(AV17254) Restoring Constitutional Government
Articles Blog

(AV17254) Restoring Constitutional Government

October 25, 2019


yeah good evening I think it’s a few minutes
after 7:00 and I think we’re going to get started
my name is dawn McDowell I’m the co-chair of the iowa federation of
college republicans and on behalf of the Iowa State College Republicans and the
committee on lectures I just like to thank you for coming out tonight
and it’s a nice nice to see so many activists but it’s nice to see so many activists
and college students out here in Iowa and we obviously do take our status
quite seriously and so before we get started tonight with our featured guest
just like to plug a few other lectures that are coming up in the near future
here the committee of lectures on April 19 it’s the First Amendment and this the
guest speaker will be Helen Thomas journalism journalist and that will be
at 8:00 p.m. the Sun Room also there’ll be a panel discussion on the hazards of
the freedom of the press that’ll be on April 19 as well in Hoover Hall that’s
at 2:00 p.m. as well as a conversation with Wendell Berry on the 15th of April
coming up closer 7 p.m. in the Sun Room next door and then on the 16th will be
Kremlin rising Vladimir Putin and the Russian Center Russian
counter-revolution with Peter Baker 6 p.m. Sunday in on the 16th and then if
you’re looking for a different kind of entertainment Jodie Sweetin who was on
Full House the the sitcom for a number of years will be here on the 16th as
well Great Hall at 8:00 p.m. so I just want to encourage you to to come out to
those events and but I’m very honored tonight to introduce our featured guest
congressman dr. Ron Paul was born in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania where he was
raised and then graduated from Gettysburg College and then from the
Duke University School of Medicine in the 60s Congressman Paul served in the
Air Force as a surgeon before he moved to Texas it was then that he opened up
his medical practice or he specialized in obstetrics and gynecology and
delivered over 4,000 babies dr. paul and his wife carol are the proud parents of
five children and 17 grandchildren a member of Congress from 1976 to 1977
then from 1979 to 1985 and then again from 1997 to the present dr. Paul has
been a champion of limited constitutional government lower taxes
and free markets in 1976 he was one of four members of Congress to endorse
Ronald Reagan’s and his primary challenge to Gerald Ford and he himself
was the 1988 Libertarian Party nominee for president Congressman Paul is a
prolific writer having penned numerous books and he officially made his
presidential intentions on c-span last month he presently serves on the House
Committee on financial services and on the Committee on Foreign Affairs an
unwavering advocate of pro-life and pro-family values dr. Paul has
consistently voted to lower and abolish federal taxes slash spending and
regulation and used his house seat to actively promote the return of
government to its proper constitutional levels ladies and gentlemen please join
me in giving United States congressman Ron Paul a hearty Iowa State welcome thank you it’s very nice to be here
we had Chamber of Commerce weather today but I can’t say we had a yesterday but
it is real nice to be here and we’re enjoying our visit I’ve been here a
couple days now the day before yesterday we arrived I’ll go home tomorrow to
Texas but we have had a good visit here we’ve met a lot of people and a lot of
people who are interested in the Constitution and that pleases me very
much and of course that is our subject tonight to talk about the Constitution
and anybody in politics should care about the Constitution because you know
when we are sworn in that’s the only oath we take you know we don’t take an
oath to uphold the party platform or any narrow viewpoint that one might hold we
take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution and I take that very
seriously and unfortunately yeah I think many over the many decades have not
taken it seriously and it’s almost in many ways have become a dead-letter and
that’s what I’m concerned about if you look at our history we will find that
our country was established in a unique cirtl way sort of way because when
revolutions break out historically the people end up with less freedom
the unusual thing that happened in our revolution is a revolution was fought
with good intentions like most revolutions are but unlike so many
others the people ended up with more Liberty rather than less and that is
what really has provided the incentive for America to become the greatest and
the freest and the richest nation ever and it was the intent to overthrow
tyranny in to establish personal liberty and local government they did not want
centralized government they wanted local government they never dreamed the
founders never dreamed that they could have perfect government by just making
it local but they believed that solutions were better found when
government was made small and and spread out and that the people
had more to say about it then than the government itself so I would say that
Iowa is a pretty good example of what the founders intended with the concept
of caucuses here and letting the people speak out and allowing candidates to
come and compete on on even terms with others who may have a lot more money so
this really is the type of thing I think the founders were thinking about to
allow government to be kept at a local level but there were certain incentives
that that drove the founders of the country into their willingness to take
on tyranny and use force of course they declared their independence and then
they had to retaliate against the force that the British imposed on them but the
motivation was really to have a say about their lives and control about
their lives and Taxation but one of the big issues was the issue of war they did
