional war in Iraq that is exceedingly unwise and fraught with unforeseen consequences. This war will have nothing to do with US national security or Iraqi aggression. It will, however, make us all less secure by antagonizing millions of Muslims who understand the necessity of our actions against Al-Queda, but who will object to an invasion of Iraq.
national security
Federal Intelligence and Terrorism
20 May 2002 Texas Straight Talk 20 May 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
Last week ended with a flurry of news stories alleging that the Bush administration had advance knowledge of the September 11th terrorist attacks. The President’s political opponents wasted little time in seizing the opportunity to accuse him of a coverup, implying that he allowed the terrible events of that day to happen through inaction. Most Americans rightfully dismiss these accusations and recognize them as partisan opportunism, knowing that President Bush would never willfully allow such a tragedy to take place if he could have prevented it. We need to raise the tenor of the debate in Washington and place national security interests before party interests.
national security
Entangling Alliances Distort our Foreign Policy
16 September 2002 Texas Straight Talk 16 September 2002 verse 3 ... Cached
America has an absolute sovereign right to defend itself. We do not need permission from the UN or anybody else to use military force. What is needed, however, is a congressional declaration of war. Our Constitution does not permit any President to initiate war simply because the UN gives him permission. When we seek permission, or even mere approval, from the United Nations, we give credibility to the terrible notion that American national security is a matter of international consensus. America alone should decide whether to send its sons and daughters to war.
national security
Entangling Alliances Distort our Foreign Policy
16 September 2002 Texas Straight Talk 16 September 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
I’m disappointed that the President has chosen to further entangle the American people with the United Nations by rejoining UNESCO. For decades UNESCO has promoted its anti-American "education" agenda with our tax dollars. President Reagan was right to withdraw America from the politicized and corrupt UNESCO, especially since American taxpayers funded a whopping 25% of its budget. Our new promised financial commitment to UNESCO is at least $60 million annually. Given our present economic problems and immediate national security concerns, we surely cannot afford to send even more taxpayer dollars to the UN- especially to an organization that actively promotes values so contrary to those of most Americans.
national security
Entangling Alliances Distort our Foreign Policy
16 September 2002 Texas Straight Talk 16 September 2002 verse 7 ... Cached
This schizophrenic approach inevitably gives us the worst of both worlds. We give up our sovereignty, but fail to win any real allies. We pay all the bills, risk the lives of our young people, and invite UN meddling in our domestic laws, yet still we sow the seeds of discontent and future hostility with the world community. All because we have abandoned our Constitution and the founder’s ideal of noninterventionism in favor of globalism. What is badly needed today is a coherent foreign policy based on American national security and self-defense, free trade, a rejection of entangling political and military alliances, and a wholesale removal of the U.S. from the clutches of global government.
national security
Congress Becomes Irrelevant in the War Debate
07 October 2002 Texas Straight Talk 07 October 2002 verse 4 ... Cached
I don’t believe in resolutions that cite the UN as authority for our military actions. America has a sovereign right to defend itself, and we don’t need UN permission or approval to act in the interests of American national security. The decision to go to war should be made by the U.S. Congress alone. If Congress believes war is justified, it should give the President full warmaking authority, rather than binding him with resolutions designed to please our UN detractors.
national security
Why Won't Congress Declare War?
14 October 2002 Texas Straight Talk 14 October 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
I don’t believe in resolutions that cite the UN as authority for our military actions. America has a sovereign right to defend itself, and we don’t need UN permission or approval to act in the interests of American national security. The decision to go to war should be made by the U.S. Congress alone. If Congress believes war is justified, it should give the President full warmaking authority, rather than binding him with resolutions designed to please our UN detractors.
national security
Honoring our Military Veterans
11 November 2002 Texas Straight Talk 11 November 2002 verse 5 ... Cached
While we need to treat our retired veterans better, we also should understand that we can best honor both our veterans and our current armed forces by pursuing a coherent foreign policy. No veteran should ever have to look back and ask himself "Why were we over there in the first place?" Too often history demonstrates that wars are fought for political and economic reasons, rather than legitimate national security reasons.
