Volume 2004 — The Book of Ron Paul
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 1
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr020404.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 4, 2004
Congress Abandoned its Duty to Debate and Declare War
2004 Ron Paul 1:1
There is plenty of blame to go around for the mistakes made
by going to war in Iraq, especially now that it is common knowledge
Saddam
Hussein told the truth about having no weapons of mass destruction, and
that Al
Qaida and 9/11 were in no way related to the Iraqi government.
2004 Ron Paul 1:2
Our intelligence agencies failed for whatever reason this
time, but their frequent failures should raise the question of whether
or not
secretly spending forty billion taxpayer dollars annually gathering bad
information is a good investment.
The
administration certainly failed us by making the decision to sacrifice
so much
in life and limb, by plunging us into this Persian Gulf quagmire that
surely
will last for years to come.
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.
2004 Ron Paul 1:4
There was a precise reason why the most serious decision
made by a country — the decision to go to war — was assigned in our
Constitution
to the body closest to the people.
If we
followed this charge I’m certain fewer wars would be
fought, wide support would be achieved for just defensive wars, there
would be
less political finger-pointing if events went badly, and blame could
not be
placed on one individual or agency.
This
process would more likely achieve victory, which has eluded us in
recent
decades.
2004 Ron Paul 1:5
The president reluctantly has agreed to support an
independent commission to review our intelligence gathering failures,
and that
is good.
Cynics said nothing much
would be achieved by studying pre-9/11 intelligence failures, but it
looks like
some objective criticisms will emerge from that inquiry.
We can hope for the best from this newly appointed
commission.
2004 Ron Paul 1:6
But already we hear the inquiry will be deliberately
delayed, limited to investigating only the failures of the intelligence
agencies
themselves, and may divert its focus to studying intelligence gathering
related
to North Korea and elsewhere.
If
the commission avoids the central controversy — whether or not there
was
selective use of information or undue pressure put on the CIA to
support a
foregone conclusion to go to war by the administration — the commission
will
appear a sham.
2004 Ron Paul 1:7
Regardless of the results, the process of the inquiry is
missing the most important point — the failure of Congress to meet its
responsibility on the decision to go, or not go, to war.
The current mess was predictable from the beginning.
Unfortunately, Congress voluntarily gave up its prerogative over
war and
illegally transferred this power to the president in October of 2002.
The debate we are having now should have occurred here in the
halls of
Congress then.
We should have
debated a declaration of war resolution.
Instead,
Congress chose to transfer this decision-making power to the president
to avoid
the responsibility of making the hard choice of sending our young
people into
harms way, against a weak, third world country.
This
the president did on his own, with congressional
acquiescence.
The blame game
has emerged only now that we are in the political season.
Sadly, the call for and the appointment of the commission is
all part of this political process.
2004 Ron Paul 1:8
It is truly disturbing to see many who abdicated their congressional responsibility to declare or reject war, who timidly voted to give the
president
the power he wanted, now posturing as his harshest critics.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 2
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr021104.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 11, 2004
A Wise Consistency
2004 Ron Paul 2:1
A wise consistency is the foundation of a free society. Yet
everyone knows, or thinks they know, that consistency is the hobgoblin
of little
minds. How many times has Ralph Waldo Emerson been quoted to belittle a
consistent philosophy defending freedom?
Even
on this floor I have been rebuked by colleagues with this quote, for
pointing
out the shortcomings of Congress in not consistently and precisely
following our
oath to uphold the Constitution.
2004 Ron Paul 2:2
The need to discredit consistency is endemic. It’s
considered beneficial to be flexible and pragmatic while rejecting
consistency;
otherwise the self-criticism would be more than most Members could
take. The
comfort level of most politicians in D.C. requires an attitude that
consistency
not only is unnecessary, but detrimental. For this reason Emerson’s
views are
conveniently cited to justify pragmatism and arbitrary intervention in
all our
legislative endeavors.
2004 Ron Paul 2:3
Communism was dependent on firm, consistent, and evil
beliefs. Authoritarian rule was required to enforce these views,
however.
Allowing alternative views to exist, as they always do, guarantees
philosophic
competition. For instance, the views in Hong Kong eventually won out
over the
old communism of the Chinese mainland. But it can work in the other
direction.
If the ideas of socialism, within the context of our free society, are
permitted
to raise their ugly head, it may well replace what we have, if we do
not
consistently and forcefully defend the free market and personal liberty.
2004 Ron Paul 2:4
It’s quite a distortion of Emerson’s views to use them
as justification for the incoherent and nonsensical policies coming out
of
Washington today. But, the political benefits of not needing to be
consistent
are so overwhelming that there’s no interest in being philosophically
consistent in one’s votes.
It is
a welcome convenience to be able to support whatever seems best for the
moment,
the congressional district, or one’s political party. Therefore, it’s
quite
advantageous to cling to the notion that consistency is a hobgoblin.
For this
reason, statesmanship in D.C. has come to mean one’s willingness to
give up
one’s own personal beliefs in order to serve the greater good —
whatever that
is. But it is not possible to preserve the rule of law or individual
liberty if
our convictions are no stronger than this. Otherwise something will
replace our
republic that was so carefully designed by the Founders. That something
is not
known, but we can be certain it will be less desirable than what we
have.
2004 Ron Paul 2:5
As for Emerson, he was not even talking about consistency in defending political
views that were deemed worthy and correct. Emerson clearly explained
the
consistency he was criticizing. He was most annoyed by a foolish
consistency. He
attacked bull-headedness, believing that intellectuals should be more
open-minded and tolerant of new ideas and discoveries. His attack
targeted the
flat-earth society types in the world of ideas. New information, he
claimed,
should always lead to reassessment of previous conclusions. To Emerson,
being
unwilling to admit an error and consistently defending a mistaken idea,
regardless of facts, was indeed a foolish consistency. His reference
was to a
character trait, not sound logical thinking.
2004 Ron Paul 2:6
Since it’s proven that centralized control over education and medicine has
done nothing to improve them, and instead of reassessing these
programs, more
money is thrown into the same centralized planning, this is much closer
to
Emerson’s foolish consistency than defending liberty and private
property in a
consistent and forceful manner while strictly obeying the Constitution.
2004 Ron Paul 2:7
Emerson’s greatest concern was the consistency of
conformity.
Nonconformity and
tolerance of others obviously are much more respected in a free society
than in
a rigidly planned authoritarian society.
2004 Ron Paul 2:8
The truth is that Emerson must be misquoted in order to use him against those
who rigidly and consistently defend a free society, cherish and promote
diverse
opinions, and encourage nonconformity. A wise and consistent defense of
liberty
is more desperately needed today than any time in our history. Our
foolish and
inconsistent policies of the last 100 years have brought us to a
critical
junction, with the American way of life at stake. It is the foolish
inconsistencies that we must condemn and abandon. Let me mention a few:
2004 Ron Paul 2:9
Conservatives Who Spend:
Conservatives for years
have preached fiscal restraint and balanced budgets. Once in charge,
they have
rationalized huge spending increases and gigantic growth in the size of
government, while supporting a new- found religion that preaches
deficits
don’t matter. According to Paul O’Neill, the Vice President lectured
him
that “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
Conservatives who no longer support balanced budgets and less
government
should not be called conservatives. Some now are called
neo-conservatives. The
conservative label merely deceives the many Americans who continuously
hope the
day of fiscal restraint will come. Yet if this deception is not pointed
out,
success in curtailing government growth is impossible.
Is it any wonder the national debt is $7 trillion and growing by
over
$600 billion per year?
Even today, the
only expression of concern for the deficit
seems to come from liberals. That ought to tell us something about how
far
astray we have gone.
2004 Ron Paul 2:10
Free Trade Fraud—Neo-mercantilism
: Virtually all
economists are for free trade. Even the politicians express such
support.
However, many quickly add, “Yes, but it should be fair.”
That is, free trade is fine unless it appears to hurt someone.
Then a
little protectionism is warranted, for fairness sake. Others who claim
allegiance to free trade are only too eager to devalue their own
currencies,
which harms a different group of citizens — like importers and
savers — in
competitive devaluations in hopes of gaining a competitive edge. Many
so-called
free-trade proponents are champions of international agreements that
undermine
national sovereignty and do little more than create an international
bureaucracy
to manage tariffs and sanctions. Organizations like NAFTA, WTO, and the
coming
FTAA are more likely to benefit the powerful special interests than to
enhance
true free trade. Nothing is said, however, about how a universal
commodity
monetary standard would facilitate trade, nor is it mentioned how
unilaterally
lowering tariffs can benefit a nation. Even bilateral agreements are
ignored
when our trade problems are used as an excuse to promote dangerous
internationalism.
2004 Ron Paul 2:11
Trade as an issue of personal liberty is totally ignored.
But simply put, one ought to have the right to spend one’s own money
any way
one wants. Buying cheap foreign products can have a great economic
benefit for
our citizens and serve as an incentive to improve production here at
home. It
also puts pressure on us to reassess the onerous regulations and tax
burdens
placed on our business community. Monopoly wages that force wage rates
above the
market also are challenged when true free trade is permitted. And this,
of
course, is the reason free trade is rejected. Labor likes
higher-than-market
wages, and business likes less competition. In the end, consumers — all
of
us — suffer. Ironically, the free traders in Congress were the most
outspoken
opponents of drug reimportation, with a convoluted argument claiming
that the
free-trade position should prohibit the reimportation of
pharmaceuticals. So
much for a wise consistency!
2004 Ron Paul 2:12
Following the Constitution—Arbitrarily, Of Course
:
Following the Constitution is a convenience shared by both liberals and
conservatives — at times. Everyone takes the same oath of office, and
most
Members of Congress invoke the Constitution, at one time or another, to
make
some legislative point. The fact that the Constitution is used
periodically to
embarrass one’s opponents, when convenient, requires that no one feel
embarrassed by an inconsistent voting record. Believing that any
consistency,
not just a foolish one, is a philosophic hobgoblin gives many Members
welcome
reassurance. This allows limited-government conservatives to massively
increase
the size and scope of government, while ignoring the deficit. Liberals,
who also
preach their own form of limited government in the areas of civil
liberties and
militarism, have no problem with a flexible pragmatic approach to all
government
expenditures and intrusions. The net result is that the oath of office
to abide
by all the constitutional restraints on government power is rarely
followed.
2004 Ron Paul 2:13
Paper Money, Inflation, and Economic Pain
: Paper
money and inflation have never provided long-term economic growth, nor
have they
enhanced freedom. Yet the world, led by the United States, lives with a
financial system awash with fiat currencies and historic debt as a
consequence.
No matter how serious the problems that come from central-bank monetary
inflations — the depressions and inflation, unemployment, social chaos,
and
war — the only answer has been to inflate even more. Except for the
Austrian
free-market economists, the consensus is that the Great Depression was
prolonged
and exacerbated by the lack of monetary inflation. This view is held by
Alan
Greenspan, and reflected in his January 2001 response to the stock
market slump
and a slower economy — namely a record monetary stimulus and
historically low
interest rates. The unwillingness to blame the slumps on the Federal
Reserve’s
previous errors, though the evidence is clear, guarantees that greater
problems
for the United States and the world economy lie ahead. Though there is
adequate
information to understand the real cause of the business cycle, the
truth and
proper policy are not palatable. Closing down the engine of inflation
at any
point does cause short-term problems that are politically unacceptable.
But the
alternative is worse, in the long term. It is not unlike a drug addict
demanding
and getting a fix in order to avoid the withdrawal symptoms. Not
getting rid of
the addiction is a deadly mistake.
While
resorting to continued monetary stimulus through credit creation delays
the pain
and suffering, it inevitably makes the problems much worse. Debt
continues to
build in all areas — personal, business, and government. Inflated stock
prices
are propped up, waiting for another collapse. Mal-investment and
overcapacity
fail to correct. Insolvency proliferates without liquidation. These
same errors
have been prolonging the correction in Japan for 14 years, with
billions of
dollars of non-performing loans still on the books. Failure to admit
and
recognize that fiat money, mismanaged by central banks, gives us most
of our
economic problems, along with a greater likelihood for war, means we
never learn
from our mistakes. Our consistent response is to inflate faster and
borrow more,
which each downturn requires, to keep the economy afloat. Talk about a
foolish
consistency!
It’s time for our
leaders to admit the error of their ways, consider the wise consistency
of
following the advice of our Founders, and reject paper money and
central bank
inflationary policies.
2004 Ron Paul 2:14
Alcohol Prohibition—For Our Own Protection
:
Alcohol prohibition was a foolish consistency engaged in for over a
decade, but
we finally woke up to the harm done.
In
spite of prohibition, drinking continued. The alcohol being produced in
the
underground was much more deadly, and related crime ran rampant. The
facts
stared us in the face, and with time, we had the intelligence to repeal
the
whole experiment. No matter how logical this reversal of policy was, it
did not
prevent us from moving into the area of drug prohibition, now in the
more
radical stages, for the past 30 years. No matter the amount of harm and
cost
involved, very few in public life are willing to advise a new approach
to drug
addiction. Alcoholism is viewed as a medical problem, but illicit drug
addiction
is seen as a heinous crime. Our prisons overflow, with the cost of
enforcement
now into the hundreds of billions of dollars, yet drug use is not
reduced.
Nevertheless, the politicians are consistent. They are convinced that a
tough
stand against usage with very strict laws and mandatory
sentences — sometimes
life sentences for non-violent offenses — is a popular political stand.
Facts
don’t count, and we can’t bend on consistently throwing the book at any
drug
offenders. Our prisons are flooded with non-violent drug users — 84% of
all
federals prisoners — but no serious reassessment is considered.
Sadly, the current war on drugs has done tremendous harm to many
patients’ need for legitimate prescribed pain control. Doctors are very
often
compromised in their ability to care for the seriously and terminally
ill by
overzealous law enforcement.
Throughout
most of our history, drugs were legal and at times were abused. But
during that
time, there was no history of the social and legal chaos associated
with drug
use that we suffer today. A hundred years ago, a pharmacist openly
advertised,
“Heroin clears the complexion, gives buoyancy to the mind, regulates
the
stomach and the bowels and is, in fact, a perfect guardian of health.”
Obviously this is overstated as a medical panacea, but it
describes what
it was like not to have hysterical busybodies undermine our
Constitution and
waste billions of dollars on a drug war serving no useful purpose. This
country
needs to wake up! We should have more confidence in citizens making
their own
decisions, and decide once again to repeal federal prohibition, while
permitting
regulation by the states alone.
2004 Ron Paul 2:15
FDA and Legal Drugs—For Our Own Protection
: Our
laws and attitudes regarding legal drugs are almost as harmful. The FDA
supposedly exists to protect the consumer and patients. This conclusion
is based
on an assumption that consumers are idiots and all physicians and drug
manufacturers are unethical or criminals. It also assumes that
bureaucrats and
politicians, motivated by good intentions, can efficiently bring drugs
onto the
market in a timely manner and at reasonable cost. These same naïve
dreamers are
the ones who say that in order to protect the people from themselves,
we must
prohibit them from being allowed to re-import drugs from Canada or
Mexico at
great savings. The FDA virtually guarantees that new drugs come online
slower
and cost more money. Small companies are unable to pay the legal
expenses, and
don’t get the friendly treatment that politically connected big drug
companies
receive. If a drug seems to offer promise, especially for a
life-threatening
disease, why is it not available, with full disclosure, to anyone who
wants to
try it? No, our protectors say that no one gets to use it, or make
their own
decisions, until the FDA guarantees that each drug has been proven safe
and
effective. And believe me, the FDA is quite capable of making mistakes,
even
after years of testing.
It seems
criminal when cancer patients come to our congressional offices begging
and
pleading for a waiver to try some new drug. We call this a free society!
For those who can’t get a potentially helpful drug but might
receive a
little comfort from some marijuana, raised in their own back yard
legally in
their home state, the heavy hand of the DEA comes down hard, actually
arresting
and imprisoning ill patients. Federal drug laws blatantly preempt state
laws,
adding insult to injury.
2004 Ron Paul 2:16
Few remember that the first federal laws regulating
marijuana were written as recently as 1938, which means just a few
decades ago
our country had much greater respect for individual choices and state
regulations in all health matters.
The
nanny state is relatively new, but well entrenched. Sadly, we foolishly
and
consistently follow the dictates of prohibition and government control
of new
medications, never questioning the wisdom of these laws.
The silliness regarding illegal drugs and prescription drugs was
recently
demonstrated. It was determined that a drug used to cause an abortion
can be
available over the counter. However, Ephedra — used by millions for
various
reasons and found in nature — was made illegal as a result of one death
after
being misused. Individuals no longer can make their own decisions, at
an
affordable price, to use Ephedra. Now it will probably require a
prescription
and cost many times more. It can never be known, but weight loss by
thousands
using Ephedra may well have saved many lives. But the real issue is
personal
choice and responsibility, not the medicinal effect of these drugs.
This
reflects our moral standards, not an example of individual freedom and
responsibility.
2004 Ron Paul 2:17
Foreign Policy of Interventionism—General
: Our
foreign policy of interventionism offers the best example of Emerson’s
foolish
inconsistency. No matter how unsuccessful our entanglements become, our
leaders
rarely question the wisdom of trying to police the world. Most of the
time our
failures prompt even greater intervention, rather than less. Never
yielding to
the hard cold facts of our failures, our drive to meddle and
nation-build around
the world continues. Complete denial of the recurrent blowback from our
meddling — a term our CIA invented — prompts us to spend endlessly while
jeopardizing the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Refusing
even to
consider the failure of our own policies is outrageous. Only in the
context of
commercial benefits to the special interests and the military-
industrial
complex, molded with patriotic jingoism, can one understand why we
pursue such a
foolish policy. Some of these ulterior motives are understandable, but
the fact
that average Americans rarely question our commitment to these
dangerous and
expensive military operations is disturbing. The whipped up war
propaganda too
often overrules the logic that should prevail. Certainly the wise
consistency of
following the Constitution has little appeal. One would think the
painful
consequences of our militarism over the last hundred years would have
made us
more reluctant to assume the role of world policeman in a world that
hates us
more each day.
2004 Ron Paul 2:18
A strong case can be made that all the conflicts, starting
with the Spanish-American War up to our current conflict in the Middle
East,
could have been avoided. For instance, the foolish entrance into World
War I to
satisfy Wilson’s ego led to a disastrous peace at Versailles,
practically
guaranteeing World War II. Likewise, our ill-advised role in the
Persian Gulf
War I placed us in an ongoing guerilla war in Iraq and Afghanistan,
which may
become a worldwide conflict before it ends. Our foolish antics over the
years
have prompted our support for many thugs throughout the 20th
Century — Stalin,
Samoza, Batista, the Shah of Iran, Noriega, Osama bin Laden, Saddam
Hussein, and
many others — only to regret it once the unintended consequences became
known.
Many of those we supported turned on us, or our interference generated
a much
worse replacement — such as the Ayatollah in Iran.
If we had consistently followed the wise advice of our early
presidents,
we could have avoided the foreign policy problems we face today. And if
we had,
we literally would have prevented hundreds of thousands of needless
deaths over
the last century. The odds are slim to none that our current failure in
Afghanistan and Iraq will prompt our administration to change its
policies of
intervention. Ignoring the facts and rigidly sticking to a failed
policy — a
foolish consistency — as our leaders have repeatedly done over the past
100
years, unfortunately will prevail despite its failure and huge costs.
This
hostility toward principled consistency and common sense allows for
gross errors
in policy making. Most Americans believed, and still do, that we went
to war
against Saddam Hussein because he threatened us with weapons of mass
destruction
and his regime was connected to al Qaeda. The fact that Saddam Hussein
not only
did not have weapons of mass destruction, but essentially had no
military force
at all, seems to be of little concern to those who took us to war. It
was
argued, after our allies refused to join in our efforts, that a
unilateral
approach without the United Nations was proper under our notion of
national
sovereignty. Yet resolutions giving the President authority to go to
war cited
the United Nations 21 times, forgetting the U.S. Constitution allows
only
Congress to declare war. A correct declaration of war was rejected out
of hand.
Now with events going badly, the administration is practically begging
the UN to
take over the transition — except, of course, for the Iraqi Development
Fund that
controls the oil and all the seized financial assets. The
contradictions and
distortions surrounding the Iraqi conflict are too numerous to count.
Those who
wanted to institutionalize the doctrine of pre-emptive war were not
concerned
about the Constitution or consistency in our foreign policy. And for
this, the
American people and world peace will suffer.
2004 Ron Paul 2:19
Promoting Democracy — An Obsession Whose Time Has Passed
:
Promoting democracy is now our nation’s highest ideal. Wilson started
it with
his ill-advised drive to foolishly involve us in World War I. His
utopian dream
was to make the world safe for democracy. Instead, his naiveté
and arrogance
promoted our involvement in the back-to-back tragedies of World War I
and World
War II. It’s hard to imagine the rise of Hitler in World War II without
the
Treaty of Versailles. But this has not prevented every president since
Wilson
from promoting U.S.-style democracy to the rest of the world.
2004 Ron Paul 2:20
Since no weapons of mass destruction or al Qaeda have been
found in Iraq, the explanation given now for having gone there was to
bring
democracy to the Iraqi people. Yet we hear now that the Iraqis are
demanding
immediate free elections not controlled by the United States. But our
administration says the Iraqi people are not yet ready for free
elections. The
truth is that a national election in Iraq would bring individuals to
power that
the administration doesn’t want. Democratic elections will have to wait.
2004 Ron Paul 2:21
This makes the point that our persistence in imposing our
will on others through military force ignores sound thinking, but we
never hear
serious discussions about changing our foreign policy of meddling and
empire
building, no matter how bad the results. Regardless of the human and
financial
costs for all the wars fought over the past hundred years, few question
the
principle and legitimacy of interventionism. Bad results, while only
sowing the
seeds of our next conflict, concern few here in Congress. Jingoism, the
dream of
empire, and the interests of the military-industrial complex generate
the false
patriotism that energizes supporters of our foreign entanglements.
Direct media
coverage of the more than 500 body bags coming back from Iraq is now
prohibited
by the administration. Seeing the mangled lives and damaged health of
thousands
of other casualties of this war would help the American people put this
war in
proper perspective. Almost all war is unnecessary and rarely worth the
cost.
Seldom does a good peace result. Since World War II, we have intervened
35 times
in developing countries, according to the LA Times, without a single
successful
example of a stable democracy. Their conclusion: “American engagement
abroad
has not led to more freedom or more democracy in countries where we’ve
become
involved.” So far, the peace in Iraq — that is, the period following the
declared end of hostilities — has set the stage for a civil war in this
forlorn
Western-created artificial state. A U.S.- imposed national government
unifying
the Kurds, the Sunnis, and the Shiites will never work. Our allies
deserted us
in this misadventure. Dumping the responsibility on the UN, while
retaining
control of the spoils of war, is a policy of folly that can result only
in more
Americans being killed. This will only fuel the festering wounds of
Middle East
hatred toward all Western occupiers. The Halliburton scandals and other
military-industrial connections to the occupation of Iraq will continue
to annoy
our allies, and hopefully a growing number of American taxpayers.
2004 Ron Paul 2:22
I have a few suggestions on how to alter our consistently
foolish policy in Iraq. Instead of hiding behind Wilson’s utopianism of
making
the world safe for democracy, let’s try a new approach:
2004 Ron Paul 2:23
-The internal affairs and the need for nation building in
Iraq are none of our business.
2004 Ron Paul 2:24
-Our goal in international affairs ought to be to promote
liberty and the private-property/free-market order — through persuasion
and
example, and never by force of arms, clandestine changes, or preemptive
war.
2004 Ron Paul 2:25
-We should give up our obsession with democracy, both for
ourselves and others, since the dictatorship of the majority is just as
destructive to a minority, especially individual liberty, as a single
Saddam
Hussein-like tyrant. (Does anyone really believe the Shiite majority
can
possibly rule fairly over the Sunnis and the Kurds?)
2004 Ron Paul 2:26
-A representative republic, loosely held together with
autonomy for each state or providence, is the only hope in a situation
like
this. But since we have systematically destroyed that form of
government here in
the United States, we can’t possibly be the ones who will impose this
system
on a foreign and very different land 6,000 miles away — no matter how
many bombs
we drop or people we kill. This type of change can come only with a
change in
philosophy, and an understanding of the true nature of liberty. It must
be an
intellectual adventure, not a military crusade. If for no other reason,
Congress
must soon realize that we no longer can afford to maintain an empire
circling
the globe. It’s a Sisyphean task to rebuild the Iraq we helped to
destroy
while our financial problems mount here at home. The American people
eventually
will rebel and demand that all job and social programs start at home
before we
waste billions more in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other forlorn lands
around
the world.
2004 Ron Paul 2:27
-The Constitution places restraints on Congress and the
executive branch, so as not to wage war casually and without proper
declaration.
It provides no authority to spend money or lives to spread our
political message
around the world. A strict adherence to the rule of law and the
Constitution
would bring an immediate halt to our ill-advised experiment in assuming
the role
of world policeman. We have been told that our effort in Iraq has been
worth the
500-plus lives lost and the thousands wounded. I disagree — with great
sadness
for the families who have lost so much, and with so little hope for a
good
peace — I can only say, I disagree and hope I’m wrong.
2004 Ron Paul 2:28
Fighting Terrorism With Big Government—A Convenience
or Necessity?
Fighting
terrorism is a top concern for most Americans. It is understandable,
knowing how
vulnerable we now are to an attack by our enemies. But striking out
against the
liberties of all Americans, with the Patriot Act, the FBI, or
Guantanamo-type
justice will hardly address the problem.
