Ron Paul’s Congressional Farewell Speech

On November the 14th, Ron Paul delivered what may well be his last speech on the House floor. Off and on over the last 36 years he has served 23 years in office, frequently as the lone voice of constitutional and economic liberty.

His service, principles, and this speech are likely to be remembered as prophetic, like many of his earlier predictions, as our country heads down the path of increasing statism, collectivism, and economic crisis.

Below the video are a few excerpts of his 49-minute speech to give you a taste. The full transcript can be found at the Daily Paul.

May God Bless Dr. Paul – thank you for trying to lead us back to the Founders’ vision via common sense.

A grand, but never mentioned, bipartisan agreement allows for the well-kept secret that keeps the spending going. One side doesn’t give up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn’t give up one penny on welfare spending, while both sides support the bailouts and subsidies for the banking and corporate elite. And the spending continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues. As the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and our wealth burn in the flames of a foreign policy that makes us less safe.

The major stumbling block to real change in Washington is the total resistance to admitting that the country is broke. This has made compromising, just to agree to increase spending, inevitable since neither side has any intention of cutting spending.

The country and the Congress will remain divisive since there’s no “loot left to divvy up.”

Without this recognition the spenders in Washington will continue the march toward a fiscal cliff much bigger than the one anticipated this coming January.

I have thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty, as a solution, have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits. If liberty is what we claim it is- the principle that protects all personal, social and economic decisions necessary for maximum prosperity and the best chance for peace- it should be an easy sell. Yet, history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the promises of authoritarians which are rarely if ever fulfilled.

The wealth that we enjoyed and seemed to be endless, allowed concern for the principle of a free society to be neglected. As long as most people believed the material abundance would last forever, worrying about protecting a competitive productive economy and individual liberty seemed unnecessary.

If it’s not accepted that big government, fiat money, ignoring liberty, central economic planning, welfarism, and warfarism caused our crisis we can expect a continuous and dangerous march toward corporatism and even fascism with even more loss of our liberties. Prosperity for a large middle class though will become an abstract dream.

Productivity and creativity are the true source of personal satisfaction. Freedom, and not dependency, provides the environment needed to achieve these goals. Government cannot do this for us; it only gets in the way. When the government gets involved, the goal becomes a bailout or a subsidy and these cannot provide a sense of personal achievement.

Achieving legislative power and political influence should not be our goal. Most of the change, if it is to come, will not come from the politicians, but rather from individuals, family, friends, intellectual leaders and our religious institutions. The solution can only come from rejecting the use of coercion, compulsion, government commands, and aggressive force, to mold social and economic behavior. Without accepting these restraints, inevitably the consensus will be to allow the government to mandate economic equality and obedience to the politicians who gain power and promote an environment that smothers the freedoms of everyone. It is then that the responsible individuals who seek excellence and self-esteem by being self-reliant and productive, become the true victims.


The First Veterans, Remember Them?

Why was our country founded? Why were the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights written? I think the simple answer is that all of these happened in response to a coercive big government’s increasing control over individual liberty and freedom. Simply put, America’s founding fathers and first veterans had finally had enough and were tired of being told what to do and how to live their lives. And as historical as that revolution was, it was carried out by a very small minority of the actual colonists (most were just fine with doing nothing and letting it stay the way it was).

They were tired of being told what to do and how to live their lives. Something we can all relate to.

That is precisely why they wrote the Constitution and Declaration of Independence the way they did. That is why they wrote, “…all men are created equal…they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” That is why they wrote, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” That is why they wrote, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” That is why they wrote, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” That is why they wrote, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…” That is why they wrote, “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law…” That is why they wrote, “The Congress shall have Power to…declare war…”

They did not write, “Treat some men worse than others because of their beliefs.” They did not write, “Only the ones we agree with can pursue happiness.” They did not write, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion – except Christianity.” They, however, also did not write, “Congress shall allow discrimination of Christians.” They did not write, “The Federal Government may violate the States’ and Individuals’ rights as they see fit for the common good.” Just as they did not write, “It is ok to throw out all these rights in the name of ‘protecting’ the public – therefore the Government may authorize perpetual search and grope, wiretaps, assassinations, indefinite detention of citizens, and maintain indefinite surveillance if a non-invading enemy hates our country and fights us outside our soil.” They also did not write, “It is ok for the President to authorize military force, when not being attacked, without Congressional approval.”