national security
Honoring our Military Veterans
11 November 2002 Texas Straight Talk 11 November 2002 verse 6 ... Cached
Today’s American soldiers are the veterans of the future, and they should never be sent to war without clear objectives that serve definite American national security interests. They should never fight at the behest of the United Nations or any other international agency. They should never serve under a UN flag, nor answer to a UN commander. They deserve to know that they fight for the American people and the Constitution, and that the decision to send them into battle was made by their own congress rather than by UN bureaucrats who don’t care about them. Only by using American troops judiciously and in service of the Constitution can we avoid the kind of endless military entanglements we witnessed in Korea and Vietnam. We honor our veterans by ensuring that their service to the nation is never in vain.
national security
Our Incoherent Foreign Policy Fuels Middle East Turmoil
02 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 02 December 2002 verse 2 ... Cached
Thousands of American troops already occupy Afghanistan, and perhaps hundreds of thousands more are poised to attack Iraq. The justification given for these military invasions is that both nations support terrorism, and thus pose a risk to the United States. Yet when we step back and examine the region as a whole, it’s obvious that these two impoverished countries, neither of which has any real military, pose very little threat to American national security when compared to other Middle Eastern nations. The decision to attack them, while treating some of region’s worst regimes as "allies," is just the latest example of the deadly hypocrisy of our foreign policy in the Middle East.
national security
Waning Prospects for Peace in 2003?
30 December 2002 Texas Straight Talk 30 December 2002 verse 8 ... Cached
The good news is that public support for an invasion of Iraq has diminished, and the situation in Korea will only raise more questions about the wisdom of a second Gulf war. If the argument for invading Iraq is based on the threat it poses to American national security, a much stronger argument can be made for invading North Korea. Many Americans now believe Saddam Hussein can be neutralized without sending U.S troops into Baghdad. With tens of thousands of young American soldiers already active in Afghanistan, and hundreds of thousands ready to deploy in Iraq, the possibility of a third conflict in Korea may be too much for even the loudest pro-war voices in Washington to sell to the American public.
national security
Time to Renounce the United Nations?
17 March 2003 Texas Straight Talk 17 March 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
Our current situation in Iraq shows that we cannot allow U.S. national security to become a matter of international consensus. We don’t need UN permission to go to war; only Congress can declare war under the Constitution. The Constitution does not permit the delegation of congressional duties to international bodies. It’s bad enough when Congress relinquishes its warmaking authority to the President, but disastrous if we relinquish it to international bureaucrats who don’t care about America.
national security
War Profiteers
07 April 2003 Texas Straight Talk 07 April 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
We must understand that America is in a financial crisis. Tax revenues are down due to the faltering economy, but congressional spending has exploded by more than 22% in just two years. As a result, annual deficits have risen rapidly, and the national debt now approaches 6.5 trillion dollars. Almost all of this new spending has been completely unrelated to homeland defense or national security concerns. The same old failed domestic agencies and special-interest pork programs have received the bulk of the dollars. While Congress should fund constitutional federal functions like national defense, our very solvency as a nation is being threatened by unconstitutional spending.
national security
Keep the United Nations out of Iraq- and America
28 April 2003 Texas Straight Talk 28 April 2003 verse 4 ... Cached
I happen to agree with these new critics of the UN, having advocated getting out of the organization for twenty years. Obviously many Americans now want out of the UN because they resent its refusal to sanction our war in Iraq, and certainly America should never let its national security become a matter of UN consensus. But this growing anti-UN sentiment provides an opportunity to make a larger point, namely that participation in the UN is fundamentally incompatible with American sovereignty and the Constitution.
national security
Trust Us, We're the Government
25 August 2003 Texas Straight Talk 25 August 2003 verse 8 ... Cached
The Clinton administration would like the federal government to have the capability to read any international or domestic computer communications. The FBI wants access to decode, digest, and discuss financial transactions, personal e-mail, and proprietary information sent abroad- all in the name of national security.
national security
Superpower or Superdebtor?