Liberty
cannot be enhanced by undermining liberty!
It is never necessary to sacrifice liberty to preserve it. It’s
tempting to sacrifice liberty for safety, and that is the argument used
all too
often by the politicians seeking more power. But even that is not true.
History
shows that a strong desire for safety over liberty usually results in
less of
both. But that does not mean we should ignore the past attacks or the
threat of
future attacks that our enemies might unleash. First, fighting
terrorism is a
cliché. Terrorism is a technique or a process, and if not
properly defined, the
solutions will be hard to find. Terrorism is more properly defined as
an attack
by a guerrilla warrior who picks the time and place of the attack
because he
cannot match the enemy with conventional weapons. With too broad a
definition of
terrorism, the temptation will be to relinquish too much liberty, being
fearful
that behind every door and in every suitcase lurks a terrorist- planted
bomb.
Narrowing the definition of terrorism and recognizing why some become
enemies is
crucial. Understanding how maximum security is achieved in a free
society is
vital. We have been told that the terrorists hate us for our wealth,
our
freedom, and our goodness. This war cannot be won if that belief
prevails.
2004 Ron Paul 2:29
When the definition of terrorism is vague and the enemy
pervasive throughout the world, the neo-conservatives — who want to
bring about
various regime changes for other reasons — conveniently latch onto these
threats
and use them as the excuse and justification for our expanding military
presence
throughout the Middle East and the Caspian Sea region. This is
something they
have been anxious to do all along. Already, plans are being laid by
neo-conservative leaders to further expand our occupations to many
other
countries, from Central America and Africa to Korea. Whether it’s
invading
Iraq, threatening North Korea, or bullying Venezuela or even Russia,
it’s now
popular to play the terrorist card. Just mention terrorism and the
American
people are expected to grovel and allow the war hawks to do whatever
they want
to do. This is a very dangerous attitude. One would think that, with
the
shortcomings of the Iraqi occupation becoming more obvious every day,
more
Americans would question our flagrant and aggressive policy of empire
building.
The American people were frightened into supporting this war
because they
were told that Iraq had: “25,000 liters of anthrax; 38,000 liters of
botulinum
toxin; 500 tons of sarin, mustard, and VX nerve gas; significant
quantities of
refined uranium; and special aluminum tubes used in developing nuclear
weapons.”
The fact that none of
this huge amount of material was found, and the fact that David Kay
resigned
from heading up the inspection team saying none will be found, doesn’t
pacify
the instigators of this policy of folly. They merely look forward to
the next
regime change as they eye their list of potential targets. And they
argue with
conviction that the 500-plus lives lost were worth it.
Attacking a perceived enemy who had few weapons, who did not
aggress
against us, and who never posed a threat to us does nothing to help
eliminate
the threat of terrorist attacks. If anything, deposing an Arab Muslim
leader — even a bad one — incites more hatred toward us, certainly not
less. This
is made worse if our justification for the invasion was in error. It is
safe to
say that in time we’ll come to realize that our invasion has made us
less
safe, and has served as a grand recruiting tool for the many militant
Muslim
groups that want us out of their countries — including the majority of
those
Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the entire Middle
East.
Because of the nature of the war in which we find ourselves, catching
Saddam
Hussein, or even killing Osama bin Laden, are almost irrelevant. They
may well
simply become martyrs to their cause and incite even greater hatred
toward us.
2004 Ron Paul 2:30
There are a few things we must understand if we ever expect
this war to end.
2004 Ron Paul 2:31
First: The large majority, especially all the militant
Muslims, see us as invaders, occupiers, and crusaders. We have gone a
long way
from home and killed a lot of people, and none of them believe it’s to
spread
our goodness. Whether or not some supporters of this policy of
intervention are
sincere in bringing democracy and justice to this region, it just
doesn’t
matter — few over there believe us.
2004 Ron Paul 2:32
Second: This war started a long time before 9-11. That
attack was just the most dramatic event of the war so far. The Arabs
have fought
Western crusaders for centuries, and they have not yet forgotten the
European
Crusades centuries ago. Our involvement has been going on, to some
degree, since
World War II, but was dramatically accelerated in 1991 with the first
Persian
Gulf invasion along with the collapse of the Soviet system. Placing
U.S. troops
on what is considered Muslim holy land in Saudi Arabia was pouring salt
in the
wounds of this already existing hatred. We belatedly realized this and
have
removed these troops.
2004 Ron Paul 2:33
Third: If these facts are ignored, there’s no chance that
the United States-led Western occupation of the oil-rich Middle East
can succeed
(70% of the world’s oil is in the Persian Gulf and Caspian Sea
regions).
Without a better understanding of the history of this region, it’s not
even
possible to define the enemy, know why they fight, or understand the
difference
between guerilla warrior attacks and vague sinister forces of
terrorism. The
pain of recognizing that the ongoing war is an example of what the CIA
calls
blowback and an unintended consequence of our foreign policy is a great
roadblock to ever ending the war.
2004 Ron Paul 2:34
Judicial Review
: Respect for the original intent of
the Constitution is low in Washington. It’s so low, it’s virtually
non-existent. This causes many foolish inconsistencies in our federal
courts.
The Constitution, we have been told, is a living, evolving document and
it’s
no longer necessary to change it in the proper fashion. That method is
too slow
and cumbersome, it is claimed. While we amended it to institute alcohol
prohibition, the federal drug prohibition is accomplished by majority
vote of
the U.S. Congress. Wars are not declared by Congress, but pursued by
Executive
Order to enforce UN Resolutions. The debate of the pros and cons of the
war come
afterward — usually following the war’s failure — in the political arena,
rather
than before with the proper debate on a declaration of war resolution.
Laws are routinely written by un-elected bureaucrats, with
themselves
becoming the judicial and enforcement authority. Little desire is
expressed in
Congress to alter this monster that creates thousands of pages each
year in the
Federal Register. Even the nearly 100,000 bureaucrats who now carry
guns stir
little controversy. For decades, Executive Orders have been arrogantly
used to
write laws to circumvent a plodding or disagreeable Congress. This
attitude was
best described by a Clinton presidential aide who bragged:
“…stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool!”
This is quite a testimonial to the rule of law and
constitutional
restraint on government power.
The
courts are no better than the executive or legislative branches in
limiting the
unconstitutional expansion of the federal monolith. Members of
Congress,
including committee chairmen, downplay my concern that proposed
legislation is
unconstitutional by insisting that the courts are the ones to make such
weighty
decisions, not mere Members of Congress. This was an informal argument
made by
House leadership on the floor during the debate on campaign finance
reform. In
essence, they said “We know it’s bad, but we’ll let the courts clean it
up.” And look what happened!
The
courts did not save us from ourselves.
2004 Ron Paul 2:35
Something must be done, however, if we expect to rein in
our ever growing and intrusive government. Instead of depending on the
courts to
rule favorably, when Congress and the executive branch go astray, we
must
curtail the courts when they overstep their authority by writing laws,
rubber
stamping bad legislation, or overruling state laws. Hopefully in the
future we
will have a Congress more cognizant of its responsibility to legislate
within
the confines of the Constitution.
There
is something Congress, by majority vote, can do to empower the states
to deal
with their First Amendment issues. It’s clear that Congress has been
instructed to write no laws regarding freedom of speech, religion, or
assembly.
This obviously means that federal courts have no authority to do so
either.
Therefore, the remaining option is for Congress to specifically remove
jurisdiction of all First Amendment controversies from all federal
courts,
including the Supreme Court.
Issues
dealing with prayer, the Ten Commandments, religious symbols or
clothing, and
songs, even the issue of abortion, are properly left as a prerogative
of the
states. A giant step in this direction could be achieved with the
passage my
proposed legislation, the We the People Act.
2004 Ron Paul 2:36
Conclusion:
Emerson’s real attack was on intellectual conformity without a willingness to entertain new ideas based on newly acquired
facts. This
is what he referred to as the foolish consistency. The greatest
open-minded idea
I’m aware of is to know that one does not know what is best for others,
whether it’s in economic, social, or moral policy, or in the affairs of
other
nations. Believing one knows what is best for others represents the
greatest
example of a closed mind.
Friedrich
Hayek referred to this as a pretense of knowledge. Governments are no
more
capable of running an economy made fair for everyone than they are of
telling
the individual what is best for their spiritual salvation. There are a
thousand
things in between that the busybody politicians, bureaucrats, and
judges believe
they know and yet do not. Sadly our citizens have become dependent on
government
for nearly everything from cradle to grave, and look to government for
all
guidance and security.
2004 Ron Paul 2:37
Continuously ignoring Emerson’s advice on self-reliance
is indeed a foolish consistency which most of the politicians now in
charge of
the militant nanny state follow. And it’s an armed state, domestic as
well as
foreign. Our armies tell the Arab world what’s best for them, while the
armed
bureaucrats at home harass our own people into submission and obedience
to every
law and regulation, most of which are incomprehensible to the average
citizen.
Ask three IRS agents for an interpretation of the tax code and
you will
get three different answers. Ask three experts in the Justice
Department to
interpret the anti-trust laws, and you will get three different
answers. First
they’ll tell you it’s illegal to sell too low, then they’ll tell you
it’s illegal to sell too high, and it’s certainly illegal if everybody
sold
products at the same price. All three positions can get you into plenty
of
trouble and blamed for first, undermining competition, second, for
having too
much control and gouging the public, and third, for engaging in
collusion. The
people can’t win.
2004 Ron Paul 2:38
Real knowledge is to know what one does not know. The only
society that recognizes this fact and understands how productive
enterprise is
generated is a free society, unencumbered with false notions of
grandeur. It is
this society that generates true tolerance and respect for others.
Self-reliance
and creativity blossom in a free society. This does not mean anarchy,
chaos, or
libertine behavior. Truly, only a moral society can adapt to personal
liberty.
Some basic rules must be followed and can be enforced by
government — most
suitably by local and small government entities. Honoring all voluntary
contractual arrangements, social and economic, protection of all life,
and
established standards for private property ownership are the three
principles
required for a free society to remain civilized. Depending on the
culture, the
government could be the family, the tribe, or some regional or state
entity.
2004 Ron Paul 2:39
The freedom philosophy is based on the humility that we are
not omnipotent, but also the confidence that true liberty generates the
most
practical solution to all our problems, whether they are economic,
domestic
security, or national defense.
Short
of this, any other system generates authoritarianism that grows with
each policy
failure and eventually leads to a national bankruptcy. It was this end,
not our
military budget, which brought the Soviets to their knees.
2004 Ron Paul 2:40
A system of liberty allows for the individual to be
creative, productive, or spiritual on one’s own terms, and encourages
excellence and virtue. All forms of authoritarianism only exist at the
expense
of liberty. Yet the humanitarian do-gooders claim to strive for these
very same
goals. To understand the difference is crucial to the survival of a
free
society.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 3
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr021204.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
February 12, 2004
Rush Limbaugh and the Sick Federal War on Pain Relief
2004 Ron Paul 3:1
Mr. Speaker, the publicity surrounding popular radio talk
show host Rush Limbaugh’s legal troubles relating to his use of the
pain
killer OxyContin hopefully will focus public attention on how the
federal drug
war threatens the effective treatment of chronic pain. Prosecutors have
seized
Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records to investigate whether he violated
federal drug
laws. The fact that Mr. Limbaugh is a high profile, controversial,
conservative
media personality has given rise to speculation that the prosecution is
politically motivated. Adding to this suspicion is the fact that
individual pain
patients are rarely prosecuted in this type of case.
2004 Ron Paul 3:2
In cases where patients are not high profile celebrities
like Mr. Limbaugh, it is pain management physicians who bear the brunt
of
overzealous prosecutors. Faced with the failure of the war on drugs to
eliminate
drug cartels and kingpins, prosecutors and police have turned their
attention to
pain management doctors, using federal statutes designed for the
prosecution of
drug dealers to prosecute physicians for prescribing pain medicine.
2004 Ron Paul 3:3
Many of the cases brought against physicians are rooted in
the federal Drug Enforcement Administration’s failure to consider
current
medical standards regarding the use of opioids, including OxyContin, in
formulating policy. Opioids are the pharmaceuticals considered most
effective in
relieving chronic pain. Federal law classifies most opioids as Schedule
II
drugs, the same classification given to cocaine and heroin, despite a
growing
body of opinion among the medical community that opioids should not be
classified with these substances.
2004 Ron Paul 3:4
Unfortunately, patients often must consume very large
amounts of opioids to obtain long-term relief. Some prescriptions may
be for
hundreds of pills and last only a month. A prescription this
large may appear
suspicious.
But according to many
pain management specialists, it is medically necessary in many cases to
prescribe a large number of pills to effectively treat chronic pain.
However,
zealous prosecutors show no interest in learning the basic facts of
pain
management.
2004 Ron Paul 3:5
This harassment by law enforcement has forced some doctors
to close their practices, while others have stopped prescribing opioids
altogether — even though opioids are the only way some of their
patients can
obtain pain relief. The current attitude toward pain physicians is
exemplified
by Assistant US Attorney Gene Rossi’s statement that “Our office will
try
our best to root out [certain doctors] like the Taliban.”
2004 Ron Paul 3:6
Prosecutors show no concern for how their actions will
affect patients who need large amounts of opioids to control their
chronic pain.
For example, the prosecutor in the case of Dr. Cecil Knox of Roanoke,
Virginia,
told all of Dr. Knox’s patients to seek help in federal clinics even
though
none of the federal clinics would prescribe effective pain medicine!
2004 Ron Paul 3:7
Doctors are even being punished for the misdeeds of their
patients. For example, Dr. James Graves was sentenced to more than 60
years for
manslaughter because several of his patients overdosed on various
combinations
of pain medications and other drugs, including illegal street drugs. As
a
physician with over thirty years of experience in private practice, I
find it
outrageous that a physician would be held criminally liable for a
patient’s
misuse of medicine.
2004 Ron Paul 3:8
The American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS),
one of the nation’s leading defenders of medical freedom, recently
advised
doctors to avoid prescribing opioids because, according to AAPS, “drug
agents
set medical standards.” I would hope my colleagues would agree that
doctors,
not federal agents, should determine medical standards.
2004 Ron Paul 3:9
By waging this war on pain physicians, the government is
condemning patients to either live with excruciating chronic pain or
seek
opioids from other, less reliable, sources — such as street drug
dealers.
Of course opioids bought on the street likely will pose a
greater risk of
damaging a patient’s health than opioids obtained from a physician.
2004 Ron Paul 3:10
Finally, as the Limbaugh case reveals, the prosecution of
pain management physicians destroys the medical privacy of all chronic
pain
patients. Under the guise of prosecuting the drug war, law enforcement
officials
can rummage through patients’ personal medical records and, as may be
the case
with Mr. Limbaugh, use information uncovered to settle personal or
political
scores. I am pleased that AAPS, along with the American Civil Liberties
Union,
has joined the effort to protect Mr. Limbaugh’s medical records.
2004 Ron Paul 3:11
Mr. Speaker, Congress should take action to rein in
overzealous prosecutors and law enforcement officials, and stop the
harassment
of legitimate physicians who act in good faith when prescribing opioids
for
relief from chronic pain. Doctors should not be prosecuted for using
their best
medical judgment to act in their patients’ best interests. Doctors also
should
not be prosecuted for the misdeeds of their patients.
2004 Ron Paul 3:12
Finally, I wish to express my hope that Mr. Limbaugh’s
case will encourage his many fans and listeners to consider how their
support
for the federal war on drugs is inconsistent with their support of
individual
liberty and constitutional government.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 4
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr022604.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE HOUSE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
February 26, 2004
The Financial Services Committees Views and Estimates for 2005
2004 Ron Paul 4:1
The Committee on Financial Services’ “Views and
Estimates for Fiscal Year 2005” begins by expressing concerns about the
long-term threat that record level of deficit spending poses to the
American
economy, and pledging to support efforts to reduce the deficit. Yet in
the rest
of the document the committee advocates increasing spending on both
foreign and
domestic welfare. The committee also advocates new regulations that
will retard
economic growth, as well as violate the Constitution and infringe on
individual
liberty.
2004 Ron Paul 4:2
This document claims that “investor confidence” was
boosted by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which imposed new federal
regulations on
capital markets, including mandating new duties for board members and
dictating
how companies must structure their boards of directors. One of
Sarbanes-Oxley’s most onerous provisions makes every member of a
company’s
board of directors, as well as the company’s chief executive officer,
criminally liable if they fail to catch accounting errors.
2004 Ron Paul 4:3
As investigative reporter John Berleau detailed in his
Insight magazine article (“Sarbanes-Oxley is a Business Disaster”), the
new
mandates in Sarbanes-Oxley have caused directorship, accounting, audit,
and
legal fees to double. In addition, the cost of directors’ liability
insurance
has almost doubled since Sarbanes-Oxley became law. Not surprisingly,
the impact
of these new costs hit small businesses especially hard — the
traditional engine
of job creation in America.
2004 Ron Paul 4:4
The costs of compliance with Sarbanes-Oxley divert capital
away from activities that create jobs. Yet the committee is actually
considering
imposing Sarbanes-Oxley-like regulations on the mutual funds industry!
Instead
of expanding the regulatory state, the committee should examine the
economic
effects of Sarbanes-Oxley and at least pass legislation exempting small
businesses from the law’s requirements.
2004 Ron Paul 4:5
The committee’s ‘Views and Estimates” gives an
unqualified endorsement to increased taxpayer support for the Financial
Crimes
Enforcement Network (FINCEN), while ignoring the growing erosion of our
financial privacy under the PATRIOT Act and similar legislation.
In fact, the committee ignores the recent stealth expansion of
the
FBI’s power to seize records of dealers in precious metals, jewelers,
and
pawnshops without a warrant issued by an independent judge.
Instead of serving as cheerleaders for the
financial police
state, the committee should act to curtail the federal government’s
ability to
monitor the financial affairs of law-abiding Americans.
2004 Ron Paul 4:6
While the committee’s “Views and Estimates” devote
considerable space to discussing Government Sponsored Enterprises
(GSEs), it
makes no mention of the billions of dollars in subsidies Congress has
given to
GSEs. These subsidies distort the market, create a short-term boom in
housing,
and endanger the economy by allowing GSEs to attract capital they could
not
attract under pure market conditions.
2004 Ron Paul 4:7
Like all artificially created bubbles, the boom in housing
prices cannot last forever. When housing prices fall, the financial
losses
suffered by the mortgage debt holders will be greater than they would
have been
had the government not actively encouraged over-investment in housing.
2004 Ron Paul 4:8
Government subsidies helped Fannie and Freddie triple their
debt to more than $2.2 trillion from 1995 to 2002. Fannie and Freddie’s
combined debt soon could surpass the privately held debt of the entire
federal
government. A taxpayer bailout of the GSEs would dwarf the
savings-and-loan
bailout of the early nineties and could run up the national debt to
unmanageable
levels.
2004 Ron Paul 4:9
However, according to the Committee on Financial Services,
the problem with GSEs is not taxpayer subsidizes but a lack of proper
regulation! Therefore, the only GSE reform recommended by this document
is to
create a new regulator to oversee GSEs. In fact, new regulators, or new
regulations, will not do anything to correct the market distortions
caused by
government support of GSEs.
2004 Ron Paul 4:10
Instead of reorganizing the deck chairs of the GSEs’
looming fiscal Titanic, the Committee should pass HR 3071, the Free
Housing
Market Enhancement Act. This act repeals government subsidies for the
housing-related GSEs — Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the National Home
Loan Bank
Board.
2004 Ron Paul 4:11
The committee’s inconsistency regarding deficit reduction
is shown by its support for increased spending for almost every foreign
aid
program under its jurisdiction. Of course, Congress has neither
constitutional
nor moral authority to take money from the American people and send it
overseas.
Furthermore, foreign aid rarely helps improve the standard of living
for
citizens of “beneficiary” countries. Instead, the aid all too often
enriches
corrupt politicians and helps stave off pressure for real reform.
Furthermore,
certain proposals the committee embraces smack of economic imperialism,
suggesting that a country whose economic and other policies please
American
politicians and bureaucrats will be rewarded with money stolen from the
American
taxpayer.
2004 Ron Paul 4:12
The committee also expresses unqualified support for
programs such as the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) that use taxpayer
dollars to
subsidize large multinational corporations.
Ex-Im exists to subsidize large corporations that are quite
capable of
paying the costs of their own export programs! Ex-Im also provides
taxpayer
funding for export programs that would never obtain funding in the
private
market. As Austrian economists Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Hayek
demonstrated, one
of the purposes of the market is to determine the highest value uses of
resources. Thus, the failure of a project to receive funding through
the free
market means the resources that could have gone to that project have a
higher-valued use. Government programs that take funds from the private
sector
and use them to fund projects that cannot obtain market funding reduce
economic
efficiency and decrease living standards.
Yet,
Ex-Im actually brags about its support for projects rejected by the
market!
2004 Ron Paul 4:13
Rather than embracing an agenda of expanded statism, I hope
my colleagues will work to
reduce
government interference in the market that only benefits the
politically
powerful. For example, the committee could take a major step toward
ending
corporate welfare by holding hearings and a mark-up on my legislation
to
withdraw the United States from the Bretton Woods Agreement and end
taxpayer
support for the International Monetary Fund.
If the committee is not going to defund programs such as Ex-Im,
it should
at least act on legislation Mr. Sanders will introduce denying
corporate welfare
to industries that move a substantial portion of their workforce
overseas. It is
obscene to force working Americans to subsidize their foreign
competitors.
2004 Ron Paul 4:14
Finally, the committee’s views support expanding the
domestic welfare state in the area of housing, despite the fact that
federal
subsidies distort the housing market by taking capital that could be
better used
elsewhere and applying it to housing at the direction of politicians
and
bureaucrats. Housing subsidies also violate the constitutional
prohibitions
against redistributionism. The federal government has no constitutional
authority to abuse its taxing power to fund programs that reshape the
housing
market to the liking of politicians and bureaucrats.
2004 Ron Paul 4:15
Perhaps the most disappointing omission from the
committee’s “Views and Estimates” is the failure to address monetary
policy. This is especially so given the recent decline in the value of
the
dollar caused by the Federal Reserve’s continuing boom and bust
monetary
policy.
2004 Ron Paul 4:16
It is long past time for Congress to examine seriously the
need to reform the fiat currency system.
The
committee also should examine how Federal Reserve policies encourage
excessive
public and private sector debt, and the threat that debt poses to the
long-term
health of the American economy. Additionally, the committee should
examine how
the American government and economy would be affected if the dollar
lost its
privileged status as the world’s reserve currency. After all, the main
reason
the United States government is able to run such large deficits without
suffering hyperinflation is the willingness of foreign investors to
hold US debt
instruments. If, or when, the dollar’s weakness causes foreigners to
become
reluctant to invest in US debt instruments, the results could be
cataclysmic for
our economy.
2004 Ron Paul 4:17
In conclusion, the “Views and Estimates” report
presented by the committee claims to endorse fiscal responsibility, yet
also
supports expanding international, corporate, and domestic spending. The
report
also endorses increasing the power of the federal police state. Perhaps
most
disturbingly, this document ignores the looming economic problems
created by the
Federal Reserve’s inflationary monetary polices and the resulting
increase in
private and public sector debt. I therefore urge my colleagues to
reject this
document and instead embrace an agenda of ending corporate welfare,
protecting
financial privacy, and reforming the fiat money system that is the root
cause of
America’s economic instability.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 5
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr031004.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 10, 2004
An Indecent Attack on the First Amendment
2004 Ron Paul 5:1
We will soon debate the “Broadcast
Indecency Act of 2004” on the House Floor.
This atrocious piece of legislation should be defeated.
It cannot improve the moral behavior of U.S. citizens, but it
can do
irreparable harm to our cherished right to freedom of speech.
2004 Ron Paul 5:2
This attempt at regulating and punishing indecent and sexually provocative
language suggests a comparison to the Wahhabi religious police of Saudi
Arabia,
who control the “Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention
of
Vice.”
Though both may be
motivated by the good intentions of improving moral behavior, using
government
force to do so is fraught with great danger and has no chance of
success.
2004 Ron Paul 5:3
Regulating speech is a dangerous notion, and not compatible with the principles
of a free society.
The Founders
recognized this, and thus explicitly prohibited Congress from making
any laws
that might abridge freedom of speech or of the press.
2004 Ron Paul 5:4
But we have in recent decades seen a steady erosion of this protection of free
speech.
2004 Ron Paul 5:5
This process started years ago when an arbitrary distinction was made by the
political left between commercial and non-commercial speech, thus
permitting
government to regulate and censor commercial speech.
Since only a few participated in commercial speech, few
cared — and besides, the government was there to protect us from
unethical
advertisements.
Supporters of this
policy failed to understand that anti-fraud laws and state laws could
adequately
deal with this common problem found in all societies.
2004 Ron Paul 5:6
Disheartening as it may be, the political left, which was supposed to care more
about the 1st Amendment than the right, has ventured in recent years to
curtail
so-called “hate speech” by championing political correctness.
In the last few decades we’ve seen the
political-correctness crowd, in the name of improving personal behavior
and
language, cause individuals to lose their jobs, cause careers to be
ruined,
cause athletes to be trashed, and cause public speeches on liberal
campuses to
be disrupted and even banned.
These
tragedies have been caused by the so-called champions of free speech.
Over the years, tolerance for the views of those with whom
campus
liberals disagree has nearly evaporated.
The
systematic and steady erosion of freedom of speech continues.
2004 Ron Paul 5:7
Just one year ago we saw a coalition of both left and right push through the
radical Campaign Finance Reform Act, which strictly curtails the rights
all
Americans to speak out against particular candidates at the time of
elections.