Finally, they did not write, “It is the goal of Congress to grossly outspend revenue in order to fund any programs the ruling party sees fit and, if need be, print more money and devalue the dollar, thus jeopardizing the liberty of the entire country.”

The problem is that we have now traded one coercive big government, that was worthy of a revolution, with another, two-party version that is on the road to becoming the same thing. The bickering back and forth over which “evil” is worse misses the point. Both the establishment Democrats and GOP want to be our masters and force their philosophy upon the people, violating our individual liberties along the way. This was NOT the way the Founders intended, and it is not just the Left that has been doing it.

The Government has no business forcing anything on the States or individuals that is not within their enumerated powers.

So why did Romney lose? I think there were simply more people, representing more electoral votes, that didn’t want the coercive GOP to tell them what to do. And, there are many that are happy to have the government give them things without worry about the debt.

And if Romney would have won? There would have been more people, representing more electoral votes, that didn’t want the coercive Democrats to tell them what to do. And, there are many in the GOP that are happy to have the government continue to spend money we don’t have in foreign entanglements and pork without worry about actually balancing the budget.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt…I am for government rigorously frugal and simple.”

Daniel Webster wrote, “It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

So who are the enemy and who are the patriots? Do you think the Founders would have welcomed and armed the “hemp” users who volunteered to fight the British because of the promise of individual liberty?

Our country was founded on the principle of respecting the rights of all to pursue their version of happiness and to be left alone by big government. That is the beauty and uniqueness of our founding. I am not advocating that you change your beliefs. I am advocating the respect of those you may disagree with that are willing to defend the Constitution with you.

I would suggest a return to our roots, sniff out and run-off big government politicians, and invite all that agree with the principles of our Constitution and Declaration of Independence to join. As it was with our first revolution, we may initially be in the minority compared to those content with our current “masters.”

Originally Published on

Post-Election Passion Proposal

Ah the election! What a glorious time leading up to the election. It has been a time to shine the bright light on the cockroaches and watch them run – only to see them relentlessly return each day. A time when the American people really feel they have some power, some control in the political process. It has been a time to write, to talk, to debate, to argue. A time to mutually reinforce our own views with those who have agreed with us all along. It has also been a time to attack those who will never agree with our views. Most importantly, it has been a time to try and persuade those on the fence to join our team. Hopefully that has been accomplished.

It has been a time for activist citizens to feel as if they have a say in the electoral process – that is as long as you live in one of the (9) battleground states. But then again, and because of the Internet, a conservative in California can actually influence an independent in Wisconsin. Because of the ability to organize at a grassroots level, with the power of the Internet, passionate citizens can make their voices heard across the country. As bad as Obama has been for our country, you have to give him credit for awakening that sleeping giant (as well as unintentionally helping gun and ammo sales).

There has been so much passion in the pre-election discourse. So what happens with all that passion after the election?

In a couple of days, there are going to be millions of pissed-off people. The “losers” will be passionately angry, bitter, and hopeless.

There will also be millions of passionately ecstatic, jubilant, hopeful, empowered, and vindicated “winners.” They will feel reassured that their guy will now go take care of things for them in Washington. That of course assumes you agree with his full agenda and he actually does what he says he will do.

The winning candidates will be thankful for the organization, the voice, the fight, and the service of the voters. They will be thankful for all the passion and effort. They will be thankful for what we did for them.

I may have a very different view of the appropriate post-election emotion that is reasonable for our country – anxiety and fear.