not like the idea that they would be taxed when a king could wage war and
make these declaration and they were very annoyed that the decision-making
power was in the executive branch at that time it was the king to decide
whether or not you as a citizen would either be taxed or drafted or sent off
to fight Foreign Wars and this was a won one of the things that they were very
interested in in making explicitly clear in the Constitution
immediately after the Revolution was won in the in the short years falling that
before the Constitution was written it was rather chaotic the economy was not
doing well we did not have a sound currency and there were lots of trade
barriers between states so the division was actually a detriment so the
strongest motivation for a constitutional convention was to deal
with the monetary issue as well as the ability of people to go back and forth
between the states and trade between the states and that is you know a major
achievement they decided that it was unwise to have a government that could
create money out of there and inflated currency because they
had just gone through the experience of the runaway currency of the Continental
dollar so there was a prohibition against emitting Bills of credit there
was only to be gold and silver to be made legal tender and they had an
interstate commerce clause not to regulate everything that we do Between
the States but to deregulate and the purpose of the interstate commerce
clause was not to have prohibitions and tariffs between the states and to allow
free trade to really occur but in in its design in the Constitution if you look
at the largest article it has to do with the Congress the Congress was to be to
be the most important branch of government and there were some mandates
and some permissions given but most of it was prohibitions and if you look to
article 1 section 8 it really tells you what Congress can do so indirectly it
tells you what the president can do because if the Congress can’t do it the
president can’t write a law anyway at least they didn’t expect the president
to write laws they didn’t expect the president they have signing statements
they didn’t expect the president to have this arbitrary power to write
regulations in the executive branch which had the force of law and of course
they never expected the judicial branch to hear cases they shouldn’t be hearing
and then write law into the code through the judicial system none of that was
expected it was to be Congress that wrote the laws and and it was explicitly
explained in article 1 section 8 on on what they could do and if it wasn’t
there they weren’t supposed to do it and some of the important issues that gold
and silver was to be legal tender but also they dealt with the war issue and
the war issue was very important and they said only Congress can declare war
and they thought that was very very important and the people then had the
more direct control over the members of Congress especially in the house that
were elected every two years and it was intended that the people through the
members of Congress would have the ultimate say on whether
would go to war there was a full debate on this and there was some concern about
what would a president do if the country was attacked and back then Congress
might not be in session it might be weeks to get him in the session so they
said it was explained well it isn’t that the president can’t declare war he can
make war if necessary and the understanding was if under attack the
president needed to retaliate he had that authority but interestingly enough
over these many centuries of the couple centuries plus there’s never been a need
for that we’ve had time to declare war when we needed to and we certainly have
abused his clause because since World War two we have fought a lot of wars we
have lost a lot of people and we have just essentially totally ignored this
prohibition that the president can take us to war we’ve gone to war to enforce
UN resolutions and we have gone to war because the Congress won’t meet their
responsibilities and make a decision one way the other and this last go-around
they literally took this Authority and said we don’t want it we want to wash
our hands of it and I heard even opposition party people say this is a
good trick they didn’t use those words but he said this is a good trick we can
endorse the war and look like we’re great Patriots and we’re willing to
fight but we won’t have to make the decision so if he goes badly you know
who we can blame and it turned out to be essentially that the resolution to go to
war in Iraq essentially said two things we were under severe danger by an attack
by Saddam Hussein and we heard all the stories and all the threats and the
weapons that we were going to be hit with and all the many reasons why we had
to go to war and the other reason was that it was very important for our
security that we enforce and make sure you and resolutions are enforced so we
were enforcing UN resolutions and we were to make sure that Saddam Hussein
would be held in check of course not too many people ask the question well
could some of this information be a be false and there was a lot of information
available to me that said it wasn’t true at all we had people from the CIA say
that it wasn’t true and that there there was no real threat and that if you
looked at it Saddam Hussein didn’t have really an army he had a police guard to
protected him he didn’t have a navy he didn’t have an Air Force he couldn’t
shoot down one of our airplanes we had been flying over his country for 10
years so there was no evidence of any threat whatsoever and yet this Authority
was turned over to the president so we illegally unconstitutionally
transferred this authority to the executive branch allowing the president
to make the decision if you all remember during the lead-up to the war the