Amazingly, this usurpation by Congress was upheld by the Supreme
Court,
which showed no concern for the restrictions on political speech during
political campaigns.
Instead of
admitting that money and corruption in government is not a consequence
of too
much freedom of expression, but rather a result of government acting
outside the
bounds of the Constitution, this new law addressed a symptom rather
than the
cause of special interest control of our legislative process.
2004 Ron Paul 5:8
And now comes the right’s attack on the 1st Amendment, with its effort to
stamp out “indecent” language on the airways.
And it will be assumed that if one is not with them in this
effort, then
one must support the trash seen and heard in the movie theaters and on
our
televisions and radios.
For social
rather than constitutional reasons, some on the left express opposition
to this
proposal.
2004 Ron Paul 5:9
But this current proposal is dangerous. Since
most Americans- I hope- are still for freedom of expression of
political ideas
and religious beliefs, no one claims that anyone who endorses freedom
of speech
therefore endorses the nutty philosophy and religious views that are
expressed.
We should all know that the 1st Amendment was not written to
protect
non-controversial mainstream speech, but rather the ideas and beliefs
of what
the majority see as controversial or fringe.
2004 Ron Paul 5:10
The temptation has always been great to legislatively restrict rudeness,
prejudice, and minority views, and it’s easiest to start by attacking
the
clearly obnoxious expressions that most deem offensive.
The real harm comes later.
But “later” is now approaching.
2004 Ron Paul 5:11
The failure to understand that radio, TV, and movies more often than not reflect
the peoples’ attitudes prompts this effort.
It was never law that prohibited moral degradation in earlier
times.
It was the moral standards of the people who rejected the smut
that we
now see as routine entertainment.
Merely
writing laws and threatening huge fines will not improve the moral
standards of
the people.
Laws like the proposed
“Broadcast Indecency Act of 2004” merely address the symptom of a
decaying
society, while posing a greater threat to freedom of expression.
Laws may attempt to silence the bigoted and the profane, but the
hearts
and minds of those individuals will not be changed.
Societal standards will not be improved.
Government has no control over these standards, and can only
undermine
liberty in its efforts to make individuals more moral or the economy
fairer.
2004 Ron Paul 5:12
Proponents of using government authority to censor certain undesirable images
and comments on the airwaves resort to the claim that the airways
belong to all
the people, and therefore it’s the government’s responsibility to
protect
them.
The mistake of never having
privatized the radio and TV airwaves does not justify ignoring the 1st
Amendment
mandate that “Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech.”
When everyone owns something, in reality
nobody owns it.
Control then occurs merely by the whims of the politicians in
power.
From the very start, licensing of radio and TV frequencies
invited
government censorship that is no less threatening than that found in
totalitarian societies.
2004 Ron Paul 5:13
We should not ignore the smut and trash that has invaded our society, but laws
like this will not achieve the goals that many seek.
If a moral society could be created by law, we would have had
one a long
time ago.
The religious
fundamentalists in control of other countries would have led the way.
Instead, authoritarian violence reigns in
those countries.
2004 Ron Paul 5:14
If it is not recognized that this is the wrong approach to improve the quality
of the airways, a heavy price will be paid.
The solution to decaying moral standards has to be voluntary,
through
setting examples in our families, churches, and communities- never by
government
coercion.
It just doesn’t work.
2004 Ron Paul 5:15
But the argument is always that the people are in great danger if government
does not act by:
2004 Ron Paul 5:16
- Restricting free
expression in
advertising;
2004 Ron Paul 5:17
- Claiming insensitive
language
hurts people, and political correctness guidelines are needed to
protect the
weak;
2004 Ron Paul 5:18
- Arguing that campaign
finance
reform is needed to hold down government corruption by the special
interests;
2004 Ron Paul 5:19
- Banning indecency on the
airways
that some believe encourages immoral behavior.
2004 Ron Paul 5:20
If we accept the
principle that these dangers must be prevented through coercive
government
restrictions on expression, it must logically follow that all dangers
must be
stamped out, especially those that are even more dangerous than those
already
dealt with.
This principle is
adhered to in all totalitarian societies.
That
means total control of freedom of expression of all political and
religious
views.
This certainly was the case
with the Soviets, the Nazis, the Cambodians, and the Chinese communists.
And yet these governments literally caused the deaths of
hundreds of
millions of people throughout the 20th Century.
This is the real danger, and if we’re in the business of
protecting the
people from all danger, this will be the logical next step.
2004 Ron Paul 5:21
It could easily be argued that this must be done, since political ideas and
fanatical religious beliefs are by far the most dangerous ideas known
to man.
Sadly, we’re moving in that direction, and no matter how well
intended
the promoters of these limits on the 1st Amendment are, both on the
left and the
right, they nevertheless endorse the principle of suppressing any
expressions of
dissent if one chooses to criticize the government.
2004 Ron Paul 5:22
When the direct attack on political and religious views comes, initially it will
be on targets that most will ignore, since they will be seen as outside
the
mainstream and therefore unworthy of defending – like the Branch
Davidians or
Lyndon LaRouche.
2004 Ron Paul 5:23
Rush Limbaugh has it right (at least on this one), and correctly fears the
speech police.
He states:
“I’m in the free speech business,” as he defends Howard Stern
and
criticizes any government effort to curtail speech on the airways,
while
recognizing the media companies’ authority and responsibility to
self-regulate.
2004 Ron Paul 5:24
Congress has been a poor steward of the 1st Amendment.
This newest attack should alert us all to the dangers of
government
regulating freedom of speech — of any kind.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 6
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr031704.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 17, 2004
Oppose a Flawed Policy of Preemptive War
2004 Ron Paul 6:1
Mr. Speaker, today during the floor debate on H.
Res. 557 (the Iraq resolution), I unfortunately was denied time to
express my
dissent on the policy of preemptive war in Iraq- even though I am a
member of
the International Relations committee.
The
fact that the committee held no hearings and did not mark up the
resolution
further challenges the fairness of the process.
2004 Ron Paul 6:2
I wish to
express my
opposition to H. Res. 557, obviously not because our armed forces do
not deserve
praise, but rather because our policy in the Persian Gulf is seriously
flawed. A
resolution commending our forces should not be used to rubber-stamp a
policy of
folly. To do so is disingenuous. Though the resolution may have
political
benefits, it will prove to be historically incorrect.
2004 Ron Paul 6:3
Justifying
preemption is not
an answer to avoiding appeasement. Very few wars are necessary. Very
few wars
are good wars. And this one does not qualify. Most wars are costly
beyond
measure, in life and limb and economic hardship. In this regard, this
war does
qualify: 566 deaths, 10,000 casualties, and hundreds of billions of
dollars for
a victory requiring self-deception.
2004 Ron Paul 6:4
Rather than
bragging about
victory, we should recognize that the war raging on between the Muslim
East and
the Christian West has intensified and spread, leaving our allies and
our own
people less safe. Denying we have an interest in oil, and denying that
occupying
an Islamic country is an affront to the sensitivities of most Arabs and
Muslims,
is foolhardy.
2004 Ron Paul 6:5
Reasserting
U.N. Security
Council resolutions as a justification for the war further emphasizes
our
sacrifice of sovereignty, and only underscores how Congress has reneged
its
constitutional responsibility over war.
2004 Ron Paul 6:6
This
resolution dramatizes how
we have forgotten that for too long we were staunch military and
economic allies
of Saddam Hussein, confirming the folly of our policy of foreign
meddling over
many decades. From the days of installing the Shah of Iran to the
current
worldwide spread of hostilities and hatred, our unnecessary involvement
shows so
clearly how unintended consequences come back to haunt generation after
generation.
2004 Ron Paul 6:7
Someday our
leaders ought to
ask why Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, Mexico, and many others are not
potential
targets of an Islamic attack. Falsely believing that al Qaeda was
aligned with
Saddam Hussein has resulted in al Qaeda now having a strong presence
and
influence in Iraq. Falsely believing that Iraq had a supply of weapons
of mass
destruction has resulted in a dramatic loss of U.S. credibility, as
anti-Americanism spreads around the world. Al Qaeda recruitment, sadly,
has been
dramatically increased.
2004 Ron Paul 6:8
We all
praise our troops and
support them. Challenging ones patriotism for not supporting this
resolution
and/or policy in the Persian Gulf is not legitimate. We should all be
cautious
about endorsing and financing a policy that unfortunately expands the
war rather
than ends it.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 7
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr032204.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 22, 2004
Dont Let the FDA Block Access to Needed Health Care Information
2004 Ron Paul 7:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise
to introduce the Health Information Independence Act. This Act restores
the
right of consumers to purchase the dietary supplements of their choice
and
receive accurate information about the health benefits of foods and
dietary
supplements. The Act restricts the Food and Drug Administration’s power
to
impede consumers access to truthful claims regarding the benefits of
foods and
dietary supplements to those cases where the FDA has evidence that a
product
poses a threat to safety and well-being, or that a product does not
have a
disclaimer informing consumers that the claims are not FDA-approved.
2004 Ron Paul 7:2
Claims
that could
threaten public safety, or that are marketed without a disclaimer,
would have to
be reviewed by an independent review board, comprised of independent
scientific
experts randomly chosen by the FDA. Anyone who is (or has been) on the
FDAs
payroll is disqualified from serving on the board.
The FDA is forbidden from exercising any influence over the
review board.
If the board recommends approval of a health claim, then the FDA must
approve
the claim.
2004 Ron Paul 7:3
The
board also must
consider whether any claims can be rendered non-misleading by adopting
a
disclaimer before rejecting a claim out of hand. For example, if the
board finds
the scientific evidence does not conclusively support a claim, but the
claim
could be rendered non-misleading if accompanied with a disclaimer, then
the
board must approve the claim- provided it is always accompanied by an
appropriate disclaimer. The disclaimer would be a simple statement to
the effect
that “scientific studies on these claims are inconclusive” and/or
“these
claims are not approved by the FDA.” Thus, the bill tilts the balance
of
federal law in favor of allowing consumers access to information
regarding the
health benefits of foods and dietary supplements, which is proper in a
free
society.
2004 Ron Paul 7:4
The
procedures
established by the Health Information Independence Act are a fair and
balanced
way to ensure consumers have access to truthful information about
dietary
supplements. Over the past decade, the American people have made it
clear they
do not want the federal government to interfere with their access to
dietary
supplements, yet the FDA continues to engage in heavy-handed attempts
to
restrict such access.
2004 Ron Paul 7:5
In
1994, Congress
responded to the American peoples desire for greater access to
information
about the benefits of dietary supplements by passing the Dietary
Supplements and
Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), liberalizing rules regarding
the
regulation of dietary supplements. Congressional offices received a
record
number of comments in favor of DSHEA.
2004 Ron Paul 7:6
Despite
DSHEA, FDA
officials continued to attempt to enforce regulations aimed at keeping
the
American public in the dark about the benefits of dietary supplements.
Finally,
in the case of Pearson v. Shalala, the United States Court of Appeals
for the DC
Circuit Court reaffirmed consumers First Amendment right to learn
about dietary
supplements without unnecessary interference from the FDA. The Pearson
decision
anticipated my legislation by suggesting the FDA adopt disclaimers in
order to
render some health claims non-misleading.
2004 Ron Paul 7:7
In
the years since
the Pearson decision, members of Congress have had to continually
intervene with
the FDA to ensure it followed the court order. The FDA continues to
deny
consumers access to truthful health information. Clearly, the FDA is
determined
to continue to (as the Pearson court pointed out) act as though
liberalizing
regulations regarding health claims is the equivalent of “asking
consumers to
buy something while hypnotized and therefore they are bound to be
misled.
2004 Ron Paul 7:8
The
FDA’s
“grocery store censorship” not only violates consumers’ First Amendment
rights- by preventing consumers from learning about the benefits of
foods and
dietary supplements, the FDA’s policies are preventing consumers from
taking
easy steps to improve their own health!
2004 Ron Paul 7:9
If
Congress is
serious about respecting First Amendment rights, and the people’s right
to
improve their own health, we must remove the FDA’s authority to censor
non-misleading health claims, and claims that can be rendered
non-misleading by
the simple device of adopting a disclaimer.
2004 Ron Paul 7:10
In
conclusion, I urge
my colleagues to help establish an objective process that respects
consumers
First Amendment rights to non-misleading information regarding the
health
benefits of foods and dietary supplements by cosponsoring the Health
Information
Independence Act.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 8
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr032504.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 25, 2004
Oppose the Spendthrift 2005 Federal Budget Resolution
2004 Ron Paul 8:1
Mr. Speaker, I once again find myself compelled to vote against the annual
budget resolution (HConRes 393) for a very simple reason: it makes
government
bigger.
Like many of my Republican
colleagues who curiously voted for today’s enormous budget, I campaign
on a
simple promise that I will work to make government smaller.
This means I cannot vote for any budget that increases spending
over
previous years.
In fact, I would
have a hard time voting for any budget that did not slash federal
spending by at
least 25%, a feat that becomes less unthinkable when we remember that
the
federal budget in 1990 was less than half what it is today.
Did anyone really think the federal government was uncomfortably
small
just 14 years ago?
Hardly.
It once took more than 100 years for the federal budget to
double, now it
takes less than a decade.
We need
to end the phony rhetoric about “priorities” and recognize federal
spending
as the runaway freight train that it is.
A
federal government that spends 2.4 trillion dollars in one year and
consumes
roughly one-third of the nation’s GDP is far too large.
2004 Ron Paul 8:2
Neither political party wants to address the fundamental
yet unspoken issue lurking beneath any budget debate: What is the
proper role
for government in our society?
Are
these ever-growing social services and defense expenditures really
proper in a
free country?
We need to understand
that the more government spends, the more freedom is lost.
Instead of simply debating spending levels, we ought to be
debating whether the departments, agencies, and programs funded by the
budget
should exist at all.
My Republican
colleagues especially ought to know this.
Unfortunately,
however, the GOP has decided to abandon principle and pander to the
entitlements
crowd.
But this approach will
backfire, because Democrats will always offer to spend even more than
Republicans.
When Republicans offer
to spend $500 billion on Medicare, Democrats will offer $600 billion.
Why not?
It’s all funny
money anyway, and it helps them get reelected.
2004 Ron Paul 8:3
I object strenuously to the term “baseline budget.”
In Washington, this means that the previous year’s spending
levels
represent only a baseline starting point.
Both
parties accept that each new budget will spend more than the last, the
only
issue being how much more.
If
Republicans offer a budget that grows federal spending by 3%, while
Democrats
seek 6% growth, Republicans trumpet that they are the party of smaller
government! But expanding the government slower than some would like is
not the
same as reducing it.
2004 Ron Paul 8:4
Furthermore, today’s budget debate further entrenches the
phony concept of discretionary versus nondiscretionary spending.
An increasing percentage of the annual federal budget is
categorized as
“nondiscretionary” entitlement spending, meaning Congress ostensibly
has no
choice whether to fund certain programs.
In
fact, roughly two-thirds of the fiscal year 2005 budget is consumed by
nondiscretionary spending.
When
Congress has no say over how two-thirds of the federal budget is spent,
the
American people effectively have no say either.
Why in the world should the American people be forced to spend
1.5
trillion dollars funding programs that cannot even be reviewed at
budget time?
The very concept of nondiscretionary spending is a
big-government
statist’s dream, because it assumes that we as a society simply have
accepted
that most of the federal leviathan must be funded as a matter of course.
NO program or agency should be considered sacred, and no funding
should
be considered inevitable.
2004 Ron Paul 8:5
The assertion that this budget will reduce taxes is
nonsense.
Budget bills do not
change the tax laws one bit.
Congress
can pass this budget today and raise taxes tomorrow- budget and tax
bills are
completely separate and originate from different committees.
The budget may make revenue projections based
on tax cuts,
but the truth is that Congress has no idea what federal revenues will
be in any
future year.
Similarly, the deficit
reduction supposedly contained in the budget is illusory.
The federal government always spends more in future years than
originally
projected, and always runs single-year deficits when one factors in
raids on
funds supposedly earmarked for Social Security.
The notion that today’s budget will impose fiscal restraint on
Congress
in the future is laughable- Congress will vote for new budgets every
year
without the slightest regard for what we do today.
2004 Ron Paul 8:6
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have discussed the details of
this budget ad nauseam.
The
increases in domestic, foreign, and military spending would not be
needed if
Congress stopped trying to build an empire abroad and a nanny state at
home.
Our interventionist foreign policy and growing entitlement
society will
bankrupt this nation if we do not change the way we think about the
proper role
of the federal government.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 9
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr033004.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 30, 2004
Dont Expand NATO!
2004 Ron Paul 9:1
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.
2004 Ron Paul 9:2
More than 50 years ago the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization was formed to defend Western Europe and the United States
against
attack from the communist nations of Eastern Europe. It was an alliance
of
sovereign nations bound together in common purpose - for mutual
defense. The
deterrence value of NATO helped kept the peace throughout the Cold War.
In
short, NATO achieved its stated mission. With the fall of the Soviet
system and
the accompanying disappearance of the threat of attack, in 1989-1991,
NATO’s
reason to exist ceased. Unfortunately, as with most bureaucracies, the
end of
NATO’s mission did not mean the end of NATO. Instead, heads of NATO
member
states gathered in 1999 desperately attempting to devise new missions
for the
outdated and adrift alliance. This is where NATO moved from being a
defensive
alliance respecting the sovereignty of its members to an offensive and
interventionist organization, concerned now with economic, social and
political difficulties...ethnic and religious rivalries, territorial
disputes,
inadequate or failed efforts at reform, the abuse of human rights, and
the
dissolution of states, in the words of the Washington 1999 Summit.
2004 Ron Paul 9:3
And we saw the fruits of this new NATO mission in the
former Yugoslavia, where the US, through NATO, attacked a sovereign
state that
threatened neither the United States nor its own neighbors. In
Yugoslavia, NATO
abandoned the claim it once had to the moral high ground. The result of
the
illegal and immoral NATO intervention in the Balkans speaks for itself:
NATO
troops will occupy the Balkans for the foreseeable future. No peace has
been
attained, merely the cessation of hostilities and a permanent
dependency on US
foreign aid.
2004 Ron Paul 9:4
The further expansion of NATO is in reality a cover for
increased US interventionism in Europe and beyond. It will be a conduit
for more
unconstitutional US foreign aid and US interference in the internal
politics of
member nations, especially the new members from the former East.
2004 Ron Paul 9:5
It will also mean more corporate welfare at home. As we
know, NATO membership demands a minimum level of military spending of
its member
states. For NATO’s new members, the burden of significantly increased
military
spending when there are no longer external threats is hard to meet.
Unfortunately, this is where the US government steps in, offering aid
and
subsidized loans to these members so they can purchase more unneeded
and
unnecessary military equipment. In short, it is nothing more than
corporate
welfare for the US military industrial complex.
2004 Ron Paul 9:6
The expansion of NATO to these seven countries, we have
heard, will open them up to the further expansion of US military bases,
right up
to the border of the former Soviet Union. Does no one worry that this
continued
provocation of Russia might have negative effects in the future? Is it
necessary?
2004 Ron Paul 9:7
Further, this legislation encourages the accession of
Albania, Macedonia, and Croatia - nations that not long ago were mired
in civil
and regional wars. The promise of US military assistance if any of
these states
are attacked is obviously a foolhardy one. What will the mutual defense
obligations we are entering into mean if two Balkan NATO members begin
hostilities against each other (again)?
2004 Ron Paul 9:8
In conclusion, we should not be wasting US tax money and
taking on more military obligations expanding NATO. The alliance is a
relic of
the Cold War, a hold-over from another time, an anachronism. It should
be
disbanded, the sooner the better.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 10
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr042204.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 22, 2004
The Lessons of 9/11
2004 Ron Paul 10:1
We are constantly admonished to remember the lessons of
9/11.
Of course the real issue is
not remembering, but rather knowing what the pertinent lesson of that
sad day
is.
2004 Ron Paul 10:2
The 9/11 Commission soon will release its report after
months of fanfare by those whose reputations are at stake.
The many hours and dollars spent on the investigation may well
reveal
little we don’t already know, while ignoring the most important lessons
that
should be learned from this egregious attack on our homeland.
Common sense already tells us the tens of billions of dollars
spent by
government agencies, whose job it is to provide security and
intelligence for
our country, failed.
2004 Ron Paul 10:3
A full-fledged investigation into the bureaucracy may help
us in the future, but one should never pretend that government
bureaucracies can
be made efficient.
It is the very
nature of bureaucracies to be inefficient.
Spending an inordinate amount of time finger pointing will
distract from
the real lessons of 9/11.
Which
agency, which department, or which individual receives the most blame
should not
be the main purpose of the investigation.
2004 Ron Paul 10:4
Despite our serious failure to prevent the attacks, it’s
disturbing to see how politicized the whole investigation has become.
Which political party receives the greatest blame is a high
stakes
election-year event, and distracts from the real lessons ignored by
both sides.
2004 Ron Paul 10:5
Everyone on the Commission assumes that 9/11 resulted from
a lack of government action.
No one
in Washington has raised the question of whether our shortcomings,
brought to
light by 9/11, could have been a result of too much government.
Possibly in the final report we will discuss this, but to date
no one has
questioned the assumption that we need more government and, of
course — though
elusive — a more efficient one.
2004 Ron Paul 10:6
The failure to understand the nature of the enemy who
attacked us on 9/11, along with a pre-determined decision to initiate a
pre-emptive war against Iraq, prompted our government to deceive the
people into
believing that Saddam Hussein had something to do with the attacks on
New York
and Washington.
The majority of the
American people still contend the war against Iraq was justified
because of the
events of 9/11.
These
misinterpretations have led to many U.S. military deaths and
casualties,
prompting a growing number of Americans to question the wisdom of our
presence
and purpose in a strange foreign land 6,000 miles from our shores.
2004 Ron Paul 10:7
The neo-conservative defenders of our policy in Iraq speak of the benefits that
we have brought to the Iraqi people:
removal
of a violent dictator, liberation, democracy, and prosperity.
If all this were true, the resistance against our occupation
would not be
growing.
We ought to admit we have
not been welcomed as liberators as was promised by the proponents of
the war.
2004 Ron Paul 10:8
Though we hear much about the so-called “benefits” we
have delivered to the Iraqi people and the Middle East, we hear little
talk of
the cost to the American people:
lives
lost, soldiers maimed for life, uncounted thousands sent home with
diseased
bodies and minds, billions of dollars consumed, and a major cloud
placed over
U.S. markets and the economy.
Sharp
political divisions, reminiscent of the 1960s, are arising at home.
2004 Ron Paul 10:9
Failing to understand why 9/11 happened and looking for a
bureaucratic screw-up to explain the whole thing — while using the
event to
start an unprovoked war unrelated to 9/11 — have dramatically
compounded the
problems all Americans and the world face.
Evidence has shown that there was no connection between Saddam
Hussein
and the guerilla attacks on New York and Washington, and since no
weapons of
mass destruction were found, other reasons are given for invading Iraq.
The real reasons are either denied or ignored: oil,
neo-conservative
empire building, and our support for Israel over the Palestinians.
2004 Ron Paul 10:10
The proponents of the Iraqi war do not hesitate to impugn
the character of those who point out the shortcomings of current
policy, calling
them unpatriotic and appeasers of terrorism.
It
is said that they are responsible for the growing armed
resistance, and for the killing of American soldiers.
It’s conveniently ignored that if the opponents of the
current policy had prevailed, not one single American would have died
nor would
tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have suffered the same fate.
2004 Ron Paul 10:11
Al Qaeda and many new militant groups would not be enjoying
a rapid growth in their ranks.
By
denying that our sanctions and bombs brought havoc to Iraq, it’s easy
to play
the patriot card and find a scapegoat to blame.
We are never at fault and never responsible for bad outcomes of
what many
believe is, albeit well-intentioned, interference in the affairs of
others 6,000
miles from our shores.
2004 Ron Paul 10:12
Pursuing our policy has boiled down to “testing our
resolve.”
It is said by many — even some who did not support the war — that now we have no choice but
to
“stay the course.”
They argue
that it’s a noble gesture to be courageous and continue no matter how
difficult.
But that should not be
the issue.
It is not a question of
resolve, but rather a question of wise policy.
If the policy is flawed and the world and our people are less
safe for
it, unshakable resolve is the opposite of what we need.
Staying the course only makes sense when the difficult tasks are
designed
to protect our country and to thwart those who pose a direct threat to
us.
Wilsonian idealism of self-sacrifice to “make the world safe for
democracy” should never be an excuse to wage preemptive war — especially since
it almost never produces the desired results.
There are always too many unintended consequences.
2004 Ron Paul 10:13
In our effort to change the political structure of Iraq, we
continue alliances with dictators and even develop new ones with
countries that
are anything but democracies.
We
have a close alliance with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, many other Arab
dictatorships, and a new one with Kadafi of Libya.
This should raise questions about the credibility of our
commitment to promoting democracy in Iraq — which even our own
government
wouldn’t tolerate.
2004 Ron Paul 10:14
Show me one neo-con that would accept a national election
that put the radical Shiites in charge.
As
Secretary Rumsfeld said, it’s not going to happen.
These same people are condemning the recent democratic decisions
made in
Spain.
We should remember that
since World War II, in 35 U.S. attempts to promote democracy around the
world
none have succeeded.
2004 Ron Paul 10:15
Promoters of war too often fail to contemplate the
unintended consequences of an aggressive foreign policy.
So far, the anti-war forces have not been surprised with the
chaos that
has now become Iraq, or Iran’s participation — but even they cannot
know all
the long-term shortcomings of such a policy.