Anxiety and fear based upon the realistic threats that our country still face. And those emotions are the minimum emotions I will feel if Romney wins and the GOP controls the Congress. At least that will be better than the utter panic I will feel if Obama wins or there is a split Congress.

Unless you are a die-hard neocon who is in favor of the status quo of the GOP’s version of big-government, I propose a re-tooling of your passion if Romney wins.

If we are fortunate to take control of both the House and the Senate it will not be because the GOP has been transformed into small-government constitutionalists. The majority will remain the McCain’s, the Hatch’s, and the Graham’s that will consider this an opportunity to implement their style of failed GOP big-government that has been part of the problem all along. No matter how you slice it, they have been a part of the ineffective political process that has given us the subprime mortgage crisis, bank bailouts, NDAA, violation of individual rights ala TSA and the Patriot Act, implicit consent for any President to wage war without congressional approval, and unconditional funding to foreign countries that have harmed us. They still have not delivered immigration, Medicare, or simplified tax reform.

Most importantly, they share the blame for our national debt, the fiscal cliff and allowing the FED to continue to devalue our dollar.  They talk balanced budget, but have avoided actually proposing meaningful cuts that would obviously have to involve the three taboo “career-killers”: Medicare, Social Security, and the wasteful part of our military spending.

The career GOP folks in Washington who will be “mentoring” some of our newly elected constitutional heroes may blame all of the above on the Democrats. Year, after year, after year, after year they’ve had an excuse – and they will be running things now.

They will not want our passion, our hyper-vigilance turned upon them. But that is exactly where it should be focused. The passion and grassroots tidal wave that fought Obama now needs to be focused on tracking each and every important piece of legislation, both proposed and not proposed. That passion can be directed via coordinated mass emails, calls, and petitions demanding they actually fix the problems that threaten our country.

The organization, the voice, the fight, the service, the passion and effort will no longer be for them. They now need to deliver for us.

And God help us if Obama wins.

Originally Published on


Where is Our Survivor Guilt?

Here is something to think about when the hawkish rhetoric flies about our need for continued fighting in the Middle East. The video below is of the father of Lance Corporal Gregory Buckley Jr. On August 10th his son, Lance Corporal Buckley Jr., and 2 other marines were working out in the gym when they were murdered by an Afghan police officer after sharing a meal with him.

New York 4 reports, “Buckley, 21, was killed last Friday in Afghanistan. He was one of six Marines to die in two separate incidents in the Helmand province. Buckley died just before a planned surprise visit to his family and friends on Long Island.” His father said his son, “didn’t feel good over there…He was there four months and he said not once did anyone say ‘Thank you.'”

As a former Air Force Psychologist, I have worked with many depressed and suicidal war veterans.  They feel guilty that they survived when their buddies died. Their survivor guilt was unrelenting and oppressive. It was hard for them to be convinced that they, of all people, are the last ones on the face of the earth to be guilty. They risked their lives for their friends and their country.

My question is, if they feel utterly guilty and they were there, where in God’s name is our survivor guilt? And by our, I am referring to those of us over here, safe and sound, beating the war drums for a war that we don’t even know is worth fighting, is helping to destroy our economy, and certainly is not declared by our Congress.

God Bless the Buckley family, and may God have mercy on our souls.


*Note video Published on Aug 24, 2012 by  who notes ABC 7 News has NO affiliation with this footage, it was taken by an IPhone camera while numerous networks were there as well to receive the story.

Is God So Busy, He Needs Me to Judge Others for Him?

Christ never taught us to hate others. Lucifer is in hell because of vanity. Should we, as Conservatives and Christians, be identified with hatred and vanity? Let me be clear, as a believer in individual liberty, it is not my intent to tell others what to do. This is more a periodic self-check because, the way I see it, I need more people on my side, not fewer. I am just convinced that passion can get in the way of persuasion at times.

