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.


Making Vietnam Safe for Communism

The final debate will focus on Foreign Policy. A time for both parties to explain exactly how they are different.

Obama is likely to focus on how he has weakened al-Qaeda by killing Bin Laden. He will echo Biden’s assertion that it is now the job of the Afghan people to provide their own security. Romney is likely to discuss the importance of being actively involved in intervening in the Middle East to ensure American interests are protected, including going to war with Iran “if necessary.” China also has to be kept in check, particularly when it comes to how they have manipulated their currency. He will echo Ryan’s assertion that we need to stay in Afghanistan long enough to ensure the Taliban don’t just move back in and use the country as a safe haven for their terrorist activities.

Let’s consider some of the arguments and ask yourself a few questions.

Did killing Bin Laden cripple al-Qaeda? Will one man’s death destroy their war effort? Do you really believe al-Qaeda has no one to replace him or their other leaders that have been killed? Would the same logic apply if they were able to kill some of our leaders? I’m guessing it only emboldens them, as it would us. I wonder if the next guy may be an even brighter, more evil mastermind than the first. If you want him dead because of what he orchestrated, then just say so. I understand revenge. There is no need to say his death will lead to the demise of al-Qaeda.

If Biden was correct in saying the Afghan people need to provide for their own security, then why can’t the same be said for Germany, Japan and South Korea …? Maybe we can spend those resources on securing our southern border – you know, the concept of “deficit neutral”.

We will hear other theories of how to manage the Muslim world. Identify whom to fund and arm and then hope they establish democracy. Do we actually believe that we will establish democracy in these Muslim countries? Have they so far? And what kind of democracies are we creating? We can’t even trust our own citizens to pick the “right” constitutional candidates. Maybe we shouldn’t be surprised when they vote in radicals. And if they actually voted them in, isn’t that democracy? Alas, if that happens we’ll just go back in and start all over, and over, and over. Cha-ching.

In the Middle East and North Africa alone, there are 20 countries with 392 million people and 98% are not free – including Saudi Arabia our “ally.” Why don’t we force freedom on Saudi Arabia?

Do we want to bring them our version of economic freedom? I thought the free market does best without government intervention. Our own country seems to be struggling with that concept. Maybe if their economies were not forced to be based on the dollar then they would feel, and be, more “free.”

So now we are going after China because they have manipulated their own currency. What about the unelected FED’s manipulation of our own currency and how that has hurt our dollar? Where’s the talk about going after the FED (hint – not in the debates but from brave House constitutionalists)?

What makes us think our politicians, who are so horribly inept at managing virtually anything they touch, somehow are geniuses when it comes to perpetually spending our money to become entangled with foreign countries?

So I guess I will be labeled as “naive” because I question our politicians’ foreign policy decisions. Because I am more concerned with making America safe for democracy than making the world safe for democracy. Maybe I am naive like Washington, and Jefferson, both of whom cautioned about meddling in the affairs of other countries.

I am not anti-military. I am anti-poor-foreign-policy. The military is never the problem. The military is a well fashioned weapon – and when used incorrectly, like the gun, it is not the military’s fault – it is fault of the person pointing the weapon irresponsibly.

We can always find a war to fight, but our country is in an economic crisis. All I ask is that these decisions are debated and judged to be the will of the people and constitutional.

So during the debate, ask yourself – how much will this cost, how many Americans may die, what is the certainty that we will succeed, what is success, what is the risk for a broader war – even world war? If country x is so bad, what about countries y z a b c d e? Where does it end? Why is it that we think we can solve the violence in other countries when we can’t solve it in Chicago or Detroit? What would Jefferson do? What would Jesus do? WWJJD?

Finally, to leave you with an example of how unpredictable all of this is – consider the latest from the South China Sea. The U.S. aircraft carrier George Washington was cruising over there as a show of power to China. Vietnamese security and government officials were flown onto our nuclear-powered ship. The visit will, “likely reassure Vietnam…” of our growing support. I thought Vietnam was communist? Are we now making Vietnam safe for their own brand of communism? I guess Vietnam didn’t turn out so bad after all if they are now trading partners worth helping.

Originally Published on

Take Your Pick: Default or Hyperinflation

Here’s a fairy tale for you. Like Dorothy and her friends, the American people have made the long, desperate trip and are counting on the Great and Powerful Oz to fix things for them. And like the Scarecrow, when we got there, we got screwed. If you remember, the Scarecrow wanted brains, and the man behind the curtain couldn’t deliver but instead said, “by virtue of the authority invested in me by the Universitas Committee E Pluribus Unum, I hereby confer upon you”… paper! He gave the poor guy a piece of paper. And just like the Fed, the wizard left them stranded as he flew off in a hot air balloon (think mortgage bubble) and couldn’t come back to save them because, “I can’t, I don’t know how it works.” And like the Great and Powerful Oz, Fed wizard Ben Bernanke is probably “a very good man…just a very bad wizard.” Or perhaps the problem is actually with our current monetary concept, “I’m afraid it’s true, there’s no other wizard except me.”