2004 Ron Paul 10:16
In an eagerness to march on Baghdad, the neo-cons gloated — and I heard them — of the “shock and awe” that was about to hit the
Iraqi
people.
It turns out that the real
shock and awe is that we’re further from peace in Iraq than we were a
year
ago — and Secretary Rumsfeld admits his own surprise.
2004 Ron Paul 10:17
The only policy now offered is to escalate the war and
avenge the deaths of American soldiers—if they kill 10 of our troops,
we’ll
kill 100 of theirs.
Up until now,
announcing the number of Iraqi deaths has been avoided purposely, but
the new
policy announces our success by the number of Iraqis killed.
But the more we kill, the greater the incitement of the radical
Islamic
militants.
The harder we try to
impose our will on them, the greater the resistance becomes.
2004 Ron Paul 10:18
Amazingly, our occupation has done what was at one time
thought to be impossible—it has united the Sunnis and Shiites against
our
presence.
Although this is probably
temporary, it is real and has deepened our problems in securing Iraq.
The results are an escalation of the conflict and the
requirement for
more troops.
This acceleration of
the killing is called “pacification”—a bit of 1984 newspeak.
2004 Ron Paul 10:19
The removal of Saddam Hussein has created a stark irony.
The willingness and intensity of the Iraqi people to fight for
their
homeland has increased many times over.
Under
Saddam Hussein, essentially no resistance occurred.
Instead of jubilation and parades for the liberators, we face
much
greater and unified efforts to throw out all foreigners than when
Saddam Hussein
was in charge.
2004 Ron Paul 10:20
It’s not whether the Commission investigation of the
causes of 9/11 is unwarranted; since the Commissioners are looking in
the wrong
places for answers, it’s whether much will be achieved.
2004 Ron Paul 10:21
I’m sure we will hear that the bureaucracy failed,
whether it was the FBI, the CIA, the NSC, or all of them for failure to
communicate with each other.
This
will not answer the question of why we were attacked and why our
defenses were
so poor. Even though 40 billion dollars are spent on intelligence
gathering each
year, the process failed us.
It’s
likely to be said that what we need is more money and more efficiency.
Yet, that approach fails to recognize that depending on
government
agencies to be efficient is a risky assumption.
2004 Ron Paul 10:22
We should support efforts to make the intelligence agencies more effective, but
one thing is certain: more money won’t help.
Of the 40 billion dollars spent annually for intelligence, too
much is
spent on nation building and activities unrelated to justified
surveillance.
2004 Ron Paul 10:23
There are two other lessons that must be learned if we hope
to benefit by studying and trying to explain the disaster that hit us
on 9/11.
If we fail to learn them, we cannot be made safer and the
opposite is
more likely to occur.
2004 Ron Paul 10:24
The first point is to understand who assumes most of the
responsibility for the security of our homes and businesses in a free
society.
It’s not the police.
There
are too few of them, and it’s not their job to stand guard outside our
houses
or places of business.
More crime
occurs in the inner city, where there are not only more police, but
more
restrictions on property owners’ rights to bear and use weapons if
invaded by
hoodlums.
In safer rural areas,
where every home has a gun and someone in it who is willing to use it
is, there
is no false dependency on the police protecting them, but full reliance
on the
owner’s responsibility to deal with any property violators.
This understanding works rather well—at least better than in the
inner
cities where the understanding is totally different.
2004 Ron Paul 10:25
How does this apply to the 9/11 tragedies?
The airline owners accepted the rules of the inner city rather
than those
of rural America.
They all assumed
that the government was in charge of airline security—and
unfortunately, by
law, it was.
Not only were the
airlines complacent about security, but the FAA dictated all the rules
relating
to potential hijacking.
Chemical
plants or armored truck companies that carry money make the opposite
assumption,
and private guns do a reasonably good job in providing security.
Evidently we think more of our money and chemical plants than we
do our
passengers on airplanes.
2004 Ron Paul 10:26
The complacency of the airlines is one thing, but the
intrusiveness of the FAA is another.
Two
specific regulations proved to be disastrous for dealing with the thugs
who,
without even a single gun, took over four airliners and created the
havoc of
9/11.
Both the prohibition against
guns in cockpits and precise instructions that crews not resist
hijackers
contributed immensely to the horrors of 9/11.
2004 Ron Paul 10:27
Instead of immediately legalizing a natural right of
personal self-defense guaranteed by an explicit Second Amendment
freedom, we
still do not have armed pilots in the sky.
Instead of more responsibility being given to the airlines, the
government has taken over the entire process.
This has been encouraged by the airline owners, who seek
subsidies and
insurance protection.
Of course,
the nonsense of never resisting has been forever vetoed by all
passengers.
2004 Ron Paul 10:28
Unfortunately, the biggest failure of our government will
be ignored.
I’m sure the
Commission will not connect our foreign policy of
interventionism—practiced by
both major parties for over a hundred years—as an important reason 9/11
occurred.
Instead, the claims will
stand that the motivation behind 9/11 was our freedom, prosperity, and
way of
life.
If this error persists, all
the tinkering and money to improve the intelligence agencies will bear
little
fruit.
2004 Ron Paul 10:29
Over the years the entire psychology of national defense
has been completely twisted.
Very
little attention had been directed toward protecting our national
borders and
providing homeland security.
2004 Ron Paul 10:30
Our attention, all too often, was and still is directed
outward toward distant lands.
Now a
significant number of our troops are engaged in Afghanistan and Iraq.
We’ve kept troops in Korea for over 50 years, and thousands of
troops
remain in Europe and in over 130 other countries.
This twisted philosophy of ignoring national borders while
pursuing an
empire created a situation where Seoul, Korea, was better protected
than
Washington, DC, on 9/11.
These
priorities must change, but I’m certain the 9/11 Commission will not
address
this issue.
2004 Ron Paul 10:31
This misdirected policy has prompted the current protracted
war in Iraq, which has gone on for 13 years with no end in sight.
The al Qaeda attacks should not be used to justify more
intervention;
instead they should be seen as a guerilla attacks against us for what
the Arabs
and Muslim world see as our invasion and interference in their
homelands.
This cycle of escalation is rapidly spreading the confrontation
worldwide
between the Christian West and the Muslim East.
With each escalation, the world becomes more dangerous.
It is especially made worse when we retaliate against Muslims
and Arabs
who had nothing to do with 9/11—as we have in Iraq—further confirming
the
suspicions of the Muslim masses that our goals are more about oil and
occupation
than they are about punishing those responsible for 9/11.
2004 Ron Paul 10:32
Those who claim that Iraq is another Vietnam are wrong.
They can’t be the same.
There
are too many differences in time, place, and circumstance.
But that doesn’t mean the Iraqi conflict cannot last longer,
spread
throughout the region and throughout the world—making it potentially
much
worse than what we suffered in Vietnam.
In
the first 6 years we were in Vietnam, we lost less than 500 troops.
Over 700
have been killed in Iraq in just over a year.
2004 Ron Paul 10:33
Our failure to pursue al Qaeda and bin Laden in Pakistan and Afghanistan — and
diverting resources to Iraq — have seriously compromised our ability to
maintain
a favorable world opinion of support and cooperation in this effort.
2004 Ron Paul 10:34
Instead, we have chaos in Iraq while the Islamists are
being financed by a booming drug business from U.S.-occupied
Afghanistan.
2004 Ron Paul 10:35
Continuing to deny that the attacks against us are related to our overall policy
of foreign meddling through many years and many administrations, makes
a victory
over our enemies nearly impossible.
Not
understanding the true nature and motivation of those who have and will
commit
deadly attacks against us prevents a sensible policy from being pursued.
Guerilla warriors, who are willing to risk and sacrifice
everything as
part of a war they see as defensive, are a far cry, philosophically,
from a band
of renegades who out of unprovoked hate seek to destroy us and kill
themselves
in the process.
How we fight back
depends on understanding these differences.
2004 Ron Paul 10:36
Of course, changing our foreign policy to one of no pre-emptive war, no nation
building, no entangling alliances, no interference in the internal
affairs of
other nations, and trade and friendship with all who seek it, is no
easy task.
2004 Ron Paul 10:37
The real obstacle, though, is to understand the motives
behind our current policy of perpetual meddling in the affairs of
others for
more than a hundred years.
2004 Ron Paul 10:38
Understanding why both political parties agree on the
principle of continuous foreign intervention is crucial.
Those reasons are multiple and varied.
They range from the persistent Wilsonian idealism of making the
world
safe for democracy to the belief that we must protect “our” oil.
2004 Ron Paul 10:39
Also contributing to this bi-partisan, foreign policy view is the notion that
promoting world government is worthwhile.
This
involves support for the United Nations, NATO, control of the world’s
resources through the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, NAFTA, FTAA, and
the Law of
the Sea Treaty—all of which gain the support of those sympathetic to
the poor
and socialism, while too often the benefits accrue to the
well-connected
international corporations and bankers sympathetic to economic fascism.
2004 Ron Paul 10:40
Sadly, in the process the people are forgotten, especially those who pay the
taxes, those whose lives are sacrificed in no-win undeclared wars, and
the
unemployed and poor as the economic consequences of financing our
foreign
entanglements evolve.
2004 Ron Paul 10:41
Regardless of one’s enthusiasm or lack thereof for the war and the general
policy of maintaining American troops in more than 130 countries, one
cold fact
soon must be recognized by all of us in Congress.
The American people cannot afford it, and when the market
finally
recognizes the over commitment we’ve made, the results will not be
pleasing to
anyone.
2004 Ron Paul 10:42
A “guns and butter” policy was flawed in the 60s, and gave us interest rates
of 21% in the 70s with high inflation rates.
The current “guns and butter” policy is even more intense, and
our
economic infrastructure is more fragile than it was back then.
These facts dictate our inability to continue this policy both
internationally and domestically.
It
is true, an unshakable resolve to stay the course in Iraq, or any other
hot
spot, can be pursued for years.
But
when a country is adding to its future indebtedness by over 700 billion
dollars
per year it can only be done with great economic harm to all our
citizens.
2004 Ron Paul 10:43
Huge deficits, financed by borrowing and Federal Reserve monetization, are an
unsustainable policy and always lead to higher price inflation, higher
interest
rates, a continued erosion of the dollar’s value, and a faltering
economy.
Economic law dictates that the standard of living then must go
down for
all Americans—except for the privileged few who have an inside track on
government largess—if this policy of profligate spending continues.
Ultimately, the American people, especially the younger
generation, will
have to decide whether to languish with current policy or reject the
notion that
perpetual warfare and continued growth in entitlements should be
pursued
indefinitely.
2004 Ron Paul 10:44
Conclusion
I’m sure the Commission will not deal
with the flaw in
the foreign policy endorsed by both parties for these many decades.
I hope the Commission tells us why members of the bin Laden
family were
permitted, immediately after 9/11, to leave the United States without
interrogation, when no other commercial or private flights were allowed.
That event should have been thoroughly studied and explained to
the
American people.
We actually had a
lot more reason to invade Saudi Arabia than we did Iraq in connection
with 9/11,
but that country, obviously no friend of democracy, remains an
unchallenged ally
of the United States with few questions asked.
2004 Ron Paul 10:45
I’m afraid the Commission will answer only a few questions while raising many
new ones.
Overall though, the
Commission has been beneficial and provides some reassurance to those
who
believe we operate in a much too closed society.
Fortunately, any administration, under the current system, still
must
respond to reasonable inquiries.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 11
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr050604.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Statement on the Abuse of Prisoners in Iraq
May 6, 2004
2004 Ron Paul 11:1
Mr. PAUL: Mr. Speaker, I rise in
opposition to this resolution as written. Like so many resolutions we
have seen
here on the Iraq war, this one is not at all what it purports to be.
Were this
really a resolution condemning abuse of prisoners and other detainees,
I doubt
anyone here would oppose it. Clearly the abuse and humiliation of those
in
custody is deplorable, and the pictures we have all seen over the past
week are
truly horrific.
2004 Ron Paul 11:2
But
why are we
condemning a small group of low-level servicemembers when we do not yet
know the
full story? Why are we rushing to insert ourselves into an ongoing
investigation, pretending that we already know the conclusions when we
have yet
to even ask all the questions? As revolting as the pictures we have
seen are,
they are all we have to go by, and we are reacting to these pictures
alone. We
do not and cannot know the full story at this point, yet we jump to
condemn
those who have not even yet had the benefit of a trial. We appear to be
operating on the principle of guilty until proven innocent. It seems
convenient
and perhaps politically expedient to blame a small group of “bad
apples” for
what may well turn out to be something completely different – as the
continuously widening investigation increasingly suggests.
2004 Ron Paul 11:3
Some
of the soldiers
in the photographs claim that their superior officers and the civilian
contractors in charge of the interrogations forced them to pose this
way. We
cannot say with certainty what took place in Iraq’s prisons based on a
few
photographs. We have heard that some of those soldiers put in charge of
prisons
in Iraq were woefully unprepared for the task at hand. We have heard
that they
were thrown into a terribly confusing, stressful, and dangerous
situation with
little training and little understanding of the rules and
responsibilities. What
additional stresses and psychological pressures were applied by those
in charge
of interrogations? We don’t know. Does this excuse what appears to be
reprehensible behavior? Not in the slightest, but it does suggest that
we need
to get all the facts before we draw conclusions. It is more than a
little
disturbing that this resolution does not even mention the scores of
civilian
contractors operating in these prisons at whom numerous fingers are
being
pointed as instigators of these activities. While these individuals
seem to
operate with impunity, this legislation before us all but convicts
without trial
those lowest in the chain of command.
2004 Ron Paul 11:4
But
this resolution
is only partly about the alleged abuses of detainees in Iraq. Though
this is the
pretext for the legislation, this resolution is really just an
enthusiastic
endorsement of our nation-building activities in Iraq. This resolution
“expresses the continuing solidarity and support of the House of
Representatives…with the Iraqi people in building a viable Iraqi
government
and a secure nation.” Also this resolution praises the “mission to
rebuild
and rehabilitate a proud nation after liberating it…” At least the
resolution is honest in admitting that our current presence in Iraq is
nothing
more than a nation-building exercise.
2004 Ron Paul 11:5
Further,
this
resolution explicitly endorses what is clearly a failed policy in Iraq.
I wonder
whether anyone remembers that we did not go to war against Iraq to
build a
better nation there, or to bring about “improvements in… water, sewage,
power, infrastructure, transportation, telecommunications, and food
security…” as this resolution touts. Nor did those who urged this war
claim
at the time that the goals were to “significantly improv[e]…food
availability, health service, and educational opportunities” in Iraq,
as this
legislation also references. No, the war was essential, they claimed,
to stop a
nation poised to use weapons of mass destruction to inflict unspeakable
harm
against the United States. Now historical revisionists are pointing out
how
wonderful our nation-building is going in Iraq, as if that justifies
the loss of
countless American and Iraqi civilian lives.
2004 Ron Paul 11:6
This
resolution
decries the fact that the administration had not informed Congress of
these
abuses and that the administration has not kept Congress in the
information
loop. Yet, Congress made it clear to the administration from the very
beginning
that Congress wanted no responsibility for the war in Iraq. If Congress
wanted
to be kept in the loop it should have vigorously exercised its
responsibilities
from the very beginning. This means, first and foremost, that Congress
should
have voted on a declaration of war as required in the Constitution.
Congress,
after abrogating this responsibility in October 2002, now is
complaining that it
is in the dark. Indeed, who is to say that the legal ambiguity created
by the
Congressional refusal to declare war may not have contributed to the
notion that
detainees need not be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention,
that
governs the treatment of prisoners during a time of war? Until Congress
takes up
its constitutional responsibilities, complaints that the administration
is not
sufficiently forthcoming with information ring hollow.
2004 Ron Paul 11:7
This
resolution calls
on the administration to keep Congress better informed. But Congress
has the
power – and the obligation – to keep itself better informed! If
Congress is
truly interested in being informed, it should hold hearings –
exercising its
subpoena power if necessary. Depending on the administration to fulfill
what is
our own constitutional responsibility is once again passing the buck.
Isn’t
this what has gotten us into this trouble in the first place?
2004 Ron Paul 11:8
I
urge my colleagues
to oppose this resolution.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 12
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr050604b.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Dont Start a War with Iran!
May 6, 2004
2004 Ron Paul 12:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this
ill-conceived and ill-timed legislation. Let’s not fool ourselves: this
concurrent resolution leads us down the road to war against Iran. It
creates a
precedent for future escalation, as did similar legislation endorsing
“regime
change” in Iraq back in 1998.
2004 Ron Paul 12:2
I find it incomprehensible that as the failure of our Iraq
policy becomes more evident - even to its most determined advocates -we
here are
approving the same kind of policy toward Iran. With Iraq becoming more
of a
problem daily, the solution as envisioned by this legislation is to
look for yet
another fight. And we should not fool ourselves: this legislation sets
the stage
for direct conflict with Iran. The resolution “calls upon all State
Parties to
the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), including
the
United States, to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and
prevent Iran
from acquiring nuclear weapons…” Note the phrase “…use all appropriate
means….”
2004 Ron Paul 12:3
Additionally, this legislation calls for yet more and
stricter sanctions on Iran, including a demand that other countries
also impose
sanctions on Iran. As we know, sanctions are unmistakably a move toward
war,
particularly when, as in this legislation, a demand is made that the
other
nations of the world similarly isolate and blockade the country. Those
who wish
for a regime change in Iran should especially reject sanctions - just
look at
how our Cuba policy has allowed Fidel Castro to maintain his hold on
power for
decades. Sanctions do not hurt political leaders, as we know most
recently from
our sanctions against Iraq, but rather sow misery among the poorest and
most
vulnerable segments of society. Dictators do not go hungry when
sanctions are
imposed.
2004 Ron Paul 12:4
It is somewhat ironic that we are again meddling in Iranian
affairs. Students of history will recall that the US government’s
ill-advised
coup against Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 and its
subsequent
installation of the Shah as the supreme ruler led to intense hatred of
the
United States and eventually to the radical Islamic revolution of 1979.
One can
only wonder what our relations would be with Iran if not for the
decades of
meddling in that country’s internal affairs. We likely would not be
considering resolutions such as this. Yet the solution to all the
difficulties
created by our meddling foreign policy always seems to always be yet
more
meddling. Will Congress ever learn?
2004 Ron Paul 12:5
I urge my colleagues to reject this move toward war with
Iran, to reject the failed policies of regime-change and
nation-building, and to
return to the wise and consistent policy of non-interventionism in the
affairs
of other sovereign nations.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 13
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr051904.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 19, 2004
Reject the Millennium Challenge Act
2004 Ron Paul 13:1
Mr. Chairman, though the ill-conceived Millennium Challenge Act has already
become law and therefore we are only talking about its implementation
today, it
is nevertheless important to again address some very fundamental
problems with
this new foreign aid program.
2004 Ron Paul 13:2
I believe that the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) may
be one of the worst foreign policy blunders yet - and among the most
costly. It
is advertised as a whole new kind of foreign aid - apparently an honest
admission that the old system of foreign aid does not work. But rather
than get
rid of the old, bad system of foreign aid in favor of this “new and
improved” system, we are keeping both systems and thereby doubling our
foreign
aid. I guess it is easy to be generous with other people’s money. In
reality,
this “new and improved” method of sending US taxpayer dollars overseas
will
likely work no better than the old system, and may in fact do more
damage to the
countries that it purports to help.
2004 Ron Paul 13:3
The MCA budget request for fiscal year 2005 is $2.5
billion. We have been told that somewhere between 12 and 16 countries
have met
the following criteria for inclusion in the program: “ruling justly,
investing
in people, and pursuing sound economic policies.”
2004 Ron Paul 13:4
It is a good idea to pay close attention to these criteria,
as they tell the real tale of this new program. First, what does
“investing in
people” mean? It is probably safe to assume that “investing in people”
does not mean keeping taxes low and government interference to a
minimum so that
individuals can create wealth through private economic activity. So, in
short,
this program will reward socialist-style governance.
2004 Ron Paul 13:5
In fact, this program will do much more harm than good.
MCA will hurt recipient country
economies. Sending US aid
money into countries that are pursuing sound economic policies will not
help
these economies. On the contrary, an external infusion of money to
governments
meeting the economic criteria will actually obscure areas where an
economy is
inefficient and unproductive. This assistance will slow down necessary
reform by
providing a hidden subsidy to unproductive sectors of the economy. We
thus do no
favors for the recipient country in the long term with this harmful
approach.
2004 Ron Paul 13:6
MCA is a waste of taxpayer money. Countries that pursue
sound economic policies will find that international financial markets
provide
many times the investment capital necessary for economic growth. MCA
funds will
not even be a drop in the bucket compared to what private capital can
bring to
bear in an economy with promise and potential. And this capital will be
invested
according to sound investment strategies - designed to make a profit -
rather
than allocated according to the whim of government bureaucrats.
2004 Ron Paul 13:7
MCA is corporate welfare for politically-connected US
firms. These companies will directly benefit from this purported aid to
foreign
countries, as the money collected from US taxpayers can under the
program be
transferred directly to US companies to complete programs in the
recipient
countries. As bad as it is for US tax dollars to be sent overseas to
help poor
countries, what is worse is for it to be sent abroad to help rich and
politically-connected US and multi-national companies.
2004 Ron Paul 13:8
MCA encourages socialism and statism. Because it is
entirely geared toward foreign governments, it will force economically
devastating “public-private partnerships” in developing nations: if the
private sector is to see any of the money it will have to be in
partnership with
government. There should be no doubt that these foreign governments
will place
additional requirements on the private firms in order to qualify for
funding.
Who knows how much of this money will be wasted on those companies with
the best
political connections to the foreign governments in power. The MCA
invites
political corruption by creating a slush fund at the control of foreign
governments.
2004 Ron Paul 13:9
MCA encourages a socialist approach to health care in
recipient countries. In rewarding a top-down government-controlled
approach to
health care, the program ignores the fact that this model has failed
miserably
wherever it has been applied. Ask anyone in the former communist
countries how
they liked their government healthcare system.
2004 Ron Paul 13:10
Finally, MCA is another tool to meddle in the internal
affairs of sovereign nations. Already we see that one of the countries
slated to
receive funds is the Republic of Georgia, where former cronies of
dictator
Eduard Shevardnadze staged a coup against him last year and have since
then
conducted massive purges of the media and state institutions, have
jailed
thousands in phony “anti-corruption” campaigns, and have even adopted
their
own political party flag as the new flag of the country. The current
government
in Georgia does not deserve a dime of aid from the United States.
2004 Ron Paul 13:11
Though the Millennium Challenge Account is advertised as a
brand new approach to foreign aid - foreign aid that really works - it
is in
fact expensive and counter-productive, and will be very unlikely to
affect real
change in the countries it purports to help. The wisest approach to
international economic development is for the United States to lead by
example,
to re-embrace the kind of economic policies that led us to become
wealthy in the
first place. This means less government, less taxation, no foreign
meddling.
Demonstrating the effectiveness of limited government in creating
wealth would
be the greatest gift we could send overseas.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 14
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr060204.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 2, 2004
The House of Representatives Must be Elected!
2004 Ron Paul 14:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.J.Res. 83, which amends the United
States Constitution to allow appointed persons to fill vacancies in the
House of
Representatives in the event of an emergency. Since the Continuity of
Government
(COG) Commission first proposed altering our system of government by
allowing
appointed members to serve in this body. I, along with other members of
Congress, journalists, academics, and policy experts, have expressed
concerns
that having appointed members serve in the House of Representatives is
inconsistent with the House’s historic function as the branch of
Congress most
directly accountable to the people.
2004 Ron Paul 14:2
Even with the direct election of Senators, the fact that
members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years
(while
Senators run for statewide office every six years) means that members
of the
House are still more accountable to the people than members of any
other part of
the federal government. Appointed members of Congress simply cannot be
truly
representative. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton eloquently made
this point
in Federalist 52: “As it is essential to liberty that the government in
general should have a common interest with the people, so it is
particularly
essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an
immediate
dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent
elections are
unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy
can be
effectually secured.”
2004 Ron Paul 14:3
Mr. Speaker, there are those who say that the power of
appointment is necessary in order to preserve checks and balances and
thus
prevent an abuse of executive power. Of course, I agree that it is very
important to carefully guard our constitutional liberties in times of
crisis,
and that an over-centralization of power in the executive branch is one
of the
most serious dangers to that liberty. However, Mr. Speaker, during a
time of
crisis it is all the more important to have representatives accountable
to the
people making the laws. Otherwise, the citizenry has no check on the
inevitable
tendency of government to infringe on the people’s liberties at such a
time. I
would remind my colleagues that the only reason we are reexamining
provisions of
the PATRIOT Act is because of public concerns that this Act gives up
too much
liberty for a phantom security. Appointed officials would not be as
responsive
to public concerns.
2004 Ron Paul 14:4
Supporters of this plan claim that the appointment power
will be necessary in the event of an emergency, and that the appointed
representatives will only serve for a limited time. However, the laws
passed by
these “temporary” representatives will be permanent.
2004 Ron Paul 14:5
Mr. Speaker, this country has faced the possibility of
threats to the continuity of this body several times throughout our
history, yet
no one suggested removing the people’s right to vote for members of the
House
of Representatives. For example, when the British attacked the city of
Washington in the War of 1812, nobody suggested the states could not
address the
lack of a quorum in the House of Representatives though elections.
During the
Civil War, DC neighbor Virginia was actively involved in hostilities
against the
United States government- yet President Abraham Lincoln never suggested
that
non-elected persons serve in the House.