I spent a few days at a monastery a while back. I arrived late and was greeted by a very kind, 90 year-old monk. He took me straight to the kitchen to share a simple meal of fruitcake and peanut butter. I told him I thought it must be very hard to be a monk. He smiled back, with peanut butter on the side of his face and said, “Oh, it’s easy to be a monk when you live in a monastery. What you are trying to do, now that’s hard!”

He continued, “It is hard living in a world of vanity and hatred and trying to change yourself and lead others to Christ. You know, I’ve always believed the greatest sin was the first sin – vanity. Vanity is what got Lucifer cast from Heaven, and why the apple got bit in the first place. It leads to hatred and separation from God’s love.”

I thought, as great as our country is, it is a vain country filled with greed, selfishness, power, judgment and coercion. So I asked him how do you fight it?

“Well, the opposite of vanity and hatred is humility and love. We are taught to love others as ourselves. Now that doesn’t mean an erotic or vain love. It is fine to be disappointed and angry with others, just like you are with yourself at times. You just can’t hate. It is hard to not hate when you see the bad. But the bad is in everyone and it comes from being human, we all have it, murderer and Mother Teresa, and it is our sin, our fault. But the good, the good is not from us, it is from God. When you find good in others, you find God, which opens them up to a sharing of God’s love. That is how you stay humble, not judging and thinking you are better than they are.”

He was right, his lesson has been hard to follow, but I have noticed that when I have followed it, it has led to lots of open dialogue with others of differing views. That openness also allows for persuasion.

During my career as a psychologist and hostage-negotiator, I have dealt with many resistant to change. They seem to fall into two simple categories, those that are and are not open to change. You can’t do much with those resistant to even the possibility of change. Don’t waste your time. Move on. That doesn’t mean you don’t provide fact-based argument against false claims without getting dragged into the mud with them. But there is a risk of getting too emotional with them because it can chase off those that would have been open to dialogue. Why would those open to dialogue even consider it now as they hear this “Christian Conservative” spewing hatred and trying to force my view on others?

I have been taught to not even think about doing that with a hostage-taker. The only way a hostage-taker is influenced to release the hostage is after common ground has been established. Even a hostage-taker is open to change and persuasion. Hostage negotiation has a 95% success rate. The negotiator listens and demonstrates understanding, even when yelled at. That leads to a strange rapport. At that point, the hostage taker is open to problem solving and being influenced with reason, because things have calmed down. When was the last time anyone changed a core belief because others tried to cram it down their throat when everyone was emotional?

Shouldn’t I treat my opponent at least as well as a hostage-taker, if I truly want them to change? On the other hand, if I want to vent, I vent. I just have to remember, venting may chase off others.

Originally Published on

Come and Take It, and He Did: The Ted Cruz Victory Speech

In the seemingly hopeless desert of daily, depressing, erosion of our individual liberties by the left and crony conservatives on the right, Ted Cruz shows Texans the way to the Oasis of Liberty.

Out of nowhere, with the help of the Tea Party and Libertarians, Cruz cruised to victory in a landslide over his better-funded, establishment opponent.

The message was clear to the GOP, return to the Constitution or prepare to be ousted.

Texas becomes the metaphor for the impending national battle for the GOP.

See the victory speech at

Originally Published on


Conservatives: More Worried About Wielding Power Than Limiting Power

It is a beautiful, sunny day in Texas and I am proudly flying my Nyberg Three Percenter flag outside my home for the 1st time. I am sure the surveillance drone has already registered my insolence. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “pardon my freedom.”

I thought about what that flag symbolizes and how our Republic exists because of the bravery of a very small minority of the colonists. Then I wondered, how many of that minority would actually call themselves, “Conservatives” if they were alive today? Would they be proud of the rules the “Conservatives” have followed and are following; given the growth of our government, national debt, and continued erosion of individual liberties both before and after Obama?

The rules Conservatives follow.