07 June 2004 Texas Straight Talk 07 June 2004 verse 6 ... Cached
It is not too late to change course. The United States can again be viewed as the shining city on the hill and an example to other nations by re-embracing the kind of foreign and economic policies that made us wealthy and admired across the globe in the first place. This means less government, less taxation, and no foreign meddling. Regaining our economic security will go much further toward guaranteeing our national security in the future.
national security
The 9-11 Intelligence Bill- More of the Same
11 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 11 October 2004 verse 7 ... Cached
Finally, I am skeptical about the reorganization of the intelligence community in this legislation. In creating an entire new office-- the National Intelligence Director-- we are adding yet another layer of bureaucracy to our already bloated federal government. Yet we are supposed to believe that even more of the same kind of government that failed us on September 11, 2001 will make us safer. At best, this is wishful thinking. The constitutional function of our intelligence community is to protect the United States from foreign attack. Yet ever since the National Security Act of 1947, the agencies created have been meddling in affairs that have nothing to do with the security of the United States. When considering the CIA’s overthrow of Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadeq in the 1950s, or CIA training of the Muhajadin jihadists in Afghanistan in the 1980s, it is entirely possible the actions of the CIA abroad have actually made us less safe and more vulnerable to foreign attack. It would be best to confine our intelligence community to the defense of our territory from foreign attack. This may well mean eliminating the CIA altogether and turning intelligence functions over to the Department of Defense, where they belong.
national security
Government Debt- The Greatest Threat to National Security
25 October 2004 Texas Straight Talk 25 October 2004 verse 1 ... Cached
Government Debt- The Greatest Threat to National Security
national security
Empty Rhetoric for Veterans
04 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 04 April 2005 verse 7 ... Cached
We can best honor both our veterans and our current armed forces by pursuing a coherent foreign policy. No veteran should ever have to look back and ask himself, "Why were we over there in the first place?" Too often history demonstrates that wars are fought for political and economic reasons, rather than legitimate national security reasons. Supporting the troops means never putting them in harm’s way unless America is truly threatened.
national security
Empty Rhetoric for Veterans
04 April 2005 Texas Straight Talk 04 April 2005 verse 8 ... Cached
Today’s American soldiers are the veterans of the future, and they should never be sent to war without clear objectives that serve definite American national security interests. They should never fight at the behest of the United Nations or any other international agency. They should never serve under a UN flag, nor answer to a UN commander. They deserve to know that they fight for the American people and the Constitution, and that the decision to send them into battle was made by their own Congress via an express declaration of war—NOT by UN bureaucrats who don’t care about them.
national security
Too Little, Too Late
14 November 2005 Texas Straight Talk 14 November 2005 verse 10 ... Cached
The spending culture in Washington creates an attitude that government can solve every problem both at home and abroad simply by funding another program. But we've reached a tipping point, with $8 trillion in debt and looming Social Security and Medicare crises. Government spending has become a national security issue, because unless Congress stops the bleeding the resulting economic downturn will cause us more harm than any terrorist group could ever hope to cause. And we're doing it to ourselves, from within.
national security
Don't Complicate Immigration Reform
12 December 2005 Texas Straight Talk 12 December 2005 verse 10 ... Cached
Immigration admittedly is a difficult issue, and nobody wants America to become an unwelcoming fortress. On the contrary, we need to attract the best and brightest people by remaining an entrepreneurial society that rewards initiative and hard work. But we must gain control of our borders not only to strengthen our national security, but also to preserve our national identity.
national security
Domestic Surveillance and the Patriot Act
26 December 2005 Texas Straight Talk 26 December 2005 verse 3 ... Cached
Recent revelations that the National Security Agency has conducted broad surveillance of American citizens' emails and phone calls raise serious questions about the proper role of government in a free society. This is an important and healthy debate, one that too often goes ignored by Congress.
national security
The Port Security Controversy
27 February 2006 Texas Straight Talk 27 February 2006 verse 7 ... Cached
It's important to note the administration did not bother to consult with Congress or the state governors involved. The Treasury department approved the purchase with no congressional oversight whatsoever. While many applaud unchecked presidential authority when it comes to war in Iraq, wiretapping, and other national security matters, they now demand that Congress overturn a unilateral administration decision. The lesson learned is that everybody likes presidential power when they agree with how it’s used. When they don’t, they rediscover that the Constitution authorizes Congress to make policy after all.
national security
Avoiding War with Iran
22 May 2006 Texas Straight Talk 22 May 2006 verse 11 ... Cached
Government power in Iran is divided, and President Ahmadinejad—the man responsible for hateful comments about Israel- does not control their nuclear policy. We should ignore him as a pariah, and deal instead with Ali Larijani, head of Iran’s National Security Council, who has made several reasonable statements about the US and shows a desire to have direct diplomatic talks.
national security
Immigration Reform in 2006?