2004 Ron Paul 14:6
Adopting any of the proposals to deny the people the
ability to choose their own representatives would let the terrorists
know that
they can succeed in altering our republican institutions. I hope all my
colleagues who are considering supporting H.J.Res. 83 will question the
wisdom
of handing terrorists a victory over republican government.
2004 Ron Paul 14:7
The Constitution already provides the framework for
Congress to function after a catastrophic event. Article I Section 2
grants the
governors of the various states authority to hold special elections to
fill
vacancies in the House of Representatives.
Article I Section 4 gives Congress the authority to designate
the time,
manner, and place of such special elections if states should fail to
act
expeditiously following a national emergency.
As Hamilton explains in Federalist 59, the “time, place, and
manner”
clause was specifically designed to address the kind of extraordinary
circumstances imagined by the supporters of H.J.Res. 83.
Hamilton characterized authority over federal elections as
shared between
the states and Congress, with neither being able to control the process
entirely.
2004 Ron Paul 14:8
Last month, this body fulfilled its constitutional duty by
passing HR 2844, the Continuity of Representation Act. HR 2844
exercises
Congress’s power to regulate the time, place, and manner of elections
by
requiring the holding of special elections within 45 days after the
Speaker or
acting Speaker declares 100 or more members of the House have been
killed. This
proposal protects the peoples right to choose their representatives at
the time
when such a right may be most important, while ensuring continuity of
the
legislative branch.
2004 Ron Paul 14:9
In conclusion, I call upon my colleges to reject H.J.Res. 83, since it alters
the Constitution to deny the people their right to elect their
representatives
at a time when having elected representation may be most crucial.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 15
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr060304.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 3, 2004
The Same Old Failed Policies in Iraq
2004 Ron Paul 15:1
Mr. Speaker, the more
things change, the more they stay the same.
Our allegiances to our allies and friends change constantly.
For a decade, exiled Iraqi Ahmed Chalabi was our chosen
leader-to-be in a
new Iraq.
Championed by Pentagon
neocons and objected to by the State Department, Mr. Chalabi received
more than
100 million U.S. taxpayer dollars as our man designated to be leader of
a new
Iraqi government.
2004 Ron Paul 15:2
But something happened on the way to the coronation.
The State Department finally won out in its struggle with the
Pentagon to
dump Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress, delivering Iraq to a
competing
exiled group, Dr. Iyad Allawi’s Iraqi National Accord.
But never fear, both groups were CIA supported and both would be
expected
to govern as an American puppet.
And
that’s the problem.
Under the
conditions that currently exist in Iraq, American sponsorship of a
government,
or even United Nations approval, for that matter, will be rejected by a
nationalistic Iraqi people.
2004 Ron Paul 15:3
We never seem to learn, and the Muslim Middle East never forgets.
Our support for the Shah of Iran and Saddam Hussein’s war
against Iran
has never endeared us to the Iranians.
We’re
supposed to be surprised to discover that our close confidant Ahmed
Chalabi
turns out to be a cozy pragmatic friend of Iran.
The CIA may have questioned the authenticity of Iranian
intelligence
passed on to the U.S. by Chalabi, yet still this intelligence was used
eagerly
to promote the pro-war propaganda that so many in Congress and the
nation bought
into.
And now it looks like the
intelligence fed to Chalabi by Iran was deliberately falsified, but
because it
fit in so neatly with the neocon’s determination to remake the entire
Middle
East, starting with a preemptive war against Iraq, it was received
enthusiastically.
2004 Ron Paul 15:4
Inadvertently
we
served the interests of both Iran and Osama bin Laden by eliminating
the very
enemy they despised- Saddam Hussein.
To
the Iranians delight, it was payback time for our allegiance with
Saddam Hussein
against Iran in the 1980s.
2004 Ron Paul 15:5
The serious concern is that
valuable and top-secret U.S. intelligence may well have gone in the
other
direction: to Iran with the help of Chalabi.
2004 Ron Paul 15:6
These
serious
concerns led to the dumping of the heir apparent Chalabi, the arrest of
his
colleagues, and the raid on his home and headquarters to seize
important
documents. The connection between Chalabi and the U.N. food-for-oil
scandal is
yet to be determined.
2004 Ron Paul 15:7
What
a mess!
But no one should be surprised.
Regime
change plans- whether by CIA operations or by preemptive war- almost
always go
badly.
American involvement in
installing the Shah of Iran in the fifties, killing Diem in South
Vietnam in the
sixties, helping Osama bin Laden against the Soviets in the eighties,
assisting
Saddam Hussein against Iran in the eighties, propping up dictators in
many Arab
countries, and supporting the destruction of the Palestinian people all
have had
serious repercussions on American interests including the loss of
American life.
We have wasted hundreds of billions of dollars while the old
wounds in
the Middle East continue to fester.
2004 Ron Paul 15:8
How
many times have
our friends become our enemies and our enemies our friends, making it
difficult
to determine which is which?
Our
relationship with Kadafi in Libya is an example of the silliness of our
policy.
Does his recent “conversion” to our side qualify him for U.S.
assistance?
No one can possibly
predict what our relationship with Kadafi will be in a year or two from
now.
My guess is that he too has a long memory.
And even if he becomes a U.S. stooge, it will only foment
antagonism from
his own people for his cozy relationship with the United States.
Long term, interference in the internal affairs of other nations
doesnt
help us or those we support.
2004 Ron Paul 15:9
Those
who strongly
argue behind the scenes that we must protect “our oil” surely should
have
second thoughts, as oil prices soar over $40 with our current policy of
military
interventionism.
2004 Ron Paul 15:10
The real tragedy is that even those with good intentions who argue the
case for our military presence around the world never achiever their
stated
goals.
Not only do the efforts fall
short, the unintended consequences in life and limb and dollars spent
are always
much greater than ever anticipated.
The
blow back effects literally go on for decades.
2004 Ron Paul 15:11
The
invisible
economic costs are enormous but generally ignored.
A policy of militarism and constant war has huge dollar costs,
which
contribute to the huge deficits, higher interest rates, inflation, and
economic
dislocations.
War cannot raise the
standard of living for the average American.
Participants in the military-industrial complex do benefit,
however.
Now the grand scheme of
physically rebuilding Iraq using
American corporations may well prove profitable to the select few with
political
connections.
2004 Ron Paul 15:12
The
clear failure of
the policy of foreign interventionism followed by our leaders for more
than a
hundred years should prompt a reassessment of our philosophy.
Tactical changes, or relying more on the U.N., will not solve
these
problems.
Either way the burden
will fall on the American taxpayer and the American soldier.
2004 Ron Paul 15:13
The
day is fast
approaching when we no longer will be able to afford this burden. For
now
foreign governments are willing to loan us the money needed to finance
our
current account deficit, and indirectly the cost of our worldwide
military
operations.
It may seem possible
for the moment because we have been afforded the historically unique
privilege
of printing the world’s reserve currency.
Foreigners have been only too willing to take our depreciating
dollars
for their goods.
Economic law
eventually will limit our ability to live off others by credit creation.
Eventually trust in the dollar will be diminished, if not
destroyed.
Those who hold these trillion
plus dollars can hold us
hostage if it’s ever in their interest.
It
may be that economic law and hostility toward the United States will
combine to
precipitate an emotionally charged rejection of the dollar.
2004 Ron Paul 15:14
That’s
when the
true wealth of the country will become self-evident and we will no
longer be
able to afford the extravagant expense of pursuing an American empire.
No nation
has ever been able to finance excessive foreign entanglements and
domestic
entitlements through printing press money and borrowing from abroad.
2004 Ron Paul 15:15
It’s
time we
reconsider the advice of the founding fathers and the guidelines of the
Constitution, which counsel a foreign policy of non-intervention and
strategic
independence.
Setting a good
example is a far better way to spread American ideals than through
force of
arms.
Trading with nations, without
interference by international government regulators, is far better than
sanctions and tariffs that too often plant the seeds of war.
2004 Ron Paul 15:16
The principle of self-determination should be permitted for all nations and all
demographically defined groups.
The
world tolerated the breakup of the ruthless Soviet and Yugoslavian
systems
rather well, even as certain national and ethnic groups demanded
self-determination and independence.
2004 Ron Paul 15:17
This
principle is the
source of the solution for Iraq.
We
should suggest and encourage each of the three groups- the Sunnis, the
Shiites,
and the Kurds- to seek self-government and choose voluntarily whether
they want
to associate with a central government.
2004 Ron Paul 15:18
Instead of the incessant chant about us forcing democracy on others, why not
read our history and see how thirteen nations joined together to form a
loose-knit republic with emphasis on local self-government.
Part of the problem with our effort to re-order Iraq is that the
best
solution is something we have essentially rejected here in the United
States.
It would make a lot more sense to
concentrate on rebuilding
our Republic, emphasizing the principles of private property, free
markets,
trade, and personal liberty here at home rather then pursuing war
abroad.
If this were done, we would not be a militaristic state spending
ourselves into bankruptcy, and government benefits to the untold
thousands of
corporations and special interest would be denied.
2004 Ron Paul 15:19
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.
2004 Ron Paul 15:20
A policy of non-intervention and strategic independence is the course we should
take if we’re serious about peace and prosperity.
Liberty works!
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 16
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr062304.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 23, 2004
Spending Billions on our Failed Intelligence Agencies
2004 Ron Paul 16:1
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.
2004 Ron Paul 16:2
Specifically, I am concerned about our history of secret regime changes carried out
by our
intelligence apparatus. More often than not, we see many of the
problems we face
today were created as a result of this unwise practice of forcibly
changing
regimes in secret.
2004 Ron Paul 16:3
The stories of such activities are numerous. In 1953 the CIA overthrew
Mohammad
Mossadegh in Iran, installing the Shah as dictator. This led to
increasing
anti-Americanism, the overthrow of the Shah in 1979, the kidnapping of
Americans, the establishment of a hard-line Islamic regime hostile to
the United
States. In the 1980s the United States provided covert support to
Saddam
Hussein’s Iraq in its war with Iran. Ten years later the United States
went to
war against Saddam Hussein and then 11 years after that the United
States went
to war again against Saddam’s Iraq. In the 1980s the United States
provided
weapons and training to the Taliban and what later became Al-Qaeda in
Afghanistan as they sought to overthrow the communist government in
power. Some
20 years later, that same Taliban and Osama bin Laden struck out
against the
United States. The United States then went to war against that Taliban
government.
2004 Ron Paul 16:4
I am also concerned about the efficacy of our intelligence community. The
intelligence budget seems to grow every year, but seldom do my
colleagues ask
what exactly we are getting for our constituents’ money. It may be
unfair that
we only hear about the intelligence community’s failures and
shortcomings, but
we cannot help but be concerned over so many such failures in recent
years.
Despite the tens of billions we spend on these myriad intelligence
agencies, it
is impossible to ignore the failure of the intelligence community to
detect and
prevent the September 11, 2001 attacks.
2004 Ron Paul 16:5
Additionally, as we now see so clearly, our intelligence community failed completely
to
accurately assess the nature of the Iraqi threat. We were told of
weapons of
mass destruction capable of reaching the United States. This proved to
be false.
We were told of Iraq’s relationship with Al-Qaeda. This proved to be
false.
The intelligence community relied heavily - perhaps almost exclusively — on
Iraqi exile and convicted criminal Ahmad Chalabi to provide
intelligence on Iraq
and most of it turned out to be incorrect, perhaps intentionally
misleading. Now
we are told that Chalabi and his organization may have passed sensitive
intelligence to Iran. We have read reports of secret pseudo-agencies
set up in
the Pentagon and elsewhere whose role appears to have been to
politicize
intelligence in order to force pre-determined conclusions. This does
not serve
the American people well. These are all by any measure grave failures,
costing
us incalculably in human lives and dollars. Yet from what little we can
know
about this bill, the solution is to fund more of the same. I would hope
that we
might begin coming up with new approaches to our intelligence needs.
2004 Ron Paul 16:6
I encourage my colleagues to reject this bill and instead begin looking
for new
ways to strengthen the legitimate functions of our intelligence
community so as
to better protect the borders and citizens of the United States.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 17
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr062404.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 24, 2004
A Token Attempt to Reduce Government Spending
2004 Ron Paul 17:1
Mr. Speaker, I support HR 4663, the Spending Control Act of 2004, because I
believe
those of us concerned about the effects of excessive government
spending on
American liberty and prosperity should support any effort to rein in
spending.
However, I hold no great expectations that this bill will result in a
new dawn
of fiscal responsibility. In fact, since this bill is unlikely to pass
the
Senate, the main effect of today’s vote will be to allow members to
brag to
their constituents that they voted to keep a lid on spending. Many of
these
members will not tell their constituents that later this year they will
likely
vote for a budget busting, pork laden, omnibus spending bill that most
members
will not even have a chance to read before voting! In fact, last week,
many
members who I am sure will vote for HR 4663 voted against cutting
funding for
the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Last November, many of these
same
members voted for the greatest expansion of the welfare state since the
Great
Society. If Congress cannot even bring itself to cut the budget of the
NEA or
refuse to expand the welfare state, what are the odds that Congress
will make
the tough choices necessary to restore fiscal order, much less
constitutional
government?
2004 Ron Paul 17:2
Even
if this bill becomes law, it is likely that the provision in this bill
allowing
spending for emergency purposes to exceed the bill’s spending caps will
prove
to be an easily abused loophole allowing future Congresses to avoid the
spending
limitations in this bill. I am also concerned that, by not applying the
spending
caps to international or military programs, this bill invites future
Congresses
to misplace priorities, and ignores a major source of fiscal
imprudence.
Congress will not get our fiscal house in order until we seriously
examine our
overseas commitments, such as giving welfare to multinational
corporations and
subsidizing the defense of allies who are perfectly capable of
defending
themselves.
2004 Ron Paul 17:3
Congress already has made numerous attempts to restore fiscal discipline, and
none of
them has succeeded. Even the much-heralded “surpluses” of the nineties
were
due to the Federal Reserve creating an economic boom and Congress
continuing to
raid the social security trust fund. The surplus was not caused by a
sudden
outbreak of fiscal conservativism in Washington, DC.
2004 Ron Paul 17:4
The only way Congress will cease excessive spending is by rejecting the
idea that
the federal government has the authority and the competence to solve
all ills,
both domestic and international. If the last century taught us
anything, it was
that big government cannot create utopia. Yet, too many members believe
that we
can solve all economic problems, eliminate all social ills, and bring
about
worldwide peace and prosperity by simply creating new federal programs
and
regulations. However, the well-intended efforts of Congress have
exacerbated
America’s economic and social problems. Meanwhile our international
meddling
has failed to create perpetual peace but rather lead to perpetual war
for
perpetual peace.
2004 Ron Paul 17:5
Every member of Congress has already promised to support limited government
by
swearing to uphold the United States Constitution. The Constitution
limits the
federal government to a few, well-defined functions. A good start
toward
restoring Constitutional government would be debating my Liberty
Amendment (H.J.Res.
15). The Liberty Amendment repeals the Sixteenth Amendment, thus
eliminating the
income tax the source of much of the growth of government and loss of
individual
liberty. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly limits the federal
government to
those functions it is constitutionally authorized to perform.
2004 Ron Paul 17:6
If Congress were serious about reining in government, it would also
eliminate the
Federal Reserve Board’s ability to inflate the currency. Federal
Reserve
policy enables excessive government spending by allowing the government
to
monitorize the debt, and hide the cost of big government through the
hidden tax
of inflation.
2004 Ron Paul 17:7
In 1974, during debate on the Congressional Budget Reform and Impoundment
Control
Act, Congressman H.R. Gross, a libertarian-conservative from Iowa,
eloquently
addressed the flaws in thinking that budget process reform absent the
political
will to cut spending would reduce the size of government. Mr. Speaker,
I would
like to conclude my remarks by quoting Mr. Gross:
2004 Ron Paul 17:8
Every Member knows that he or she
cannot for long spend $75,000 a year on a salary of $42,500 and remain
solvent. Every Member knows this Government cannot forever spend
billions beyond tax revenue and endure.
2004 Ron Paul 17:9
Congress already has the tools to halt the headlong flight into bankruptcy. It holds the purse strings. No President can impound funds
or spend unwisely unless an improvident, reckless Congress makes
available the money.
2004 Ron Paul 17:10
I repeat, neither this nor any other legislation will provide morality and responsibility on the part of Members of Congress.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 18
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr062504.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 25, 2004
Praising Private Space Exploration
2004 Ron Paul 18:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate and commend the designers, builders,
sponsors,
and pilot of SpaceShipOne on the occasion of its successful flight out
of
earth’s atmosphere on June 21, 2004. What is most remarkable about
SpaceShipOne, of course, is that it is the first privately-financed and
privately built vehicle to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.
2004 Ron Paul 18:2
SpaceShipOne was designed and built by Burt Rutan and piloted by test pilot Michael
W.
Melvill. It was launched successfully from Mojave California, reaching
a height
of 100 KM (62 miles ) above the Earth’s surface. Remarkably,
SpaceShipOne is
entirely privately-financed, chiefly by Microsoft co-founder Paul G.
Allen.
2004 Ron Paul 18:3
According to the designers and financers of SpaceShipOne, the mission of this
project is
to demonstrate the viability of commercial space flight and to open the
door for
private space tourism. The successful completion of SpaceShipOne’s
maiden
voyage demonstrates that relatively modest amounts of private funding
can
significantly increase the boundaries of commercial space technology.
It
constitutes a major leap toward their goal and demonstrates that
private capital
and private enterprise can be applied to enormous success all on its
own. Those
associated with this project represent the best of our American
traditions,
embodied in our enterprising and pioneering spirit.
2004 Ron Paul 18:4
Their success should also be read as a cautionary tale for all of us in
government. If
only the United States had a taxation policy that limited government
and thereby
freed up more private capital, there is no telling how many more like
Burt Rutan,
Paul Allen, and Michael Melvill would be able to do great things to the
benefit
all of mankind. This not just in space exploration, but in medical
research,
alternative energy research, and any number of the problems that
continue to
perplex mankind. Private enterprise depends on results and success and
therefore
private capital is always targeted much more wisely than is monies
confiscated
by governments.
2004 Ron Paul 18:5
With this successful maiden voyage, SpaceShipOne is now the leading
contender for the
$10 million Ansari X Prize, which is to be awarded to the first
privately
financed three-seat aircraft that reaches an altitude of 62 miles and
repeats
the feat within two weeks. I wish all those involved in this remarkable
project
the best of luck.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 19
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr070804.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 8, 2004
Government Spending – A Tax on the Middle Class
2004 Ron Paul 19:1
All government spending represents a tax.
The
inflation tax, while largely ignored, hurts middle-class and low-income
Americans the most.
2004 Ron Paul 19:2
The never-ending political squabble in Congress over taxing the rich,
helping the
poor, “Pay-Go,” deficits, and special interests, ignores the most
insidious
of all taxes- the inflation tax.
Simply
put, printing money to pay for federal spending dilutes the value of
the dollar,
which causes higher prices for goods and services.
Inflation may be an indirect tax, but it is very real- the
individuals
who suffer most from cost of living increases certainly pay a “tax.”
2004 Ron Paul 19:3
Unfortunately no one in Washington, especially those who defend the poor and the
middle class,
cares about this subject.
Instead,
all we hear is that tax cuts for the rich are the source of every
economic ill
in the country.
Anyone truly
concerned about the middle class suffering from falling real wages,
under-employment, a rising cost of living, and a decreasing standard of
living
should pay a lot more attention to monetary policy. Federal spending,
deficits,
and Federal Reserve mischief hurt the poor while transferring wealth to
the
already rich.
This is the real
problem, and raising taxes on those who produce wealth will only make
conditions
worse.
2004 Ron Paul 19:4
This
neglect of monetary policy may be out of ignorance, but it may well be
deliberate.
Fully recognizing the
harm caused by printing money to cover budget deficits might create
public
pressure to restrain spending- something the two parties don’t want.
2004 Ron Paul 19:5
Expanding
entitlements is now an accepted prerogative of both parties.
Foreign wars and nation building are accepted as foreign policy
by both
parties.
2004 Ron Paul 19:6
The
Left hardly deserves credit when complaining about Republican deficits.
Likewise, we’ve been told by the Vice President that Ronald
Reagan
“proved deficits don’t matter”- a tenet of supply-side economics.
With this the prevailing wisdom in Washington, no one should be
surprised
that spending and deficits are skyrocketing.
The vocal concerns expressed about huge deficits coming from big
spenders
on both sides are nothing more than political grandstanding.
If Members feel so strongly about spending, Congress simply
could do what
it ought to do- cut spending.
That,
however, is never seriously considered by either side.
2004 Ron Paul 19:7
If
those who say they want to increase taxes to reduce the deficit got
their way,
who would benefit?
No one!
There’s no historic evidence to show that taxing productive
Americans
to support both the rich and poor welfare beneficiaries helps the
middle class,
produces jobs, or stimulates the economy.
2004 Ron Paul 19:8
Borrowing money to cut the deficit is only marginally better than raising taxes.
It may delay the pain for a while, but the cost of government
eventually
must be paid.
Federal borrowing
means the cost of interest is added, shifting the burden to a different
group
than those who benefited and possibly even to another generation.
Eventually borrowing is always paid for through taxation.
2004 Ron Paul 19:9
All
spending ultimately must be a tax, even when direct taxes and direct
borrowing
are avoided.
The third option is
for the Federal Reserve to create credit to pay the bills Congress runs
up.
Nobody objects, and most Members hope that deficits don’t really
matter
if the Fed accommodates Congress by creating more money.
Besides, interest payments to the Fed are lower than they would
be if
funds were borrowed from the public, and payments can be delayed
indefinitely
merely by creating more credit out of thin air to buy U.S. treasuries.
No need to soak the rich.
A
good deal, it seems, for everyone.
But
is it?
2004 Ron Paul 19:10
Paying
for government spending with Federal Reserve credit, instead of taxing
or
borrowing from the public, is anything but a good deal for everyone.
In fact it is the most sinister seductive “tax” of them all.
Initially it is unfair to some, but dangerous to everyone in the
end.
It is especially harmful to the
middle class, including
lower-income working people who are thought not to be paying taxes.
2004 Ron Paul 19:11
The “tax” is paid when prices rise as the result
of a depreciating dollar.
Savers
and those living on fixed or low incomes are hardest hit as the cost of
living
rises.
Low and middle incomes
families suffer the most as they struggle to make ends meet while
wealth is
literally transferred from the middle class to the wealthy.
Government officials stick to their claim that
no significant
inflation exists, even as certain necessary costs are skyrocketing and
incomes
are stagnating.
The transfer of
wealth comes as savers and fixed income families lose purchasing power,
large
banks benefit, and corporations receive plush contracts from the
government- as
is the case with military contractors. These companies use the newly
printed
money before it circulates, while the middle class is forced to accept
it at
face value later on.
This becomes a
huge hidden tax on the middle class, many of whom never object to
government
spending in hopes that the political promises will be fulfilled and
they will
receive some of the goodies.
But
surprise- it doesn’t happen.
The
result instead is higher prices for prescription drugs, energy, and
other
necessities. The freebies never come.
2004 Ron Paul 19:12
The Fed is solely responsible for inflation by creating money out of thin air.
It does so either to monetize federal debt, or in the process of
economic
planning through interest rate manipulation.
This Fed intervention in our economy, though rarely even
acknowledged by
Congress, is more destructive than Members can imagine.
2004 Ron Paul 19:13
Not
only is the Fed directly responsible for inflation and economic
downturns, it
causes artificially low interest rates that serve the interests of big
borrowers, speculators, and banks. This unfairly steals income from
frugal
retirees who chose to save and place their funds in interest bearing
instruments
like CDs.
2004 Ron Paul 19:14
The
Fed’s great power over the money supply, interest rates, the business
cycle,
unemployment, and inflation is wielded with essentially no
Congressional
oversight or understanding.
The
process of inflating our currency to pay for government debt indeed
imposes a
tax without legislative authority.
2004 Ron Paul 19:15
This
is no small matter.
In just the
first 24 weeks of this year the M3 money supply increased 428 billion
dollars,
and 700 billion dollars in the past year.
M3
currently is rising at a rate of 10.5%.
In
the last seven years the money supply has increased 80%,
as M3 has soared 4.1 trillion dollars.
This
bizarre system of paper money worldwide has allowed serious
international
imbalances to develop.
We owe just
four Asian countries 1.5 trillion dollars as a consequence of a chronic
and
staggering current account deficit now exceeding 5% of our GDP.
This current account deficit means Americans must borrow 1.6
billion
dollars per day from overseas just to finance this deficit.
This imbalance, which until now has permitted us to live beyond
our
means, eventually will give us higher consumer prices, a lower standard
of
living, higher interest rates, and renewed inflation.
2004 Ron Paul 19:16
Rest
assured the middle class will suffer disproportionately from this
process.
2004 Ron Paul 19:17
The moral of the story is that spending is always a tax.
The inflation tax, though hidden, only makes things worse.
Taxing, borrowing, and inflating to satisfy wealth transfers
from the
middle class to the rich in an effort to pay for profligate government
spending,
can never make a nation wealthier.
But
it certainly can make it poorer.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 20
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr071504.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 15, 2004
End the Two-Party Monopoly!
2004 Ron Paul 20:1
Mr. Speaker, political operatives across the country are using state ballot
access
laws to deny voters the opportunity to support independent presidential
candidate Ralph Nader. For example, one New York election lawyer
publicly stated
that partisan election lawyers should take advantage of New York’s
complex and
costly ballot access procedures to keep Mr. Nader off the New York
ballot.