president would say I haven’t decided yet whether or not we’re going to have a
war I will look at this maybe we will maybe we won’t we’re going to do this
and that they really and truly had already made a decision but the argument
was I haven’t decided yet which was annoying to me because I thought only
Congress I should decide it matter of fact the decision to go to war against
Iraq occurred a long time before this administration even took office the the
program was designed by the neoconservatives who had a great deal of
influence and both Republican and Democratic parties in the mid 1990s in
1998 with Clinton as president there was a law passed that he signed into law
that said that regime changes the official policy of the United States
government and that became law in 1998 it was at that time that I started
speaking out and said this is the beginning of the war we shouldn’t do it
it doesn’t make any sense and the very first meeting Clinton did not take us to
war although he did a little bit of bombing up there he
perpetuated the antagonism but the very first meeting of the new administration
in January of 2001 the the one of the very first discussion
according to Paul O’Neill was when are we going to go into Iraq when are we
gonna hit Iraq and he was dumbfounded that the subject was that far along
right after 9/11 they had a meeting and the very first thing is ah this is in in
one individual who was witness to this said there were smiles on their faces
because they came in and said now is our chance we’re going to Iraq and somebody
said why you know why are we going to Iraq
well that was in the plan that was designated for a long time and then it
had to be waylaid because the evidence was so overwhelming that the attack was
by Osama bin Laden who was holed up in Afghanistan and therefore the there had
to be a token effort to go after Osama bin a so some event not in Afghanistan
which we did but we didn’t pursue him we chased them over and into Pakistan
Pakistan happens to be a country that is a military dictatorship that overthrew
an elected government that has a new nuclear weapons that they got outside of
the NPT and in they could present a great threat to us if you’re looking for
potential threats and and we treat them differently we treat the Pakistanis
differently we give them your money in the in the effort of foreign aid which
doesn’t make a lot of sense to me especially now that sama bin Laden
everybody agrees is in Pakistan of course on 9/11
it wasn’t the Iraqis that attacked us most people would not most it’s right oh
and when we went into Iraq most people believed it but very few but they’re
still good many well we are there because they attacked us on 9/11 which
is absolutely false and we know exactly where the people came from 15 of them
came from Saudi Arabian some came from Egypt but there was more justification
to go either into Pakistan or Saudi Arabia than it would have been into into
Iraq and we got ourselves into a mess this mess I believe has come because we
have very little respect for the Constitution because if we had forced
our leaders to declare war and say look this is real this is dangerous we have
to go to war then everybody should be behind it we should fight it get it over
with quickly and end it and not drag it out and not let it be politicized but
they would have no part of it and the story I tell to emphasize how little
respect they have for the Constitution came up during the debates on this
resolution I serve on the International Relations Committee and the resolution
went through the committee and I wanted to make this point so I offered a
substitute resolution which was a declaration of war and I say we should
have an up and down vote on whether or not we want to go to war this is what
you want to do you should vote for this I said I’m not gonna vote for my
resolution so it’ll be up to you to defeat this resolution for ceramic
camisa will have no trouble defeating a resolution and of course everybody who
voted against it but the remarks were like this the chairman of the committee
said well you know we understand the gentleman is interested in the
Constitution that part of the Constitution is it’s no longer applies
anymore it’s anachronistic those were the words that he used and somebody else
said well I don’t know why the gentleman’s bringing up this this is
just an example of frivolity this is frivolous to bring the subject up of the
Constitution in this day and age because that is so old-fashioned well when a
couple of these issues if it’s old-fashioned there’s two things that we
can do we can first ignore the Constitution and do what we want which
is generally what happens or we could say well times have changed and we no
longer really honor the goals and and and the purpose of the Constitution that
were designed for us and therefore we should change the Constitution but
ignoring the Constitution in small areas means there’s nothing left to the
constitute and that’s where we are today this is
the thing that we’re giving our young people a constitution that doesn’t bind
bound down the the members of Congress and the executive branch and the
judicial branch because they do what they want so the contract between the
people and the government that has essentially been eliminated it’s gone
but there are a few of us who believe that it’s very very important and if we
want to maintain a republic if we want to maintain our freedoms this has to be
restored and we’re at a crucial point on whether or not we have the respect for
law we have the one issue determine say how do we go to war should we or
shouldn’t we but we also have the process with rule of law and the
Constitution both are very very important but I think the process might
even be more important than the issue itself because on issues and judgments
people can have their differences but the rule of law we should be very