11 September 2006 Texas Straight Talk 11 September 2006 verse 5 ... Cached
Both the Bush administration and congressional leadership have promised to spend the next two months addressing national security issues. But real national security cannot be achieved unless and until our borders are physically secured. It’s as simple as that. All the talk about fighting terror and making America safer is meaningless without border security. It makes no sense to seek terrorists abroad if our own front door is left unlocked.
national security
Hypocrisy in the Middle East
26 February 2007 Texas Straight Talk 26 February 2007 verse 3 ... Cached
Hundreds of thousands of American troops already occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, a number that is rising as the military surge moves forward. The justification, given endlessly since September 11th, is that both support terrorism and thus pose a risk to the United States. Yet when we step back and examine the region as a whole, it’s obvious that these two impoverished countries, neither of which has any real military, pose very little threat to American national security when compared to other Middle Eastern nations. The decision to attack them, while treating some of region’s worst regimes as allies, shows the deadly hypocrisy of our foreign policy in the Middle East.
national security
Fixing What's Wrong With Iraq
21 May 2007 Texas Straight Talk 21 May 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
“(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq ; and
national security
Immigration ‘Compromise’ Sells Out Our Sovereignty
25 May 2007 Texas Straight Talk 25 May 2007 verse 8 ... Cached
There are many other very troubling items buried deep in the Senate’s immigration compromise. The bill explicitly calls for an “acceleration” of the March 2005 agreement between the US president, the president of Mexico , and the prime minister of Canada , known as the “Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America .” This somewhat secretive agreement – a treaty in all but name – aims to erase the borders between the United States , Canada , and Mexico and threatens our sovereignty and national security. The SPP was agreed by the president without the participation of Congress. It should be eliminated, not accelerated!
national security
On Illegal Immigration and Border Security
02 December 2007 Texas Straight Talk 02 December 2007 verse 6 ... Cached
I have also supported the strengthening our border and increasing the number of border patrol agents. It is an outrage that our best trained border guards are sent to Iraq instead of guarding our borders. For national security, we need to give more attention to our own border which is being illegally breached every day, and yet the government shirks one of its few constitutionally mandated duties, namely to defend this country. Citizens lose twice with our current insecure border situation – we don’t have the protection we should have, and then taxpayers have to deal with the fallout in the form of overstretched public resources and loss of jobs.
national security
If We Subsidize Them...
17 February 2008 Texas Straight Talk 17 February 2008 verse 5 ... Cached
We must return to the American principle of personal responsibility. We must expect those who come here to take care of themselves and respect our laws. Not only is this the right thing to do for our overtaxed citizens, but we simply have no choice. We can't afford these policies anymore. Since we are $60 trillion in debt, there should be no taxpayer-paid benefits for non-citizens. My bill, the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act, stops non-citizens from collecting Social Security Benefits. This bill, by the way, picked up three new cosponsors this week and is gaining momentum. Also, we should not be awarding automatic citizenship to children born here minutes after their mothers illegally cross the border. It just doesn't make sense. The practice of birthright citizenship is an aberration of the original intent of the 14th amendment, the purpose of which was never to allow lawbreakers to bleed taxpayers of welfare benefits. I have introduced HJ Res 46 to address this loophole. Other Western countries such as Australia , France , and England have stopped birth-right citizenship. It is only reasonable that we do the same. We must also empower local and state officials to deal with problems the Federal government can't or won't address. Actions like this are a matter of national security at this point.
national security
Iraq or the Economy?
16 June 2008 Texas Straight Talk 16 June 2008 verse 2 ... Cached
What is the importance of the war in Iraq relative to other current issues? This is a question I am often asked, especially as Americans continue to become increasingly aware that something is very wrong with the economy. The difficulty with the way the question is often asked relates to the perception that we are somehow able to divide such issues, or to isolate the cost of war into arbitrarily defined areas such as national security or international relations. War is an all-encompassing governmental activity. The impact of war on our ability to defend ourselves from future attack, and upon America ’s standing in the world, is only a mere fraction of the total overall effect that war has on our nation and the policies of its government.
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.