Luckily and with a little help, Dorothy realized that she didn’t need the balloon ride or a wizard to get things back to normal, “you don’t need to be helped any longer, you’ve always had the power…”

And for us, what is that power? That power is “We the People” as expressed through our Congress.

But that poses another problem. That assumes the Congress is willing to click their heels and get to work. I am worried that, given their history of avoiding making tough decisions so as to not look bad, we may be in trouble. According to a number of economists (the ones that don’t follow the hot air balloon philosophy) we may be too late. The perfect storm is already here. The economy is at its worst and another “war” looms. If you want to risk looking bad as a politician, just try tackling those issues – especially if it involves cutting anything.

Congress gave us a glimmer of hope after the House voted to audit the Fed, and the Senate increased the co-sponsors (34 at last count) for their version of the bill recently. On the other hand, were the results of a less publicized vote taken late at night on Friday September 21st. Senator Rand Paul presented a bill to make any foreign aid to Libya, Egypt, and Pakistan contingent upon certain criteria (like protecting our embassies, releasing the doctor who gave us Bin Laden…). The idea was to at least show the world there would no longer be unlimited foreign aid to countries that were not clear allies. The original speech is full of detailed arguments, but this video provides a short synopsis.

Senator Paul knew the bill would fail because the Senate wasn’t willing to confront the two most controversial problems we face – unlimited spending and questionable military entanglements.

“I will probably lose this vote, but if you ask your friends. If you go home and ask your friends should we be sending money to countries that disrespect us, that burn our flag, I think you will find 80 percent to 90 percent of the American people wouldn’t send another penny…That may be why Congress has about a 10 percent approval rating.”

After John Kerry and John McCain teamed-up to argue for continued unlimited aid, the vote was taken and only Senators DeMint, Grassley, Shelby, Toomey, Moran, Lee, Roberts, Risch and Crapo joined with Paul. The vote failed 81 to 10.

Do we really believe Congress will tackle the difficult issues when it comes to debt and military spending?

If you listen to economists like Peter Schiff, Congress no longer has the luxury of kicking the can down the road. He recently delivered a chilling speech at the Mises Circle in Manhattan. “The Fiscal Cliff: How to Spot the Edge” is an easy-to-follow wake-up call about the severity of our economic crisis. His conclusion was that the Fed has become trapped and we are now faced with two options – default on our debt or hyperinflation (click here for the video). He also contends that the solution is to default on the debt before it gets worse. That means doing what had been needed all along – making dramatic cuts in everything. Because no politician wants to face that, then we are at the mercy of inevitable hyperinflation and a worse default. When that happens, that opens the door to incorrectly blame capitalism and invites more government control, regulation, and loss of freedom or worse.

So why is it that politicians from both sides have not addressed the devaluing of the dollar by the Central Bank system (Fed) over the years? In “Twin Demons,” Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. explains how this works. The answer is that the Central Bank system is government’s best friend and allows governments to spend money they don’t have, particularly for war. War and debt spending go hand in hand. And once the war is over, the spending continues for social programs. The Central Bank system is confusing to the average citizen and thus allows the government to expand.

“Creating money out of thin air… is preferable for governments, since the process by which the political class siphons resources from society via inflation is far less direct and obvious than in the cases of taxation and borrowing.”

He advocates for a “separation of money and state,” not unlike the pre-fed hard-money Jacksonian monetary theorists of the 1830s who coined the phrase “separation of bank and state.”

So if economists like Schiff and Rockwell are correct, what happens when the Congress actually audits the Fed and brings the Central Bank issues to the forefront of the public debate? How will they handle the decision to either dramatically balance the budget, default on the debt, or risk hyper-inflation? And why would they even tackle this problem openly? As it is now, the Fed is the mysterious man behind the curtain and all monetary evils can be blamed on him.

Originally Published on

Our President’s Current Unconstitutional Capacity

In an interview with Face the Nation, Mitt Romney reveals that he is willing to attack Iran, without congressional approval. Romney said,

“If I’m president, the Iranians will have no question, but that I will be willing to take military action if necessary to prevent them from becoming a nuclear threat to the world. I don’t believe at this stage therefore, if I’m president, that we need to have war powers approval or a special authorization for military force. The president has that capacity now.”