precise and it is in this administration this has occurred for decades that we
have rejected a strict adherence to administrate – to the Constitution most
members of Congress would say I’m for strict adherence to the Constitution I
take my oath of office and I take it seriously but only at certain times you
know somebody asked me well do you have any allies up there I guess nobody ever
agrees with you because sometimes there are a lot of times you vote you vote for
you’re by yourself I said you know it isn’t like I never have allies everybody
is my ally at one time or the other is just they’re not my allies constantly
when it pleases them they use the Constitution say oh we shouldn’t do this
because the Constitution says this and then on other times it’ll be something
else but for the Constitution to have value for this contract which is
supposed to hold our government in check you can’t be arbitrary you can’t say
well sometimes you can use it and sometimes you you you don’t have to so
we’re at a point today where we ignore it the whole the whole welfare ethic the
whole welfare system is not authorized in the Constitution it’s not authorized
by the general welfare clause so we’ve if you believe that is important for the
government to run welfare state you ought to change it you know there was a
time when they had so much respect for the Constitution that they thought it
would be best for all of us of course this was the previous generation that
you not indulge in drinking alcohol and it’d be a pretty good case for not
drinking alcohol a lot of people drink too much and a lot of people drink and
drive and get into trouble and get cirrhosis and it’s bad it’s a lot of
expenses all these arguments why you shouldn’t drink alcohol but you know
back then they didn’t just prohibit you from drinking alcohol they took it and
had a constitutional amendment that says you’re not gonna drink alcohol which
wasn’t a very good decision as far as I’m concerned I think it was wise to
caution people but I also see that as a responsibility myself as a parent and
and as a grandparent to teach people about the danger of personal choices but
they they had a correct analysis they said we don’t have the authority to do
that we’re gonna amend the Constitution then lo and behold 14 years later they
realize this is a joke this is this is a problem they’re still drinking alcohol
the alcohol is contaminated there’s a lot of crime and and all the reasons why
prohibition didn’t work and yeah they changed it back but today you know if if
you happen to have a serious disease like cancer or have AIDS and think that
marijuana might be helpful to you and the state legalizes it and tells you
that you’re allowed the federal government comes in and they can put you
in prison they can put you in prison for life for being content with violating a
drug law and never have committed violence sometimes a non-violent drug
user who’s suffering from a disease called addiction can suffer a greater
consequence than somebody who has committed rape and murder and they might
serve fewer years and they get out again and yet we have this thing turn on his
head mainly because we don’t have respect for the law and the law is the
Constitution the government shouldn’t be involved and the
reason this was put in place was when the federal government makes a mistake
or the federal courts make a mistake it has a bearing on all of us
you know if Texas makes a mistake you don’t suffer vice versa if if the
standards in in Massachusetts are different than the standards here you
don’t suffer the consequences but if we allow all these decisions to be made in
Washington whether it’s the courts or the Congress or the executive branch
then we all suffer maybe they might make a correct decision but more likely
they’ll make a bad decision and then then we suffer the consequences the
founders were geniuses in devising a system that provided for the maximum
amount of freedom the minimum amount of government and they recognized the
importance of individual liberty I have a personal believing conviction that the
most important role anybody involved in politics is to promote Liberty I just
don’t think I don’t think for a minute that the
purpose of our government should – we should be to make your behavior better
and safer for yourself I can’t make you protect you from your own bad judgment
and I don’t as a president I wouldn’t want to do that I wouldn’t intend to do
it I don’t have the authority to do it it doesn’t work I don’t believe I can
regulate and make the economy better the president is not smart enough to do that
but the president should be smart enough to obey the laws to allow you to make
your own decisions protect liberty and also if we don’t have the right and the
authority nor the wisdom to make you better people as individuals in your
personal life or the economy better then we certainly don’t have the authority
nor the wisdom to tell other people how to live in in nation-building and
policing the world so we have taken upon ourselves way way too much and we have
neglected the responsibilities that we have the government does have some
responsibilities in in in providing safety and security in a free society in
a free society which would be a very productive Society the government’s
supposed to protect the value of your money the Constitution says that and
that is wise it was made a national issue and it was to not allow the money
to be debased devalued and and yet our government is the counterfeiter and
nobody says anything oh yeah you know if you need money just print it it won’t
matter that much just the fact that it wipes out poor people in the middle of
class and money gravitates to the military-industrial complex and it
gravitates to to the banking system and to Wall Street oh that doesn’t matter
we’ll just let it go because maybe we’ll get some of that cheap money and it’ll