One of my favorite lines, from one of my favorite movies, comes from Cormac McCarthy’s psychopathic killer, Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men. Just before dispatching one of his victims Chigurh asked, “If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?”

Months ago I asked myself, what rule have I followed in regard to my political beliefs and actions? Being a Texan and former Air Force Captain, I always considered myself to be very conservative. Naturally I believed that the left was evil, they must be blocked by any method possible, and the Conservatives up in Congress will take care of that for me while I go about my business.

Increasing alarm about our country, coupled with quite a bit of self-education has led me to realize my rule needed to change. I have to become an active part of We The People. The first step was becoming a delegate to the Texas GOP Convention. I witnessed lots of “Conservatives” there. As a matter of fact, I think everyone there believed they were a “Conservative.”

As I tried to answer this question about what it means to be a “Conservative,” I turned to F.A. Hayek and I was amazed at how someone writing so long ago could actually tap into what I knew reflected my current political state of mind. He argued about the existence of three distinct groups, progressives, conservatives, and the variously named old-school Continental liberals (i.e., Libertarians, Old Whigs…). Below are a few of his points on the subject.

Hayek’s “decisive objection” to conservatism was, “that by its very nature it cannot offer an alternative to the direction in which we are moving. It may succeed by its resistance to current tendencies in slowing down undesirable developments, but, since it does not indicate another direction, it cannot prevent their continuance. It has…been the fate of conservatism to be dragged along a path not of its own choosing…the tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of contemporary developments.” Though there needs to be a brake on the progressives, he noted, “I personally cannot be content with simply helping to apply the brake.”

 “The conservatives are inclined to use the powers of government to prevent change or to limit its role to whatever appeals to the more timid mind.”

He noted the better way was realizing that “self regulating forces of the market will somehow bring about the required adjustments to new conditions, although no one can fortell how they will do this in a particular instance. There is perhaps no single factor contributing to people’s frequent reluctance to let the market work as their inability to conceive how some necessary balance…will be brought about without deliberate control. The conservative feels safe and content only if he is assured that some higher wisdom watches and supervises change, and if he knows that some authority is charged with keeping the change ‘orderly.’ This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism, its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces.”

“He (the conservative) believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules…his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.”

Those espousing the better way deny, “that anyone has authority to decide who these superpeople are. While the conservative inclines to defend the particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the (Continental) liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change.”

“Like the socialist, he (the conservative) is less concerned with the problem of how the powers of government should be limited than with that of who wields them; and like the socialist, he regards himself as entitled to force the value he holds on other people.”

“The chief evil is unlimited government and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power.”

Reading Hayek left me with more unanswered questions to ponder:

  1. If everyone on the right running for office claims to be a Conservative, what does that even mean?
  2. What does a “Conservative” stand for? Doesn’t conservative mean, “Tending to oppose change”? Is that good given our current state?
  3. Do they actually agree with the GOP platform and if so, how do they prioritize the platform issues?
  4. How do we reconcile their profession of beliefs vs. actual actions once elected?
  5. If they say they want to balance the budget, are they willing to actually take on reduction of Medicare, Social Security, and Military spending as there seems no way to really balance otherwise?
  6. Are they more interested in playing the game, doing as they are told, not making waves, and bowing to the hierarchy to stay in office?
  7. Are they more interested in simply battling the left as a diversion rather than attacking the debt and risk angering their constituents?
  8. Is the debt really even the priority issue for them?
  9. Though it looks like they want to audit the FED now, what will they actually do with what they find? Are they just pandering to the Libertarians and Tea Party groups?

10. Are they well read in economics? What are their views on Keynes and Hayek’s theories?

Hayek’s criticism of the Conservatives and modern-day Liberals and Progressives seems to fit well with my general disgust aimed at most of Washington.

The Hayek quotes come from, F.A. Hayek’s chapter “Postscript: Why I am Not a Conservative” found in, The Constitution of Liberty: The Definitive Edition.

Originally Published on