Meanwhile, a state party chairman in Arizona has hired a team of
lawyers for the
sole purpose of keeping Mr. Nader off the Arizona ballot.
2004 Ron Paul 20:2
The
effort to keep Mr. Nader off the ballot shows how ballot access laws
preserve
the two-party monopoly over the political system by effectively
disenfranchising
supporters of third parties and independent candidates. While the
campaign
against Mr. Nader is an extreme case, supporters of the two-party
monopoly
regularly use ballot access laws to keep third party and independent
candidates
off ballots. Even candidates able to comply with onerous ballot access
rules
must devote so many resources to simply getting on the ballot that
their ability
to communicate ideas to the general public is severely limited. Perhaps
the
ballot access laws are one reason why voter turnout has been declining
over the
past few decades. After all, almost 42% of eligible voters have either
not
registered to vote or have registered as something other than Democrat
or
Republican.
2004 Ron Paul 20:3
The
United States Constitution gives Congress the authority to regulate the
time,
place, and manner of federal elections. Thus, ballot access is one of
the few
areas where Congress has explicit constitutional authority to establish
national
standards. In order to open up the political process, I have introduced
the
Voter Freedom Act (HR 1941). HR 1941 established uniform standards for
ballot
access so third party and independent candidates can at last compete on
a level
playing field.
2004 Ron Paul 20:4
The
blatant attempt by a major party to keep Ralph Nader off state ballots
demonstrates how restrictive ballot access laws are used to preserve a
political
monopoly, limit voter choices, and deny the rights of millions of
Americans who
support third parties and independent candidates an opportunity to
effectively
participate in the political process. I call upon my colleagues to
remedy this
situation by supporting my Voter Freedom Act.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 21
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr072204.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 22, 2004
Protecting Marriage from Judicial Tyranny
2004 Ron Paul 21:1
Mr. Speaker, as an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act (HR 3313), I strongly urge my colleagues
to
support this bill.
HR 3313 ensures
federal courts will not undermine any state laws regulating marriage by
forcing
a state to recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in another
state. The
Marriage Protection Act thus ensures that the authority to regulate
marriage
remains with individual states and communities, as the drafters of the
Constitution intended.
2004 Ron Paul 21:2
The practice of judicial activism-
legislating from the bench- is now standard procedure for many federal
judges.
They dismiss the doctrine of strict construction as outdated,
instead
treating the Constitution as fluid and malleable to create a desired
outcome in
any given case.
For judges who see
themselves as social activists, their vision of justice is more
important than
the letter of the law they are sworn to interpret and uphold.
With the federal judiciary focused more on promoting a social
agenda than
on upholding the rule of law, Americans find themselves increasingly
governed by
judges they did not elect and cannot remove from office.
2004 Ron Paul 21:3
Consider the
Lawrence
case decided by
the Supreme Court last
June.
The Court determined that
Texas has no right to establish its own standards for private sexual
conduct,
because these laws violated the court’s interpretation of the 14th
Amendment.
Regardless of the advisability of such laws, the Constitution
does not
give the federal government authority to overturn these laws.
Under the Tenth Amendment, the state of Texas has the authority
to pass
laws concerning social matters, using its own local standards, without
federal
interference.
But rather than
adhering to the Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a state
matter, the
Court decided to stretch the “right to privacy” to justify imposing the
justices’ vision on the people of Texas.
2004 Ron Paul 21:4
Since the
Lawrence
decision, many
Americans have expressed
their concern that the Court may next “discover” that state laws
defining
marriage violate the Court’s wrongheaded interpretation of the
Constitution.
After all, some judges simply may view this result as taking the
Lawrence
decision
to its logical conclusion.
2004 Ron Paul 21:5
One way federal courts may impose a redefinition
of marriage on the
states is by interpreting the full faith and credit clause to require
all
states,
even those which do not grant legal standing to same-sex
marriages
,
to treat as valid same-sex marriage licenses from the few states which
give
legal status to such unions.
This
would have the practical effect of nullifying state laws defining
marriage as
solely between a man and a woman, thus allowing a few states and a
handful of
federal judges to create marriage policy for the entire nation.
2004 Ron Paul 21:6
In 1996 Congress exercised its authority under
the full faith and
credit clause of Article IV of the Constitution by passing the Defense
of
Marriage Act. This ensured each state could set its own policy
regarding
marriage and not be forced to adopt the marriage policies of another
state.
Since the full faith and credit clause grants Congress the clear
authority to
“prescribe the effects” that state documents such as marriage licenses
have
on other states, the Defense of Marriage Act is unquestionably
constitutional.
However, the lack of respect federal judges show for the plain language
of the
Constitution necessitates congressional action so that state officials
are not
forced to recognize another states’ same-sex marriage licenses because
of a
flawed judicial interpretation.
The
drafters of the Constitution gave Congress the power to limit federal
jurisdiction to provide a check on out-of-control federal judges. It is
long
past time we begin using our legitimate authority to protect the states
and the
people from judicial tyranny.
2004 Ron Paul 21:7
Since the Marriage Protection Act requires only
a majority vote in
both houses of Congress (and the president’s signature) to become law,
it is a
more practical way to deal with this issue than the time-consuming
process of
passing a constitutional amendment. In fact, since the Defense of
Marriage Act
overwhelmingly passed both houses, and the president supports
protecting state
marriage laws from judicial tyranny, there is no reason why the
Marriage
Protection Act cannot become law this year.
2004 Ron Paul 21:8
Some may argue that
allowing federal judges to rewrite the definition of marriage can
result in a
victory for individual liberty. This claim is flawed. The best
guarantor of true
liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest
threat to
liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully
limits the
power of the federal government over the states. Allowing federal
judges
unfettered discretion to strike down state laws, or force a state to
conform to
the laws of another state, leads to centralization and loss of liberty.
2004 Ron Paul 21:9
While marriage is licensed and otherwise
regulated by the states,
government did not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the
institution
of marriage most likely pre-dates the institution of government!
Government
regulation of marriage is based on state recognition of the practices
and
customs formulated by private individuals interacting in civil society.
Many
people associate their wedding day with completing the rituals and
other
requirements of their faith, thus being joined in the eyes of their
church- not
the day they received their marriage license from the state. Having
federal
officials, whether judges, bureaucrats, or congressmen, impose a new
definition
of marriage on the people is an act of social engineering profoundly
hostile to
liberty.
2004 Ron Paul 21:10
Mr. Speaker, Congress
has a constitutional responsibility to stop
rogue federal judges from using a flawed interpretation of the
Constitution to
rewrite the laws and traditions governing marriage. I urge my
colleagues to
stand against destructive judicial activism and for marriage by voting
for the
Marriage Protection Act.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 22
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr072304.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
July 23, 2004
Hands Off Sudan!
2004 Ron Paul 22:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this incredibly dangerous
legislation. I
hope my colleagues are not fooled by the title of this bill, “Declaring
genocide in Darfur, Sudan.” This resolution is no statement of
humanitarian
concern for what may be happening in a country thousands of miles from
the
United States. Rather, it could well lead to war against the African
country of
Sudan. The resolution “urges the Bush Administration to seriously
consider
multilateral or even unilateral intervention to prevent genocide should
the
United Nations Security Council fail to act.” We must realize the
implications
of urging the President to commit the United States to intervene in an
ongoing
civil war in a foreign land thousands of miles away.
2004 Ron Paul 22:2
Mr.
Speaker, this resolution was never marked-up in the House International
Relations Committee, on which I serve. Therefore, Members of that
committee had
no opportunity to amend it or express their views before it was sent to
the
Floor for a vote. Like too many highly controversial bills, it was
rushed onto
the suspension calendar (by House rules reserved for
“non-controversial”
legislation) at the last minute. Perhaps there was a concern that if
Members had
more time to consider the bill they would cringe at the resolution’s
call for
US military action in Sudan - particularly at a time when our military
is
stretched to the breaking point. The men and women of the United States
Armed
Forces risk their lives to protect and defend the United States. Can
anyone tell
me how sending thousands of American soldiers into harm’s way in Sudan
is by
any stretch of the imagination in the US national interest or in
keeping with
the constitutional function of this country’s military forces? I urge
my
colleagues in the strongest terms to reject this dangerous resolution.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 23
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr092304.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 23, 2004
Federal Courts and the Pledge of Allegiance
2004 Ron Paul 23:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support, and cosponsor, the Pledge Protection Act (HR
2028), which restricts federal court jurisdiction over the question of
whether
the phrase “under God” should be included in the pledge of allegiance.
Local
schools should determine for themselves whether or not students should
say
“under God” in the pledge. The case finding it is a violation of the
First
Amendment to include the words “under God” in the pledge is yet another
example of federal judges abusing their power by usurping state and
local
governments’ authority over matters such as education. Congress has the
constitutional authority to rein in the federal courts’ jurisdiction
and the
duty to preserve the states’ republican forms of governments. Since
government
by the federal judiciary undermines the states’ republican governments,
Congress has a duty to rein in rogue federal judges. I am pleased to
see
Congress exercise its authority to protect the states from an
out-of-control
judiciary.
2004 Ron Paul 23:2
Many of my colleagues base their votes on issues regarding federalism on
whether or
not they agree with the particular state policy at issue. However,
under the
federalist system as protected by the Tenth Amendment to the United
States
Constitution, states have the authority to legislate in ways that most
members
of Congress, and even the majority of the citizens of other states,
disapprove.
Consistently upholding state autonomy does not mean approving of all
actions
taken by state governments; it simply means acknowledging that the
constitutional limits on federal power require Congress to respect the
wishes of
the states even when the states act unwisely. I would remind my
colleagues that
an unwise state law, by definition, only affects the people of one
state.
Therefore, it does far less damage than a national law that affects all
Americans.
2004 Ron Paul 23:3
While I will support this bill even if the language removing the United
States Supreme
Court’s jurisdiction over cases regarding the pledge is eliminated, I
am
troubled that some of my colleagues question whether Congress has the
authority
to limit Supreme Court jurisdiction in this case. Both the clear
language of the
United States Constitution and a long line of legal precedents make it
clear
that Congress has the authority to limit the Supreme Court’s
jurisdiction. The
Framers intended Congress to use the power to limit jurisdiction as a
check on
all federal judges,
including Supreme Court judges
, who, after
all, have
lifetime tenure and are thus unaccountable to the people.
2004 Ron Paul 23:4
Ironically, the author of the pledge of allegiance might disagree with our
commitment to
preserving the prerogatives of state and local governments. Francis
Bellamy, the
author of the pledge, was a self-described socialist who wished to
replace the
Founders’ constitutional republic with a strong, centralized welfare
state.
Bellamy wrote the pledge as part of his efforts to ensue that children
put their
allegiance to the central government before their allegiance to their
families,
local communities, state governments, and even their creator! In fact,
the
atheist Bellamy did not include the words “under God” in his original
version of the pledge. That phrase was added to the pledge in the 1950s.
2004 Ron Paul 23:5
Today, most Americans who support the pledge reject Bellamy’s vision and view
the
pledge as a reaffirmation of their loyalty to the Framers’ vision of a
limited, federal republic that recognizes that rights come from the
creator, not
from the state. In order to help preserve the Framers’ system of a
limited
federal government and checks and balances, I am pleased to support HR
2028, the
Pledge Protection Act. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 24
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr093004.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 30, 2004
Cultural Conservatives Lose if Gay Marriage is Federalized
2004 Ron Paul 24:1
Mr. Speaker, while I oppose federal efforts to redefine marriage as
something other
than a union between one man and one woman, I do not believe a
constitutional
amendment is either a necessary or proper way to defend marriage.
2004 Ron Paul 24:2
While marriage is licensed and otherwise regulated by the states, government did
not create the institution of marriage. In fact, the institution of
marriage
most likely pre-dates the institution of government! Government
regulation of
marriage is based on state recognition of the practices and customs
formulated
by private individuals interacting in civil society. Many people
associate their
wedding day with completing the rituals and other requirements of their
faith,
thus being joined in the eyes of their church and their creator, not
with
receiving their marriage license, thus being joined in the eyes of the
state.
2004 Ron Paul 24:3
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of
Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define
what
official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full
Faith and
Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a
“same
sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an
original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that
removes
challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’
jurisdiction.
If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to
oppose
any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on
the people
of my state.
2004 Ron Paul 24:4
Having studied this issue and consulted with leading legal scholars, including
an attorney who helped defend the Boy Scouts against attempts to force
the
organization to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters, I am convinced
that both
the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive
legal
challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or
another
state’s actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am
sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will
sufficiently
address this issue, I respectfully disagree. I also am concerned that
the
proposed amendment, by telling the individual states how their state
constitutions are to be interpreted, is a major usurpation of the
states’
power. The division of power between the federal government and the
states is
one of the virtues of the American political system. Altering that
balance
endangers self-government and individual liberty. However, if federal
judges
wrongly interfere and attempt to compel a state to recognize the
marriage
licenses of another state, that would be the proper time for me to
consider new
legislative or constitutional approaches.
2004 Ron Paul 24:5
Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal
power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of
conservative values. I agree with the assessment of former Congressman
Bob Barr,
who authored the Defense of Marriage Act:
2004 Ron Paul 24:6
“The very fact that the FMA [Federal Marriage Amendment] was introduced said
that conservatives believed it was okay to amend the Constitution to
take power
from the states and give it to Washington. That is hardly a basic
principle of
conservatism as we used to know it. It is entirely likely the left will
boomerang that assertion into a future proposed amendment that would
weaken gun
rights or mandate income redistribution.”
2004 Ron Paul 24:7
Passing a constitutional amendment is a long, drawn-out process. The fact that
the marriage amendment already failed to gather the necessary
two-thirds support
in the Senate means that, even if two-thirds of House members support
the
amendment, it will not be sent to states for ratification this year.
Even if the
amendment gathers the necessary two-thirds support in both houses of
Congress,
it still must go through the time-consuming process of state
ratification. This
process requires three-quarters of the state legislatures to approve
the
amendment before it can become effective. Those who believe that
immediate
action to protect the traditional definition of marriage is necessary
should
consider that the Equal Rights Amendment easily passed both houses of
Congress
and was quickly ratified by a number of states. Yet, that amendment
remains
unratified today. Proponents of this marriage amendment should also
consider
that efforts to amend the Constitution to address flag burning and
require the
federal government to balance the budget have been ongoing for years,
without
any success.
2004 Ron Paul 24:8
Ironically, liberal social engineers who wish to use federal government power to redefine marriage
will be
able to point to the constitutional marriage amendment as proof that
the
definition of marriage is indeed a federal matter!
I am unwilling either to cede to federal courts the authority to
redefine
marriage, or to deny a state’s ability to preserve the traditional
definition
of marriage. Instead, I believe it is time for Congress and state
legislatures
to reassert their authority by refusing to enforce judicial
usurpations of
power.
2004 Ron Paul 24:9
In contrast to a constitutional
amendment, the Marriage Protection Act requires only a majority vote of
both
houses of Congress and the president’s signature to become law. The
bill
already has passed the House of Representatives; at least 51 senators
would vote
for it; and the president would sign this legislation given his
commitment to
protecting the traditional definition of marriage. Therefore, those who
believe
Congress needs to take immediate action to protect marriage this year
should
focus on passing the Marriage Protection Act.
2004 Ron Paul 24:10
Because of the dangers to liberty and traditional values posed by the unexpected
consequences of amending the Constitution to strip power from the
states and the
people and further empower Washington, I cannot in good conscience
support the
marriage amendment to the United States Constitution. Instead, I plan
to
continue working to enact the Marriage Protection Act and protect each
state’s
right not to be forced to recognize a same sex marriage.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 25
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr100404.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 4, 2004
District of Columbia Personal Protection Act.
2004 Ron Paul 25:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of HR 3193, the District of Columbia
Personal
Protection Act.
I am a cosponsor of
this legislation that ensures greater respect for the right to bear
arms in
Washington, D.C.
2004 Ron Paul 25:2
HR 3193 repeals several of the more draconian citywide Washington, D.C.
gun
restrictions enacted in 1976.
Restrictions
HR 3193 will repeal include the requirement that all firearms be
registered.
Gun registration in other countries has created government lists
of who
owns what guns.
Such lists
facilitate the harassment of gun owners and the confiscation of their
guns.
Also repealed are blanket bans on the possession of handguns and
handgun
ammunition as well as of any semi-automatic guns.
These bans exist despite the fact that handguns and
semi-automatic guns
are regularly used outside Washington, D.C. for self-defense.
Also repealed is the prohibition on carrying a gun on one’s own
property!
It is hard to say a
person is free if he is prohibited from using the means of protecting
himself
and his family even in his own home.
2004 Ron Paul 25:3
It is unfortunate that people in the federal capital city have for nearly
thirty
years faced some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the
country.
This fact is particularly unfortunate given Washington, D.C.’s
recent
history as the murder capital of the United States.
Ironically, the place where people most need to bear arms to
defend
themselves from violent crime has been one of places where the exercise
of that
right has been most restricted.
2004 Ron Paul 25:4
A strong case can be made that the high rate of violent crimes, including
murders,
in Washington, D.C. is due in part to restrictions on the exercise of
the right
to bear arms.
When potential
victims are likely armed, criminals think twice about committing
violent crimes:
a gun in the hands of a law-abiding citizen is an excellent deterrent
to crime.
Across the Potomac River from Washington, D.C., Virginia does
not have
this horrific crime and murder rate.
Yet,
people in Virginia can buy, own, and even carry guns in public.
2004 Ron Paul 25:5
I am hopeful that the House’s consideration of HR 3193 indicates a new
openness to
legislation that will roll back other unconstitutional and dangerous
restrictions on Americans’ right to bear arms.
For years, federal lawmakers have been passing gun control laws,
even
though they have no authority to do so.
Crime
control, the stated reason for passing gun control laws in the first
place, is a
function belonging to the states.
2004 Ron Paul 25:6
Enacting HR 3193 would be a good first step in adopting legislation to restore
the
federal government’s respect for the right to bear arms throughout the
United
States.
The federal government has
trampled on gun rights nationwide-not just in Washington, D.C.
I have introduced several pieces of legislation this Congress
that would
help restore respect for the right to bear arms, including the Second
Amendment
Protection Act, HR 153, that would repeal the now-sunset semi-auto ban,
repeal
the five-day waiting period and “instant” background check imposed on
gun
purchases, and delete the “sporting purposes” test that allows the
Treasury
Secretary to classify a firearm as a destructive device simply because
the
Secretary deems the gun to be “non-sporting.”
Additionally, Congress should consider my Right to Keep and Bear
Arms
Act, HR 3125, that prohibits United States taxpayers’ dollars from
being used
to support or promote any United Nations actions that could infringe on
the
Second Amendment.
2004 Ron Paul 25:7
In 1976, I spoke on the floor of House against the adoption of
restrictions on the
right to bear arms in Washington, D.C. that HR 3193 seeks to repeal.
Unfortunately, my argument then was ruled out of order, and the
restrictions went into effect.
While it
has been too long in coming, I am glad that the
House is finally considering this important issue.
The District of Columbia Personal Protection Act would restore
some much-
needed respect for the fundamental rights of people in Washington, D.C.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 26
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr100504b.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 5, 2004
Reject a National Prescription Database
2004 Ron Paul 26:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to HR 3015, the National All Schedules
Prescription Electronic Reporting Act.
This
bill is yet another unjustifiable attempt by the federal government to
use the
war on drugs as an excuse for invading the privacy and liberties of the
American
people and for expanding the federal government’s disastrous
micromanagement
of medical care.
As a physician
with over 30 years experience in private practice, I must oppose this
bill due
to the danger it poses to our health as well as our liberty.
2004 Ron Paul 26:2
By creating a national database of prescriptions for controlled
substances, the
federal government would take another step forward in the war on pain
patients
and their doctors.
This war has
already resulted in the harassment and prosecution of many doctors, and
their
staff members, whose only “crime” is prescribing legal medication,
including
opioids, to relieve their patients’ pain.
These prosecutions, in turn, have scared other doctors so that
they are
unwilling to prescribe an adequate amount of pain medication, or even
any pain
medication, for their suffering patients.
2004 Ron Paul 26:3
Doctors and their staffs may even be prosecuted because of a patient’s actions
that no
doctor approved or even knew about.
A
doctor has no way of controlling if a patient gives some of the
prescribed
medication away or consumes a prescribed drug in a dangerous
combination with
illegal drugs or other prescription drugs obtained from another source.
Nonetheless, doctors can be subjected to prosecution when a
patient takes
such actions.
2004 Ron Paul 26:4
Applying to doctors laws intended to deal with drug kingpins, the government has
created
the illusion of some success in the war on drugs.
Investigating
drug dealers can be hard and dangerous work.
In comparison, it is much easier to shut down medical practices
and
prosecute doctors who prescribe pain medication.
2004 Ron Paul 26:5
A doctor who is willing to treat chronic pain patients with medically
justified
amounts of controlled substances may appear at first look to be
excessively
prescribing.
Because so few doctors
are willing to take the drug war prosecution risks associated with
treating
chronic pain patients, and because chronic pain patients must often
consume
significant doses of pain medication to obtain relief, the prosecution
of one
pain doctor can be heralded as a large success.
All the government needs to do is point to the large amount of
patients
and drugs associated with a medical practice.
2004 Ron Paul 26:6
Once doctors know that there is a national database of controlled substances
prescriptions that overzealous law enforcement will be scrutinizing to
harass
doctors, there may be no doctors left who are willing to treat chronic
pain.
Instead of creating a national database, we should be returning
medical
regulation to local control, where it historically and constitutionally
belongs.
Instead of drug warriors regulating medicine with an eye to
maximizing
prosecutions, we should return to state medical boards and state civil
courts
review that looks to science-based standards of medical care and
patients’
best interests.
2004 Ron Paul 26:7
HR 3015 also threatens patients’ privacy.
A
patient’s medical records should be treated according to the mutual
agreement
of the patient and doctor.
In
contrast, HR 3015 will put a patient’s prescriptions on a
government-mandated
database that can be accessed without the patient’s permission!
2004 Ron Paul 26:8
Instead of further eroding our medical privacy, Congress should take steps to
protect
it.
Why should someone be prevented
from denying the government and third parties access to his medical
records
without his permission or a warrant?
2004 Ron Paul 26:9
One way the House can act to protect patients’ privacy is by enacting my
Patient
Privacy Act (HR 1699) that repeals the provision of federal law
establishing a
medical ID for every American.
Under
the guise of protecting privacy, the Health and Human Services
so-called medical privacy regulations allow medical researchers,
insurance agents, and government officials access to your personal
medical
records — without your consent!
Congress
should act now to reverse this government-imposed invasion of our
medical
privacy.
2004 Ron Paul 26:10
Please join me in opposing HR 3015 — legislation that, if enacted, will make us
less
free and less healthy.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 27
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr100504.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 5, 2004
Reject Draft Slavery
2004 Ron Paul 27:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose HR 163 in the strongest possible terms.
The draft, whether for military purposes or some form of
“national
service,” violates the basic moral principles of individual liberty
upon which
this country was founded. Furthermore, the military neither wants nor
needs a
draft.
2004 Ron Paul 27:2
The
Department of Defense, in response to calls to reinstate the draft, has
confirmed that conscription serves no military need. Defense officials
from both
parties have repudiated it.
Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has stated, “The disadvantages of using
compulsion
to bring into the armed forces the men and women needed are notable,”
while
President William Clinton’s Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera, in a
speech
before the National Press Club, admitted that, Today, with our
smaller,
post-Cold War armed forces, our stronger volunteer tradition and our
need for
longer terms of service to get a good return on the high, up-front
training
costs, it would be even harder to fashion a fair draft.
2004 Ron Paul 27:3
However,
the most important reason to oppose HR 163 is that a draft violates the
very
principles of individual liberty upon which our nation was founded.
Former President Ronald Regan eloquently expressed the moral
case against
the draft in the publication
Human Events
in 1979:
“...[conscription] rests on the assumption that your kids belong
to the
state. If we buy that assumption then it is for the state — not for
parents, the
community, the religious institutions or teachers — to decide who shall
have what
values and who shall do what work, when, where and how in our society.
That
assumption isn’t a new one. The Nazis thought it was a great idea
.”
2004 Ron Paul 27:4
Some
say the 18-year old draftee “owes it” to his (or her, since HR 163
makes
woman eligible for the draft) country.
Hogwash!
It just as easily could be argued that a 50 year-old
chicken-hawk, who
promotes war and places innocent young people in danger, owes more to
the
country than the 18 year-old being denied his (or her) liberty.
2004 Ron Paul 27:5
All drafts are unfair. All 18 and
19 year olds are never drafted.
By
its very nature a draft must be discriminatory.
All drafts hit the most vulnerable young people, as the elites
learn
quickly how to avoid the risks of combat.
2004 Ron Paul 27:6
Economic hardship is great in all wars. War
is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit
from war
expenditures.
The great tragedy of
war is that it enables the careless disregard for civil liberties of
our own
people.
Abuses of German and
Japanese Americans in World War I and World War II are well known.
2004 Ron Paul 27:7
But the real sacrifice comes with conscription — forcing a small number of young
vulnerable citizens to fight the wars that older men and women, who
seek glory
in military victory without themselves being exposed to danger,
promote.
The
draft encourages wars with neither purpose nor moral justification,
wars that
too often are not even declared by the Congress.
2004 Ron Paul 27:8
Without conscription, unpopular wars are difficult to fight. Once the draft was
undermined in the 1960s and early 1970s, the Vietnam War came to an end.
But most importantly, liberty cannot be preserved by tyranny.
A free society must always resort to volunteers.