benefit us because everybody likes easy credit but it’s the rejection of the
notion that the government should provide an honest currency which is so
disruptive and so unfair and is really truly a tax and yet
we don’t adhere to that to that prohibition and the governments have a
responsibility to protect property rights for a free society to work we
might not be able to tell you exactly how you should live and what you should
do and what your responsibilities are but if you have a contractual
arrangement with your neighbor your friend or a business arrangement it
should be done freely and openly and if you have an agreement you should live up
to it and if you don’t the government has a responsibility so the government
shouldn’t be interfering with contracts the government is incessantly
interfering with contract telling you whom you can hire and fire and what you
can pay them and under what conditions and all of these things the government
comes in in what they should be protecting is the right of freedom of
contract as a constitutionalist I see the protection of voluntary
relationships between two individuals in a social way the same as the voluntary
in a range meant in the economic way some people in Washington say you know I
understand this on the social thing why get involved in social relationship and
sexual relationships and in personal habits because we don’t want the
government in our bedroom and they understand that very clearly and they
understand the issue yes you should be allowed to gamble and indulge and do
these things and simply responsibility but then they turn around and they say
oh but we can’t allow that in the economic sphere because it might not be
fair to everybody there might not be perfect even a perfect redistribution of
wealth not realizing that it’s the free society the productive Society incentive
society that produces the greatest amount of wealth and the best
distribution that’s what the freedom that we’ve had has demonstrated the less
free a country is the poorer the country is and the worse the distribution we are
moving away from the market economy and here we have the middle class being
wiped out jobs being lost jobs going overseas inflation eating away at the
income of the middle class at the same time we have Wall Street firms passing
out sixteen billion dollars and bonuses and I as a free-market
person have nothing against big corporations making a lot of money as
long as they earn it by the vote of the consumer you know Bill Gates makes a lot
of money because you buy his product and he doesn’t get subsidies and protection
from the government I have no qualms with that
besides you know if he’s big and rich because he’s free and he gives us a good
service what’s he gonna do with his money he’s gonna have so much you’ll
probably have to end up giving it away which he’s doing so we shouldn’t sit
around worrying about that what we should worry about are the people who
want to get rich because they’re in bed with the government whether that’s
through the inflationary system and Wall Street and the bankers benefitting and
the military-industrial complex benefiting in the halliburton’s of the
world benefitting by getting all these contracts now that’s corporatism and
that’s completely different that’s completely different from free-market
capitalism where people become wealthy because they are voted that wealth
because the consumer buys their product that’s quite a bit different and that’s
what the government should protect it’s these voluntary arrangements whether
they’re social or economic and this is very clear in the Constitution that we
don’t have a system of government of collectivism rights according to the
founders and and it was made very clear that rights should only be held by
individuals I see the whole world in terms of individuals I don’t see
collective rights I don’t think the rights of women are different than the
rights of men I don’t believe there’s such a thing as women rights or minority
rights or gay rights or anything like n everybody has a right to their life into
their liberty and they ought to be left alone the magnificence of the Constitution if
you read it and study it is you realize that the many problems that we have
today is the failure to follow the guideline follow the rule of law we
abandoned it on the on the war declaration the War Powers we abandoned
it on the monetary system we abandoned it on property rights in and we just
desert the concept the government should be local likewise all the problems that
we have can be solved by looking to the Constitution and the vice of the
founders I can’t say all because it’s I don’t claim as a perfect document but it
was and is the best we’re in trouble today because we
neglected we’re in a mess overseas we’ve dug holes for ourselves financially here
at home and financially abroad and the young people the next generation many of
whom are here tonight are going to inherit assistant which is essentially
non-functioning it is only it is only functioning today on a temporary basis
because we have still maintained a trust in our dollar where the world is still
willing to take our paper money they take it as if it were gold because it
used to be tied to gold but they happen realized since 1971 and has not been but
still they’ll take our gold but they’re taking it and they’ll take our paper but
every single day they’re taking it a little less enthusiastically right now
even in this past week a lot less enthusiastically and the dollar drops in
value prices are going up prices of imports just last month went up 1.7
percent that’s huge that’s fifteen eighteen percent increases in prices
what we have done recently is actually worse than what was done in the 1960s
back in the 60s when I was in the military LBJ said we can’t have guns and
butter we can have we can fight the Vietnam War deficits don’t matter and we