The Constitution does not grant the President the power to unilaterally launch war. The President does have latitude to respond without congressional approval if we are attacked.

He is correct, however, that apparently our President “has that capacity now.” He has the capacity, not because it is constitutional, but because our Congress is spineless and more worried about getting re-elected (i.e., blaming these controversial decisions on the sitting President). See’s great video about the history of this disturbing power shift.

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.

Surest Roads to Sovereign Suicide

Here’s a quick quiz. Which of the following is the biggest threat to our national security, according to Admiral Mike Mullin, (former) Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?

  1. Iran
  2. al-Qaeda
  3. Taliban
  4. Our national debt

The correct answer is “D.” Admiral Mullin said, “”Our national debt is our biggest national security threat” on June the 24th, 2010 during a speech he made at a “Tribute to the Troops” breakfast. Does that alarm you? Can you ever remember a top military mind saying something like that?

Here’s another quiz. If you were our enemy planning the demise of the U.S., which of the following would be the best strategy:

  1. Institute economic policies that may appear to help in the short-term but actually involve tremendous risk of leading to an economic event even worse than the 2008 housing-bubble collapse.
  2. Engage in expensive foreign policy strategies that lead to fanning-the-flames of hatred for the U.S., do nothing to actually lead to actual democracy but embolden Islamic extremists to further organize and act-out.
  3. Go to war in the Middle East against an enemy that has allies capable of further destabilizing the U.S. economy.
  4. Place the final decision-making authority of the above in the hands of one or two men, rather than the Congress, at a time when the Congress is not in session.
  5. All of the Above.

The correct answer is “E. All of the Above.”

It is important to search for some answers to these complicated issues. Below are a few of the explanations I have found to be particularly enlightening. Please feel free to add some of your own.

QE3 won’t go to decreasing unemployment. Look just about anywhere on the web, there is a tremendous amount of negative response to the Fed’s decision to move to QE3. For example, Peter Schiff, from the Schiff Report, explains how the Fed’s recent plan to print money, decrease interest rates, and purchase mortgage-backed securities is what got us here in the first place and will be “the final nail in the U.S. dollar” and “a day that will live in infamy.”  Another great explanation is from’s Anthony Randazzo. He said, “The fact that QE promotes activities that led to the housing bubble should have stopped its progression as an idea a long time ago, especially since these problems are greater than any gain that would come from this now perpetual pace of money creation.”

The move to Audit the Fed is gaining some steam as more co-sponsors in the Senate are adding their names to Senate Bill 202. As of Sunday evening, there are 32 co-sponsors. If you are interested in joining the cause, you can visit Audit the Fed.

Caroline Glick helps to answer the question posed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton following the Benghazi attack. Clinton pondered, “Today, many Americans are asking – indeed, I asked myself – how could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction?” Glick explains how our government, “determined – based on nothing – that the masses of the Muslim world from Gaza to Iraq to Afghanistan and beyond were simply Jeffersonian democrats living under the jackboot. If freed from tyranny, they would become liberal democrats nearly indistinguishable from regular Americans.”

 Pat Buchanan provided a cost-benefit analysis of our involvement in the Middle East in his recent article, Is It Time To Come Home? He notes that, “In this brief century alone, we have fought the two longest wars in our history there, put our full moral authority behind an “Arab Spring” that brought down allies in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen, and provided the air power that saved Benghazi and brought down Moammar Gadhafi… The cost of our two wars is 6,500 dead, 40,000 wounded and $2 trillion piled onto a national debt that is $16 trillion, larger than the entire U.S. economy. And what in heaven’s name do we have to show for it?”

As Julian Pecquet wrote, Defense Secretary Leon Paneta acknowledged plans to position troops in as many as 18 different locations and expressed concern that extremists would strike, “from positions of weakness,” due to the void left by the fall of dictators in the Middle East. He argued that even with damaging the al-Qaeda leadership, “We always knew that we would have to continue to confront elements of extremism elsewhere as well.” My question is, why, for how long, at what cost, and to what end?

Finally, there is a very well made video (see below) explaining the history of making the war decision and how Congress has increasingly bowed-out and left it to the Executive branch. In the intro, Nick Gillespie wrote, “As deadly and violent attacks on American embassies and consulates in Libya, Egypt, and elsewhere multiply in the Middle East, it’s vitally important to remember that foreign policy decisions – especially acts of war – are not supposed to be the province of one man.”

 As for fighting a war with Iran, the thought of the economic war options China and Russia bring to the table is frightening and should give us pause and even more reason to demand that our politicians get our country’s debt problem in order and stop allowing the Fed to devalue our own currency.

Originally Published on