Tyrants think nothing of forcing men to fight and serve in
wrongheaded
wars. A true fight for survival and defense of America would elicit, I
am sure,
the assistance of every able-bodied man and woman.
This is not the case with wars of mischief far away from
home, which we have experienced often in the past century.
2004 Ron Paul 27:9
A government that is willing to enslave some of its people can never be trusted
to protect the liberties of its own citizens. I hope all my colleagues
to join
me in standing up for individual liberty by rejecting HR 163 and all
tempts to
bring back the draft.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 28
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr100604.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 6, 2004
No Mandatory Mental Health Screening for Kids
2004 Ron Paul 28:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Let Parents Raise Their Kids Act. This
bill
forbids federal funds from being used for any universal or mandatory
mental-health screening of students without the express, written,
voluntary,
informed consent of their parents or legal guardians. This bill
protects the
fundamental right of parents to direct and control the upbringing and
education
of their children.
2004 Ron Paul 28:2
The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health has recommended that the
federal
government adopt a comprehensive system of mental-health screening for
all
Americans
.
2004 Ron Paul 28:3
The commission recommends the government implement universal or mandatory
mental-
health screening in public schools as a prelude to expanding it to the
general
public. However, neither the commission’s report nor any related
mental-health
screening proposal requires parental consent before a child is
subjected to such
screening. Federally funded universal or mandatory mental-health
screening in
schools without parental consent could lead to labeling more children
as
“ADD” or “hyperactive,” and thus force more children to take
psychotropic drugs like Ritalin against their parents’ wishes.
2004 Ron Paul 28:4
Already, too many children are suffering from being prescribed psychotropic
drugs for
nothing more than children’s typical rambunctious behavior. According
to the
Journal of the American Medical Association, there was a 300-percent
increase in
psychotropic drug use in two to four-year old children from 1991 to
1995!
2004 Ron Paul 28:5
Many children have suffered harmful side effects from using psychotropic
drugs. Some
of the possible side effects include mania, violence, dependence, and
weight
gain. Yet parents already are being
threatened with child abuse charges if they
resist efforts to drug their children. Imagine how much easier it will
be to
drug children against their parents’ wishes if a federal mental-health
screener makes the recommendation.
2004 Ron Paul 28:6
Universal or mandatory mental-health screening could also provide a justification
for
stigmatizing children from families that support traditional values.
Even the
authors of mental-health diagnosis manuals admit that mental-health
diagnoses
are subjective and based on social constructions.
Therefore, it is all too easy for a psychiatrist to label a
person’s
disagreement with the psychiatrist’s political beliefs a mental
disorder. For
example, a federally funded school violence prevention program lists
“intolerance” as a mental problem that may lead to school violence.
Because
“intolerance” is often a code word for believing in traditional values,
children who share their parents’ values could be labeled as having
mental
problems and a risk of causing violence. If the mandatory mental-health
screening program applies to adults, everyone who believes in
traditional values
could have his or her beliefs stigmatized as a sign of a mental
disorder.
Taxpayer dollars should not support programs that may label those who
adhere to
traditional values as having a “mental disorder.”
2004 Ron Paul 28:7
Mr. Speaker, universal or mandatory mental-health screening threatens to
undermine
parents’ right to raise their children as the parents see fit. Forced
mental-health screening could also endanger the health of children by
leading to
more children being improperly placed on psychotropic drugs, such as
Ritalin, or
stigmatized as “mentally ill” or a risk of causing violence because
they
adhere to traditional values. Congress has a responsibility to the
nation’s
parents and children to stop this from happening. I, therefore, urge my
colleagues to cosponsor the Let Raise Their Kids Act.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 29
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr100804.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
October 8, 2004
The 9-11 Intelligence Bill: More Bureaucracy, More Intervention, Less Freedom
2004 Ron Paul 29:1
Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act (HR 10) is yet
another
attempt to address the threat of terrorism by giving more money and
power to the
federal bureaucracy. Most of the reforms contained in this bill will
not make
America safer, though they definitely will make us less free.
HR 10 also wastes American taxpayer money on unconstitutional
and
ineffective foreign aid programs. Congress should make America safer by
expanding liberty and refocusing our foreign policy on defending
this
nations vital interests, rather than expanding the welfare state and
wasting
American blood and treasure on quixotic crusades to “democratize” the
world.
2004 Ron Paul 29:2
Disturbingly, HR 10 creates a
de facto
national ID card by mandating new
federal
requirements that standardize state-issued drivers licenses and birth
certificates and even require including biometric identifiers in such
documents.
State drivers license information will be stored in a national
database, which
will include information about an individuals driving record!
2004 Ron Paul 29:3
Nationalizing standards for drivers licenses and birth certificates, and linking them
together
via a national database, creates a national ID system pure and simple.
Proponents of the national ID understand that the public remains
wary of
the scheme, so they attempt to claim they’re merely creating new
standards for
existing state IDs.
Nonsense!
This legislation imposes federal standards in a federal bill,
and it
creates a federalized ID regardless of whether the ID itself is still
stamped
with the name of your state.
It is
just a matter of time until those who refuse to carry the new licenses
will be
denied the ability to drive or board an airplane.
Domestic
travel restrictions are the hallmark of
authoritarian states, not free republics.
2004 Ron Paul 29:4
The national ID will be used to track the movements of American citizens,
not just
terrorists. Subjecting every citizen to surveillance actually diverts
resources
away from tracking and apprehending terrorists in favor of needless
snooping on
innocent Americans.
This is what
happened with suspicious activity reports required by the Bank
Secrecy Act. Thanks to BSA mandates, federal officials are forced to
waste
countless hours snooping through the private financial transactions of
innocent
Americans merely because those transactions exceeded $10,000.
2004 Ron Paul 29:5
Furthermore,
the federal government has no constitutional authority to require
law-abiding
Americans to present any form of identification before engaging in
private
transactions (e.g. getting a job, opening a bank account, or seeking
medical
assistance).
Nothing in our
Constitution can reasonably be construed to allow government officials
to demand
identification from individuals who are not suspected of any crime.
2004 Ron Paul 29:6
HR 10 also broadens the definition of terrorism contained in the PATRIOT Act. HR
10
characterizes terrorism as acts intended “to influence the policy of a
government by intimidation or coercion.”
Under this broad definition, a scuffle at an otherwise peaceful
pro-life
demonstration might allow the federal government to label the
sponsoring
organization and its members as terrorists. Before dismissing these
concerns, my
colleagues should remember the abuse of Internal Revenue Service power
by both
Democratic and Republican administrations to punish political
opponents, or the
use of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act on
anti-abortion activists.
It is
entirely possible that a future administration will use the new
surveillance
powers granted in this bill to harm people holding unpopular political
views.
2004 Ron Paul 29:7
Congress could promote both liberty
and
security by encouraging private
property
owners to take more responsibility to protect themselves and their
property.
Congress could enhance safety by removing the roadblocks thrown
up by the
misnamed Transportation Security Agency that prevent the full
implementation of
the armed pilots program. I cosponsored an amendment with my colleague
from
Virginia, Mr. Goode, to do just that, and I am disappointed it was
ruled out of
order.
2004 Ron Paul 29:8
I am also disappointed the Financial Services Committee rejected my
amendment to
conform the regulations governing the filing of suspicious activities
reports
with the requirements of the US Constitution. This amendment not only
would have
ensured greater privacy protection, but it also would have enabled law
enforcement to better focus on people who truly pose a threat to our
safety.
2004 Ron Paul 29:9
Immediately after the attack on September 11, 2001, I introduced several pieces of
legislation designed to help fight terrorism and secure the United
States,
including a bill to allow airline pilots to carry firearms and a bill
that would
have expedited the hiring of
Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) translators to support counterterrorism
investigations and operations. I also introduced a bill to authorize
the
president to issue letters of marque and reprisal to bring to justice
those who
committed the attacks of September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of
war
planned for the future.
2004 Ron Paul 29:10
The foreign policy provisions of HR 10 are similarly objectionable and
should be
strongly opposed. I have spoken before about the serious shortcomings
of the
9/11 Commission, upon whose report this legislation is based. I find it
incredible that in the 500-plus page report there is not one mention of
how our
interventionist foreign policy creates enemies abroad who then seek to
harm us.
Until we consider the root causes of terrorism, beyond the jingoistic
explanations offered thus far, we will not defeat terrorism and we will
not be
safer.
2004 Ron Paul 29:11
Among the most ill-considered foreign policy components of H.R. 10 is a
section
providing for the United States to increase support for an expansion of
the
United Nations “Democracy Caucus.” Worse still, the bill encourages
further
integration of that United Nations body into our State department.
The last thing we should do if we hope to make our country safer
from
terrorism is expand our involvement in the United Nations.
2004 Ron Paul 29:12
This bill contains a provision to train American diplomats to be more
sensitive and
attuned to the United Nations, the Organization for Security and
Cooperation in
Europe (OSCE) — which will be in the US to monitor our elections next
month — and other international non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Even
worse, this
legislation actually will create an “ambassador-at-large” position
solely to
work with non-governmental organizations overseas. It hardly promotes
democracy
abroad to accord equal status to NGOs, which, after all, are un-elected
foreign
pressure groups that, therefore, have no popular legitimacy whatsoever.
Once
again, we are saying one thing and doing the opposite.
2004 Ron Paul 29:13
This bill also increases our counterproductive practice of sending United
States’
taxpayer money abroad to prop up selected foreign media, which
inexplicably are
referred to as “independent media.” This is an unconstitutional misuse
of
tax money. Additionally, does anyone believe that citizens of countries
where
the US subsidizes certain media outlets take kindly to, or take
seriously, such
media? How would Americans feel if they knew that publications taking a
certain
editorial line were financed by foreign governments? We cannot refer to
foreign
media funded by the US government as “independent media.” The US
government
should never be in the business of funding the media, either at home or
abroad.
2004 Ron Paul 29:14
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.
2004 Ron Paul 29:15
For all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I vigorously oppose HR 10. It
represents the
worst approach to combating terrorism — more federal bureaucracy, more
foreign
intervention, and less liberty for the American people.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 30
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr111704.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 17, 2004
Honoring Phil Crane
2004 Ron Paul 30:1
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take this
opportunity to pay tribute to my friend and colleague Phil Crane.
During his 35
years in Congress, Phil has been one of the House’s most consistent
defenders
of low taxes, free-markets, limited government, and individual liberty.
I count
myself among the numerous elected officials and activists in the
free-market
movement who have been inspired by his example.
2004 Ron Paul 30:2
As a conservative professor,
author,
and activist, Phil was already a nationally known conservative leader
before he
ran for Congress. Two of his books, “The Democrat’s Dilemma” and “The
Sum of Good Government” stand out as conservative classics that
educated and
motivated many conservative activists. Among the attributes that have
made Phil
a hero to the free-market movement is his understanding of sound
economics. Phil
is one of the few members of Congress who is well versed in the
teachings of
great free-market teachers such as Ludwig von Misses. This country
would be much
better off if more representatives understood economics as well as Phil
Crane.
2004 Ron Paul 30:3
When Phil Crane came to
Congress in the
late sixties, there were only a handful of members supporting
free-markets. This
was a time when a “conservative” president imposed wage and price
controls
and “conservative” representatives and senators called for balancing
the
budget with tax increases rather than spending cuts. Thanks in large
part to
Phil’s effort; the political and intellectual climate of the nation
became
more receptive to free-market ideas. Phil’s work with groups such as
the
American Conservative Union, the Free Congress Foundation, and the
Republican
Study Committee (which he founded) played a major role in growing the
movement
for individual liberty. Phil’s service as an advisor to Young Americans
for
Freedom and as a director of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute,
Hillsdale
College, and the Ashbrook Center helped inspire new generations of
young people
to become active in the movement for liberty.
2004 Ron Paul 30:4
When I came to Congress in the
seventies to fight to limit the size and scope of the federal
government, I was
pleased to find a kindred sprit in the gentleman from Illinois. I had
the
privilege of working with Phil on several efforts to cut taxes, reduce
regulations, and return the government to its constitutional size. I
also had
the privilege of working with Phil when we where two of only four
members to
endorse Ronald Reagan’s 1976 primary challenge to President Gerald Ford.
2004 Ron Paul 30:5
As the number of
representatives
committed to free-markets and low taxes increased, Phil’s status as a
congressional leader and accomplished legislator grew. Thanks in large
part to
Phil’s leadership; Congress has provided tax relief to American
families and
businesses during each of the last four years.
2004 Ron Paul 30:6
As his distinguished
congressional
career draws to a close, I hope all who value free-markets, individual
liberty,
and limited government will join me in thanking Phil Crane for his work
on
behalf of freedom.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 31
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr111804.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 18, 2004
Raising the Debt Limit: A Disgrace
2004 Ron Paul 31:1
Mr. Speaker, Congress is once again
engaging in fiscal irresponsibility and endangering the American
economy by
raising the debt ceiling, this time by $800 billion dollars. One
particularly
troubling aspect of today’s debate is how many members who won their
seats in
part by pledging never to raise taxes, will now vote for this tax
increase on
future generations without so much as a second thought. Congress
has
become like the drunk who promises to sober up tomorrow, if only he can
keep
drinking today. Does anyone really believe this will be the last
time,
that Congress will tighten its belt if we just grant it one last
loan?
What a joke! There is only one approach to dealing with an
incorrigible
spendthrift: cut him off.
2004 Ron Paul 31:2
The term “national debt”
really is
a misnomer. It is not the nation’s debt. Instead, it is the federal
government’s
debt. The American people did not spend the money, but they will have
to pay it
back.
2004 Ron Paul 31:3
Most Americans do not spend
much time
worrying about the national debt, which now totals more than eight
trillion
dollars. The number is so staggering that it hardly seems real, even
when
economists issue bleak warnings about how much every American owes — currently
about $25,000. Of course, Congress never hands each taxpayer a bill for
that
amount. Instead, the federal government uses your hard-earned money
to pay interest on this debt, which is like making minimum payments on
a credit
card. Notice that the principal never goes down. In fact, it is rising
steadily.
2004 Ron Paul 31:4
The problem is very simple:
Congress
almost always spends more each year than the IRS collects in revenues.
Federal
spending always goes up, but revenues are not so dependable, especially
since
raising income taxes to sufficiently fund the government would be
highly
unpopular. So long as Congress spends more than the government takes
via taxes,
the federal government must raise taxes, print more dollars, or borrow
money.
2004 Ron Paul 31:5
Over the last three years, we
have
witnessed an unprecedented explosion in federal spending. The national
debt has
actually increased an average of $16 billion a day since September 30,
2003!
2004 Ron Paul 31:6
Federal law limits the total
amount of
debt the Treasury can carry. Despite a historic increase in the debt
limit in
2002 and another increase in 2003, the current limit of $7.38 trillion
was
reached last month. So Congress must once again vote to raise the
limit. Hard as
it may be for the American people to believe, many experts expect
government
spending will exceed this new limit next year!
2004 Ron Paul 31:7
Increasing the national debt
sends a
signal to investors that the government is not serious about reining in
spending. This increases the risks that investors will be reluctant to
buy
government debt instruments. The effects on the American economy could
be
devastating. The only reason why we have been able to endure such large
deficits
without skyrocketing interest rates is the willingness of foreign
nations to buy
the federal government’s debt instruments. However, the recent fall in
the
value of the dollar and rise in the price of gold indicate that
investors may be
unwilling to continue to prop up our debt-ridden economy. Furthermore,
increasing the national debt will provide more incentive for foreign
investors
to stop buying federal debt instruments at the current interest rates.
Mr.
Speaker, what will happen to our already fragile economy if the Federal
Reserve
must raise interest rates to levels unseen since the seventies to
persuade
foreigners to buy government debt instruments?
2004 Ron Paul 31:8
The whole point of the debt
ceiling law
was to limit borrowing by forcing Congress into an open and presumably
somewhat
shameful vote when it wants to borrow more than a preset amount of
money. Yet,
since there have been no political consequences for members who vote to
raise
the debt limit and support the outrageous spending bills in the first
place, the
debt limit has become merely another technicality on the road to
bankruptcy.
2004 Ron Paul 31:9
The only way to control
federal
spending is to take away the government’s credit card. Therefore,
I call upon my colleagues to reject S. 2986
and, instead, to reduce government spending. It is time Congress forces
the
federal government to live within its constitutional means. Congress
should end
the immoral practice of excessive spending and passing the bill to the
next
generation.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 32
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr111904.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 19, 2004
Stay out of Sudans Civil War
House Amendments to Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act
2004 Ron Paul 32:1
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this ill-conceived,
counter-productive
legislation. This represents exactly the kind of unconstitutional
interventionism the Founding Fathers warned us about. It is arrogant
and
dangerous for us to believe that we can go around the world inserting
ourselves
into civil wars that have nothing to do with us without having to face
the
unintended consequences that always arise. Our steadily-increasing
involvement
in the civil war in Sudan may well delay the resolution of the conflict
that
appears to be proceeding without our involvement. Just today, in talks
with the
UN, the two sides pledged to end the fighting.
2004 Ron Paul 32:2
The fact is we do not know and cannot understand the complexities of the
civil war
in Sudan, which has lasted for 39 of that country’s 48 years of
existence.
Supporters of our intervention in Sudan argue that this is a clear-cut
case of
Sudan’s Christian minority being oppressed and massacred by the Arab
majority
in the Darfur region. It is interesting that the CIA’s World Factbook
states
that Sudan’s Christians, who make up five percent of the population,
are
concentrated in the south of the country. Darfur is a region in the
mid-western
part of Sudan. So I wonder about this very simplistic characterization
of the
conflict.
2004 Ron Paul 32:3
It seems as if this has been all reduced to a few slogans, tossed around
without
much thought or care about real meaning or implication. We
unfortunately see
this often with calls for intervention. One thing we do know, however,
is that
Sudan is floating on a sea of oil. Why does it always seem that when we
hear
urgent clamor for the United States to intervene, oil or some other
valuable
commodity just happens to be present? I find it interesting that so
much
attention is being paid to oil-rich Sudan while right next door in
Congo the
death toll from its civil war is estimated to be two to three million -
several
times the estimated toll in Sudan.
2004 Ron Paul 32:4
At a time when we have just raised the debt-ceiling to allow more massive
debt
accumulation, this legislation will unconstitutionally commit the
United States
to ship some 300 million taxpayer dollars to Sudan. It will also freeze
the US
assets of certain Sudanese until the government of Sudan pursues peace
in a
time-frame and manner that the US determines.
2004 Ron Paul 32:5
Inserting ourselves into this civil war in Sudan will do little to solve the
crisis. In
fact, the promise of US support for one side in the struggle may
discourage the
progress that has been made recently. What incentive is there to seek a
peaceful
resolution of the conflict when the US government promises massive
assistance to
one side? I strongly urge my colleagues to rethink our current
dangerous course
toward further intervention in Sudan. We may end up hurting most those
we are
intending to help.
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 33
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr112004.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
November 20, 2004
Where To From Here?
2004 Ron Paul 33:1
The election of 2004 is now history. It’s
time to ponder our next four years.
Will
our country become freer, richer, safer, and more peaceful, or will we
continue
to suffer from lost civil liberties, a stagnant economy, terrorist
threats, and
an expanding war in the Middle East and central Asia?
Surely the significance of the election was reflected in its
intensity
and divisiveness.
2004 Ron Paul 33:2
More people voted for President Bush than any other
presidential candidate in our history.
And
because of the turnout, more people voted against an incumbent
president than
ever before.
However, President
Bush was reelected by the narrowest popular vote margin of any
incumbent
president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916.
The
numbers are important and measurable; the long-term
results are less predictable.
The
president and many others have said these results give the President a
“mandate.”
Exactly what that
means and what it may lead to is of great importance to us all.
Remember, the nation reelected a president in 1972 with a much
bigger
mandate who never got a chance to use his political capital.
2004 Ron Paul 33:3
The bitter campaign and the intensity with which both sides engaged each other
implies that a great divide existed between two competing candidates
with
sharply different philosophies.
There
were plenty of perceived differences — obviously — or a heated
emotional contest
wouldn’t have materialized.
2004 Ron Paul 33:4
The biggest difference involved their views on moral and family values.
It was evident that the views regarding gay marriage and
abortion held by
Senator Kerry did not sit well with a majority of American voters, who
were then
motivated to let their views be known through their support for
President Bush.
This contributed to the “mandate” the President received more
than
any other issue.
But it begs the
question:
If the mandate given was
motivated by views held on moral values, does the President get carte
blanche on
all the other programs that are much less conservative?
It appears the President and his neo-con advisors assume the
answer is
yes.
2004 Ron Paul 33:5
Ironically, the reason the family and moral values issue played such a big role
in the election is that on other big issues little difference existed
between
the two candidates.
2004 Ron Paul 33:6
Interesting enough, both
candidates graduated from Yale and both were members of the
controversial and
highly secretive Skull and Bones Society.
This
fact elicited no interest with the media in the campaign.
2004 Ron Paul 33:7
Both candidates supported the Iraq War and
the
continuation of it.
2004 Ron Paul 33:8
Both supported the Patriot Act and its controversial attack on personal privacy.
2004 Ron Paul 33:9
Both supported the UN and the internationalism of UNESCO, IMF, World
Bank, and the WTO.
2004 Ron Paul 33:10
Both candidates agreed that a president can initiate
war without a declaration by Congress.
2004 Ron Paul 33:11
Both supported foreign interventionism in
general, foreign aid, and pursuing American interests by maintaining a
worldwide
American empire.
2004 Ron Paul 33:12
Both supported our current monetary system, which
permits the Federal Reserve to accommodate deficit spending by Congress
through
the dangerous process of debt monetization.
2004 Ron Paul 33:13
Both supported expanding entitlements, including programs like the
National Endowment for the Arts, medical benefits, and federal housing
programs.
2004 Ron Paul 33:14
Both candidates supported deficit financing.
Both candidates supported increased spending in almost all categories.
2004 Ron Paul 33:15
Though President Bush was
more favorably inclined to tax cuts, this in reality has limited value
if
spending continues to grow.
All
spending must be paid for by a tax, even if it’s the inflation “tax,”
whereby printing press money pays the bills and the “tax” is paid
through
higher prices — especially by the poor and the middle class.
2004 Ron Paul 33:16
The immediate market
reaction to the reelection of President Bush was interesting.
The stock market rose significantly, led by certain segments
thought to
benefit from a friendly Republican administration such as
pharmaceuticals,
HMO’s, and the weapons industry.
The
Wall Street Journal summed up the election with a headline the
following day:
“Winner is Big Business.”
The
stock market rally following the election likely will be short-lived,
however,
as the fundamentals underlying the bear market that started in 2000 are
still in
place.
2004 Ron Paul 33:17
More important was the
reaction of the international exchange markets immediately following
the
election.
The dollar took a dive
and gold rose.
This indicated that
holders of the trillions of dollars slushing around the world
interpreted the
results to mean that even with conservatives in charge, unbridled
spending will
not decrease and will actually grow.
They
also expect the current account deficit and our national debt to
increase.
This means the economic consequence of continuing our risky
fiscal and
monetary policy is something Congress should be a lot more concerned
about.
2004 Ron Paul 33:18
One Merrill Lynch money
manager responded to the election by saying,
“Bush getting reelected means a bigger deficit, a weaker dollar,
and
higher gold prices.”
Another
broker added,
“Four more years of
Bush is a gift to the gold markets — more war, more deficits, more
division.”
2004 Ron Paul 33:19
During the Bush administration gold surged 70%, as the dollar lost 30% of its value.
A weakened currency is never beneficial, although it’s argued
that it
helps our exporters.
People who work to
earn and save dollars should never have
the value of those dollars undermined and diminished by capricious
manipulation
of the money supply by our government officials.
2004 Ron Paul 33:20
The value of the dollar is
a much more important issue than most realize in Washington.
Our current account deficit of 6% of GDP, and our total foreign
indebtedness of over $3 trillion, pose a threat to our standard of
living.
Unfortunately, when the crisis hits our leaders will have little
ability
to stem the tide of price inflation and higher interest rates that will
usher in
a dangerous period of economic weakness.
Our
dependency on foreign borrowing to finance our spendthrift habits is
not
sustainable. We borrow $1.8 billion a day!
The solution involves changing our policy with regards to
foreign
commitments, foreign wars, empire overseas, and the ever-growing
entitlement
system here at home.
This change is
highly unlikely without significant turmoil, and it certainly is not on
the
administration’s agenda for the next four years.
That’s why the world is now betting against the dollar.
2004 Ron Paul 33:21
When the shift in sentiment
comes regarding the U.S. dollar, dollars will come back home.
They will be used to buy American assets, especially real
property.
In the late 1970s it annoyed many Americans when Japan, which
was then in
the driver’s seat of the world economy, started “buying up America.”
This time a lot more dollars will be
repatriated.
2004 Ron Paul 33:22
It’s important to note
that total future obligations of the United States government are
estimated at
well over $70 trillion.
These
obligations obviously cannot be met.
This
indebtedness equates to an average household share of the national debt
of
$474,000!
2004 Ron Paul 33:23
One cannot expect the
needed changes to occur soon, considering that these options were not
even
considered or discussed in the campaign.
But
just because they weren’t part of the campaign, and there was no
disagreement
between the two candidates on the major issues, doesn’t distract from
their
significance nor disqualify these issues from being crucial in the
years to
come.
My guess is that in the next
four years little legislation will be offered dealing with family and
moral
issues.
Foreign policy and domestic
spending, along with the ballooning deficit, will be thrust into the
forefront
and will demand attention.
The
inability of our Congress and leaders to change direction, and their
determination to pursue policies that require huge expenditures, will
force a
financial crisis upon us as the dollar is further challenged as the
reserve
currency of the world on international exchange markets.
2004 Ron Paul 33:24
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.
2004 Ron Paul 33:25
The only thing that allows
our borrowing from foreigners to continue is the confidence they place
in our
economic system, our military might, and the dollar itself.
This is all about to change.
Confidence
in us, with the continuous expansion of our military presence overseas
and with
a fiscal crisis starring us in the face, is already starting to erode.
Besides, paper money — and that’s all the U.S. dollar is — always fails
when trust is lost.
That’s a fact
of history, not someone’s opinion.
Be
assured trust in paper money never lasts forever.
2004 Ron Paul 33:26
The problem the country
faces is that social issues garnered intense interest and motivated
many to vote
both for and against the candidates, yet these issues are only a tiny
fraction
of the issues dealt with at the national level.
And since the election has passed, the odds of new legislation
dealing
with social issues are slim.
Getting
a new Supreme Court that will overthrow Roe vs. Wade is a long shot
despite the
promises.
Remember, we already have
a Supreme Court where seven of the nine members were appointed by
Republican
presidents with little to show for it.
2004 Ron Paul 33:27
Though the recent election
reflected the good instincts of many Americans concerned about moral
values,
abortion, and marriage, let’s hope and pray this endorsement will not
be used
to justify more pre-emptive/unnecessary wars, expand welfare, ignore
deficits,
endorse the current monetary system, expand the domestic police state,
and
promote the American empire worldwide.
2004 Ron Paul 33:28
We’re more likely to see
entitlements and domestic spending continue to increase. There are zero
plans
for reigning in the Department of Education, government medical care,
farm
subsidies, or federal housing programs.
Don’t
expect the National Endowment for the Arts to be challenged.
One can be assured its budget will expand as it has for the last
four
years, with much of the tax money spent on “arts” ironically being used
to
attack family values.
2004 Ron Paul 33:29
Deficits never were much of
a concern for Democrats, and the current Republican leadership has
firmly
accepted the supply-sider argument that “deficits don’t matter,” as
Vice
President Cheney declared according to Former Secretary of the Treasury
Paul
O’Neill.
2004 Ron Paul 33:30
Expenditures for foreign
adventurism, as advocated by the neo-cons who direct our foreign
policy, have
received a shot in the arm with the recent election.
Plans have been in the workings for expanding our presence
throughout the Middle East and central Asia.
Iran is the agreed-on next target for those who orchestrated the
Iraq
invasion and occupation.
2004 Ron Paul 33:31
A casual attitude has
emerged regarding civil liberties.
The
post 9-11 atmosphere has made it politically correct to sacrifice some
of our
personal liberties in the name of security, as evidenced by the Patriot
Act.
2004 Ron Paul 33:32
No serious thoughts are
expressed in Washington about the constitutional principle of local
government.
The notion of a loose-knit republican form of government is no
longer a
consideration.
The consensus is
that the federal government has responsibility for solving all of our
problems,
and even amending the Constitution to gain proper authority is no
longer thought
necessary.
2004 Ron Paul 33:33
President Eisenhower, not
exactly a champion of a strict interpretation of the Constitution, made
some
interesting comments years ago when approached about more welfare
benefits for
the needy:
“If all that Americans
want is security, they can go to prison.
They’ll
have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads.
But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his
equality as a
human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government.”
Our country sure could use a little bit more of this sentiment,
as
Congress rushes to pass new laws relating to the fear of another
terrorist
attack.
2004 Ron Paul 33:34
There are even more reasons
to believe the current government status quo is unsustainable.
As a nation dependent on the willingness of foreigners to loan
us the
money to finance our extravagance, we now are consuming 80% of the
world’s
savings.
Though the Fed does its
part in supplying funds by purchasing Treasury debt, foreign central
banks and
investors have loaned us nearly twice what the Fed has, to the tune of
$1.3
trillion.
The daily borrowing
needed to support our spending habits cannot last.
It can be argued that even the financing of the Iraq war cannot
be
accomplished without the willingness of countries like China and Japan
to loan
us the necessary funds.
Any shift,
even minor, in this sentiment will send chills through the world
financial
markets.
It will not go unnoticed, and
every American consumer will be
affected.
2004 Ron Paul 33:35
The debt, both domestic and
foreign, is difficult to comprehend.
Our
national debt is $7.4 trillion, and this limit will be raised in the
lame duck
session.
This plus our U.S. foreign
debt breaks all records, and is a threat to sustained economic growth.
The amazing thing is that deficits and increases in the debt
limit no
longer have a stigma attached to them.
Some
demagoguery takes place, but the limit is easily raised.
With stronger partisan control over Congress, the president will
have
even less difficulty in raising the limit as necessary.
It is now acceptable policy to spend excessively without
worrying about
debt limits.
It may be a sign of
the times, but the laws of economics cannot be repealed and eventually
a price
will be paid for this extravagance.
2004 Ron Paul 33:36
Few in Washington
comprehend the nature of the crisis.
But
liberal Lawrence Summers, Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury and now
president of Harvard, perceptively warns of the danger that is fast
approaching.
He talks of,
“A kind of global
balance of financial terror” that we
should be concerned about.
He goes
on to say:
“there is surely
something off about the world’s greatest power being the world’s
greatest
debtor.
In order to finance
prevailing levels of consumption and investment, must the United States
be as
dependent as it is on the discretionary acts of what are inevitably
political
entities in other countries?”
An
economist from the American Enterprise Institute also expressed concern
by
saying that foreign central banks “now have considerable ability to
disrupt
U.S. financial markets by simply deciding to refrain from buying
further U.S.
government paper.”
2004 Ron Paul 33:37
We must remember the Soviet
system was not destroyed from without by military confrontation; it
succumbed to
the laws of economics that dictated communism a failure, and it was
unable to
finance its empire.
Deficit-financed
welfarism, corporatism, Keynesianism, inflationism, and Empire,
American style,
are no more economically sound than the more authoritarian approach of
the
Soviets.
If one is concerned with
the Red/Blue division in this country and the strong feelings that
exist
already, an economic crisis will make the conflict much more intense.
2004 Ron Paul 33:38
2004 Ron Paul 33:39
The
Crucial Moral Issue — Respect for Life
2004 Ron Paul 33:40
2004 Ron Paul 33:41
It has been said that a
society is defined by how it treats its elderly, its infirm, its weak,
its
small, its defenseless, and its unborn.
2004 Ron Paul 33:42
The moral issue surrounding abortion and the right to life is likely the most
important issue of our age.
It is
imperative that we resolve the dilemma of why it’s proper to
financially
reward an abortionist who acts one minute before birth, yet we arrest
and
prosecute a new mother who throws her child into a garbage bin one
minute after
birth.
This moral dilemma, seldom
considered, is the source of great
friction in today’s society as we witnessed in the recent election.
2004 Ron Paul 33:43
This is a reflection of personal moral values and society’s acceptance of
abortion more than a reflection of a particular law or court ruling.
In the 1960s, as part of the new age of
permissiveness,
people’s attitudes changed regarding abortion.
This led to a change in the law as reflected in court rulings — especially Roe vs. Wade.
The
people’s moral standards changed first, followed by the laws.
It was not the law or the Supreme Court that
brought on the
age of abortion.
2004 Ron Paul 33:44
I’ve wondered if our
casual acceptance of the deaths inflicted on both sides in the Vietnam
War, and
its association with the drug culture that many used to blot out the
tragic
human losses, contributed to the cheapening of pre-born human life and
the
acceptance of abortion as a routine and acceptable practice.
Though abortion is now an ingrained part of
our society, the
moral conflict over the issue continues to rage with no end in sight.
2004 Ron Paul 33:45
The 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling caused great harm in two distinct ways.
First, it legalized abortion at any stage, establishing clearly
that the
Supreme Court and the government condoned the cheapening of human life.
Second, it firmly placed this crucial issue in the hands of the
federal
courts and national government.
The
federalization of abortion was endorsed even by those who opposed
abortion.
Instead of looking for state-by-state solutions and limiting
federal
court jurisdiction, those anxious to protect life came to rely on
federal laws,
eroding the constitutional process.
The
authors of the Constitution intended for criminal matters and acts of
violence
(except for a few rare exceptions) to be dealt with at the state level.
Now, however, conservatives as well as liberals find it
acceptable to
nationalize issues such as abortion, marriage, prayer, and personal
sexual
matters — with more federal legislation offered as the only solution.
This trend of transferring power from the states to the federal
government compounds our problems — for when we lose, it affects all 50
states,
and overriding Congress or the Supreme Court becomes far more difficult
than
dealing with a single state.
2004 Ron Paul 33:46
The issue of moral values and the mandate that has been claimed after the
election raises serious questions.
The
architects of the Iraq invasion claim a stamp of approval from the same
people
who voted for moral values by voting against abortion and gay marriage.
The question must be asked whether or not the
promotion of
pre-emptive war and a foreign policy of intervention deserve the same
acceptance
as the pro-life position by those who supported moral values.
The two seem incompatible: being pro-life yet pro-war, with a
callous
disregard for the innocent deaths of thousands.
The minister who preaches this mixed message of protecting life
for some
while promoting death for others deserves close scrutiny.
Too often the message from some of our national Christian
leaders sounds
hateful and decidedly un-Christian in tone.
They preach the need for vengeance and war against a country
that never
attacked nor posed a threat to us.
It’s
just as important to resolve this dilemma as the one involving the
abortionist
who is paid to kill the unborn while the mother is put in prison for
killing her
newborn.
2004 Ron Paul 33:47
To argue the invasion and occupation of Iraq is pro-life and pro-moral values is
too much of a stretch for thinking Americans, especially conservative
Christians.
2004 Ron Paul 33:48
One cannot know the true intention of the war promoters, but the policy and its
disastrous results require our attention and criticism.
Pre-emptive war, especially when based on erroneous assumptions,
cannot
be ignored — nor can we ignore the cost in life and limb, the financial
costs,
and the lost liberties.
2004 Ron Paul 33:49
Being more attuned to our Constitution and having a different understanding of
morality would go a long way toward preventing unnecessary and
dangerous wars.
I’d like to make a few
points about this different
understanding:
2004 Ron Paul 33:50
First
:
The United States should never go to war without an express
Declaration
by Congress.
If we had followed
this crucial but long-forgotten rule the lives lost in Korea, Vietnam,
the
Persian Gulf, and Iraq might have been prevented.
And instead of making us less secure, this process would make us
more
secure.
Absent our foreign
occupations and support for certain governments in the Middle East and
central
Asia over the past fifty years, the 9-11 attack would have been far
less likely
to happen.
2004 Ron Paul 33:51
Second
: A defensive war is
morally permissible and justified, even required.
Just as a criminal who invades our house and threatens our
family
deserves to be shot on the spot, so too does a nation have the moral
duty to
defend against invasion or an imminent threat.
For centuries the Christian definition of a just war has guided
many
nations in making this decision.
2004 Ron Paul 33:52
Third
: The best test (a test
the chicken hawks who promoted the war refused to take) for those who
are so
eager to send our troops to die in no-win wars is this:
“Am I willing to go; am I willing to be shot; am I willing to
die for
this cause; am I willing to sacrifice my children and grandchildren for
this
effort?”
The bottom line: Is this
Iraq war worth the loss of more than 1200 dead Americans, and thousands
of
severe casualties, with no end in sight, likely lasting for years and
motivating
even more suicidal attacks on innocent Americans here at home?
2004 Ron Paul 33:53
Fourth
: Can we as a moral
people continue to ignore the loss of innocent life on the other side?
Can we as a nation accept the callousness of the war proponents
regarding
the estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths?
Can we believe these deaths are a mere consequence of our worthy
effort
to impose our will on an alien culture?
Is
it really our duty to sacrifice so much to pursue a questionable policy
of
dictating to others what we think is best for them?
Can these deaths be dismissed as nothing more than “collateral
damage,” and even applauded as proof of the professed progress we are
making
in our effort to democratize the Middle East?
By ignoring the human costs of the conflict we invite problems,
and the
consequence of our actions will come back to haunt us.
2004 Ron Paul 33:54
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.
2004 Ron Paul 33:55
Sixth
: What kind of
satisfaction can we achieve from the civil war we have instigated?
A significant portion of the killing in Iraq now occurs amongst
Iraqis
themselves, at our urging.
The
country is in chaos, despite the assurances of our leaders.
Even under the thug Saddam Hussein, Christians
at least were
protected by the government — whereas today their churches are bombed
and many
are struggling to escape the violence by fleeing to Syria.
There is no evidence that our efforts in the Middle East have
promoted
life and peace.
Tragically, no one
expects the death and destruction in Iraq to end anytime soon.
2004 Ron Paul 33:56
To not be repulsed and outraged over our failed policy undermines our
commitment to pro-life and moral values.
Of
course it’s hard for many Americans to be outraged since so few know or
even
care about cities like Fallujah.
The
propaganda machine has achieved its goal of ignorance and denial for
most of our
citizens.
2004 Ron Paul 33:57
Main Street America will rise up in indignation only after conditions in the
Persian Gulf deteriorate further, many more American lives are lost,
and the
cost becomes obvious and prohibitive.
It’s
sad, but only then will we consider changing our policy.
The losses likely to occur between now and then will be tragic
indeed.
2004 Ron Paul 33:58
Though the election did not reflect a desire for us to withdraw from Iraq, it
will be a serious mistake for those who want to expand the war into
Syria or
Iran to claim the election results were an endorsement of the policy of
pre-emptive war.
Yet that’s
exactly what may happen if no one speaks out against our aggressive
policy of
foreign intervention and occupation.
2004 Ron Paul 33:59
What can’t be ignored is that our activities in the Middle East have stirred
up Russian and Chinese animosity.
Their
concern for their own security may force us to confront much greater
resistance
than we have met so far in Afghanistan and Iraq.
2004 Ron Paul 33:60
A Chinese news agency recently reported that the Chinese government made a $70
billion investment commitment in Iran for the development of natural
gas
resources.
This kind of investment
by a neighbor of Iran will be of great significance if the neo-cons
have their
way and we drag Iran into the Afghanistan and Iraqi quagmire.
The close alliance between Iranian Shias and their allies in
Iraq makes a
confrontation with Iran likely, as the neo-cons stoke the fire of war
in the
region.
2004 Ron Paul 33:61
By failing to understand the history of the region and the nature of tribal
culture, we have made victory virtually impossible.
Tribal customs and religious beliefs that have existed for
thousands of
years instruct that family honor requires reciprocal killing for every
member of
the family killed by infidels/Americans.
For
each of the possible 100,000 Iraqis killed, there’s a family that feels
a
moral obligation to get revenge by killing an American, any American if
possible.
2004 Ron Paul 33:62
Ronald Reagan learned this lesson the hard way in coming to understand attitudes
in Lebanon.
Reagan spoke boldly
that he would not turn tail and run no matter how difficult the task
when he
sent Marines to support the Israeli/Christian side of the Lebanese
civil war in
1983.
But he changed his tune after
241 Marines were killed.
He wrote
about the incident in his autobiography:
“Perhaps
we didn’t appreciate fully enough the depth of the hatred and
complexity of
the problems that made the Middle East such a jungle.
Perhaps the idea of a suicide car bomber committing mass
murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own
values and
consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for the Marines’
safety
that it should have… In the weeks immediately after the bombing, I
believed
the last thing we should do was turn tail and leave… Yet, the
irrationality of
Middle Eastern politics forced us to re-think our policy there.”
Shortly thereafter Reagan withdrew the Marines from Lebanon, and
no more
Americans were killed in that fruitless venture.
2004 Ron Paul 33:63
Too bad our current foreign policy experts don’t understand the “irrationality of Middle Eastern politics”.
By leaving Lebanon, Reagan saved lives and proved our
intervention in the
Lebanese war was of no benefit to Lebanon or the United States.
2004 Ron Paul 33:64
Reagan’s willingness to admit error and withdraw from Lebanon was heroic, and
proved to be life-saving.
True to
form, many neo-cons with their love of war exude contempt for Reagan’s
decision.
To them force and
violence are heroic, not reassessing a bad situation and changing
policy
accordingly.
2004 Ron Paul 33:65
One of the great obstacles to our efforts in Iraq is pretending we’re fighting
a country. We wrongly expect occupation and “democratization” to solve
our
problems.
The notion that the Iraq
war is part of our retaliation for the 9-11 attacks is a serious error
that must
be corrected if we are to achieve peace and stability in the Middle
East and
security here at home.
2004 Ron Paul 33:66
We must come to realize that we’re fighting an ideology that is totally alien
to us.
Within that ideology the
radical Islamists and the traditional tribal customs are in conflict
with more
moderate and secular Muslims.
We’re
seen as intruding in this family feud, and thus serve the interests of
the
radicals as we provide evidence that they are under attack by Western
crusaders.
With each act of violence the hatred between the two is
ratcheted upward,
as fighting spreads throughout the entire Muslim world.
2004 Ron Paul 33:67
Ironically, this fight over religious values and interpretations in the Middle
East encourages a similar conflict here at home among Christians.
The conservative Christian community too often sounds militantly
pro-war.
Too many have totally forgotten the admonition “blessed are the
peacemakers.”
This contrasts with
the views of some Christians, who find pre-emptive war decidedly
un-Christian.
Though civil, the two Christian views are being more hotly
contested
every day.
2004 Ron Paul 33:68
A policy that uses the religious civil war within the Muslim faith as an excuse
for remaking the entire Middle East by force makes little sense and
will not end
well.
The more we fight and the
more we kill the greater the animosity of those who want us out of
their family
feud — and out of their countries.
2004 Ron Paul 33:69
It’s clear the Christian conservative turnout was critical to the President’s re-election.
Though
many may well have voted for the family/moral values touted by the
President and
mishandled by Senator Kerry, most agree with the Christian Right that
our policy
of pre-emptive war in the Middle East is not in conflict with
pro-family and
pro-life values.
This seems strange
indeed, since a strong case can be made that the conservative Christian
Right,
those most interested in the pro-life issue, ought to be the strongest
defenders
of peace and reject unnecessary pre-emptive war.
2004 Ron Paul 33:70
Here are a few reasons why conservatives ought to reject the current policy of
pre-emptive war:
2004 Ron Paul 33:71
1.
The Constitution is on the side of peace.
Under the Constitution — the law of the land — only Congress can
declare
war.
The president is prohibited
from taking us to war on his own.
2004 Ron Paul 33:72
2.
The Founders and all the early presidents argued the case for
non-intervention overseas, with the precise goals of avoiding
entangling
alliances and not involving our people in foreign wars unrelated to our
security.
2004 Ron Paul 33:73
3.
The American tradition and sense of morality for almost all our
history
rejected the notion that we would ever deliberately start a war, even
with noble
intentions.
2004 Ron Paul 33:74
4.
The Christian concept of just war rejects all the excuses given
for
marching off to Iraq with the intention of changing the whole region
into a
western-style democracy by force, with little regard for the cost in
life and
limb and the economic consequences here at home.
2004 Ron Paul 33:75
5.
America faces a 7.5 trillion dollar national debt that is
increasing by
600 billion dollars per year.
Fiscal
conservatives cannot dismiss this, even as they clamor for wars we
cannot
afford.
2004 Ron Paul 33:76
6.
History shows the size of the state always grows when we’re at
war.
Under conditions of war civil liberties are always sacrificed — thus
begging the point. We go hither and yon to spread our message of
freedom, while
sacrificing our freedoms here at home and eating away at the wealth of
the
country.
2004 Ron Paul 33:77
7.
Those who understand the most important function of our national
government is to provide strong national defense should realize that
having
troops in over 100 countries hardly helps us protect America, secure
our
borders, or avoid alienating our allies and potential enemies.
2004 Ron Paul 33:78
8.
The best way to prevent terrorism is to change our policies,
stop playing
crusader, and stop picking sides in religious civil wars or any other
civil
wars.
“Blowback” from our
policies is not imaginary.
2004 Ron Paul 33:79
9.
Promoting true free trade and promoting prosperity through low
taxes and
less regulation sends a strong message to the world and those
interested in
peace and commerce.
2004 Ron Paul 33:80
10.
A policy of free exchange with other nations avoids the
trappings of the
new isolationists, who influence our foreign policy with the generous
use of
sanctions, trade barriers, and competitive currency devaluations. They
are only
too willing to defer to the World Trade Organization and allow it to
dictate our
trade and tax policies.
2004 Ron Paul 33:81
Conservatives who profess
to uphold the principle of right-to-life should have little trouble
supporting
the position of the Founders and the Constitution: a foreign policy of
“peace
and commerce with those who choose and no entangling alliances.”
2004 Ron Paul Chapter 34
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr120704.htm
HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS
BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
COMMITTEE
December 7, 2004
U.S. Hypocrisy in Ukraine
2004 Ron Paul 34:1
Mr. Chairman: President Bush said last week that, Any election (in Ukraine), if there is one, ought to be free from any foreign
influence. I agree with the president wholeheartedly.
Unfortunately,
it seems that several US government agencies saw things differently and
sent US
taxpayer dollars into Ukraine in an attempt to influence the outcome.
2004 Ron Paul 34:2
We do not know exactly how many millions — or tens of millions — of dollars
the United States government spent on the presidential election in
Ukraine. We
do know that much of that money was targeted to assist one particular
candidate,
and that through a series of cut-out non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) —
both American and Ukrainian — millions of dollars ended up in support
of the
presidential candidate, Viktor Yushchenko.
2004 Ron Paul 34:3
Let me add that I do not think we should be supporting
either
of the candidates. While I am certainly no supporter of Viktor
Yushchenko, I am
not a supporter of his opponent, Viktor Yanukovich, either. Simply, it
is none
of our business who the Ukrainian people select to be their president.
And, if
they feel the vote was not fair, it is up to them to work it out.
2004 Ron Paul 34:4
How did this one-sided US funding in Ukraine come about? While I am afraid we
may have seen only the tip of the iceberg, one part that we do know
thus far is
that the US government, through the US Agency for International
Development
(USAID), granted millions of dollars to the Poland-America-Ukraine
Cooperation
Initiative (PAUCI), which is administered by the US-based Freedom House.
2004 Ron Paul 34:5
PAUCI then sent US Government funds to numerous Ukrainian non-governmental
organizations (NGOs). This would be bad enough and would in itself
constitute
meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation. But, what is
worse is
that many of these grantee organizations in Ukraine are blatantly in
favor of
presidential candidate Viktor Yushchenko.
2004 Ron Paul 34:6
Consider the Ukrainian NGO International Centre for Policy Studies. It is an
organization funded by the US Government through PAUCI, but on its
website you
will find that the front page in the English section features a
prominent orange
ribbon, the symbol of Yushchenko’s party and movement. Reading further
on, we
discover that this NGO was founded by George Soros’s Open Society
Institute.
And further on we can see that Viktor Yushchenko himself sits on the
advisory
board!
2004 Ron Paul 34:7
And this NGO is not the only one the US government funds that is openly supportive of Viktor Yushchenko. The Western Ukraine Regional Training
Center,
as another example, features a prominent USAID logo on one side of its
website’s
front page and an orange ribbon of the candidate Yushchenko’s party and
movement on the other. By their proximity, the message to Ukrainian
readers is
clear: the US government supports Yushchenko.
2004 Ron Paul 34:8
The Center for Political and Law Reforms, another Ukrainian NGO funded by the
US government, features a link at the top of its website’s front page
to
Viktor Yushchenko’s personal website. Yushchenko’s picture is at the
top of
this US government funded website.
2004 Ron Paul 34:9
This May, the Virginia-based private management consultancy Development Associates, Inc., was awarded $100 million by the US government “for
strengthening national legislatures and other deliberative bodies
worldwide.”
According to the organization’s website, several million dollars from
this
went to Ukraine in advance of the elections.
2004 Ron Paul 34:10
As I have said, this may only be the tip of the iceberg. There may be many
more such organizations involved in this twisted tale.
2004 Ron Paul 34:11
It is clear that a significant amount of US taxpayer dollars went to support
one candidate in Ukraine. Recall how most of us felt when it became
known that
the Chinese government was trying to funnel campaign funding to a US
presidential campaign. This foreign funding of American elections is
rightly
illegal. Yet, it appears that that is exactly what we are doing abroad.
What we
do not know, however, is just how much US government money was spent to
influence the outcome of the Ukrainian election.
2004 Ron Paul 34:12
Dozens of organizations are granted funds under the PAUCI program alone, and
this is only one of many programs that funneled dollars into Ukraine.
We do not
know how many millions of US taxpayer dollars the National Endowment
for Democracy (NED) sent to Ukraine through NED’s National Democratic
Institute and International Republican Institute. Nor do we know how many other
efforts, overt or covert, have been made to support one candidate over the other
in Ukraine.
2004 Ron Paul 34:13
That is what I find so disturbing: there are so many cut-out organizations
and sub-grantees that we have no idea how much US government money was
really
spent on Ukraine, and most importantly
how
it was spent.
Perhaps
the several examples of blatant partisan support that we have been able
to uncover are but an anomaly. I believe Congress and the American
taxpayers have a right to know. I believe we urgently need an investigation by the
Government Accounting Office into how much US government money was spent in
Ukraine and exactly how it was spent. I would hope very much for the support of
Chairman Hyde, Chairman Lugar, Deputy Assistant Secretary Tefft, and my
colleagues on the Committee in this request.
2004 Ron Paul 34:14
President Bush is absolutely correct: elections in Ukraine should be free of foreign influence. It is our job here and now to discover just how far
we have violated this very important principle, and to cease any funding of
political candidates or campaigns henceforth.