can have new entitlements and that of course is when they introduced that
Medicare and the entitlements and what have we done again we have guns and
butter and new entitlements deficits don’t matter and that’s not
from the Liberals our supply siders who advocated they came in and said Oh
deficits really don’t matter just lower the tax rate and we will have economic
growth and we will pay for our government well if you don’t believe in
big government you don’t want to lower taxes so government can grow if you can
lower taxes that’s fine with me but it should be with cutting spending
with the full believe in conviction that people will be better off in the free
society I am so convinced that economically there will be more people
better off than if you have a government that’s always trying to redistribute and
control the wealth because once the government gets that power to do that
even assuming that they got this power with good intention eventually the good
the special interest gain control and this is why you see a presidential race
today that is going to cross the billion dollars in their buying at the auction
because they know there is so much to be auction off and we have a nascent
Republic under Democrat I think it’s bipartisan and when you look at it how
about the influence of the drug companies on the Republican Party when
it comes to medical prescription drug programs and managed care billions of
dollars now is supposed to go to medicine but it goes to the management
companies it goes to the drug companies and and yet the the corporations have a
lot of stake and there’s a lot of money it’s interested in the in the
military-industrial complex when we were making a decision to go into Colombia
guess who was lobbying for us to have more foreign aid and get involved
militarily in Colombia to stop the drugs of course that was the pretense the
pretext of going to Colombia but it was the helicopter companies and the oil
companies that had like Occidental they were interested in us going down there
this is what happens when government gets big regardless of what the reason
is if you don’t follow the Constitution it gets out of control and money
controls it and then who gets blamed capitalism and freedom and the markets
places even the depression was blamed on the gold standard and the market economy
it was never blamed on the Federal Reserve and yet it was the Federal
Reserve caused a boom in the 20s and the bust of
the 30s government free markets do not create depressions like we had in the
30s yet erroneously free markets and sound money were blamed and and and that
was incorrect and even today it’s going to be very tempting because it’s easy to
attack the corporation’s which I do but I struggle to distinguish the difference
between honestly earned money and accumulation of wealth versus being in
collusion with the government in getting these special benefits but so many of
these solutions can come by it’s just looking to the rule of law in deciding
what we can do and can’t do if we want to change some of these things if you
think that it’s a good idea for the federal government to run your schools
they do not have the authority to do it from my view boy my political viewpoint
and my personal viewpoint is they should I think you can do a good enough job
here then sending all your money over to Washington hoping to get some of it back
without regulation and stab you send it over you get less back and you get no
child left behind telling you what to do and I think it’d be better you took care
of your own schools here but unlike what they did with the
prohibition of alcohol we now have education dominated in
Washington and we have central economic planning without changing the
Constitution there’s very very little respect for the Constitution just as I
demonstrated when we had the debate on the war resolution they would just
assume say that it is just a nuisance to us and it should be ignored but without
the rule of law you have the rule of politicians and if you look at it in
each area the market is less free we are less prosperous we do not have the
manufacturing jobs as we used to have we are greatly in debt we are depending on
borrowing nearly three billion dollars a day for the Chinese to finance our war
and so we are pretending to be wealthy and if you went out and borrowed a
million dollars a month for several months you could look very wealthy but
eventually you’d have to pay it back and now we’re moving into the age where we
will be paying back we cannot pay for the entitlements the young people in
this room can’t take care of the people who are already retired and who are
going to retire they can’t work enough if they gave up 90% of their salaries
they can’t work hard enough to take care of the entitlement commitments so there
will be a failure and the failure will probably come with the dollar the dollar
will fail because the only thing they can do in Washington is resort to
printing money because they can’t tax any more there’s going to be a limit to
the borrowing there’s going to be a rejection of loaning to us endlessly at
these low interest rates and the government will say well we have to do
something they’ll say well prices are so high we don’t have enough money but the
problem is the prices were high because there was too much money circulating but
they will resort to inflation and inflating the currency which leads to
the higher prices so this is very very dangerous because if we see that our
freedoms are threatened today they will be even more threatened in times of war
whether it’s a hot war like we have in Iraq or a war against terrorism a war
against drugs these are the times when people are more willing to say oh well
it’s time of war we have to give up a little
bit of our freedoms and that is a an attitude that is competing with those
individuals like many in this room of saying yes I understand what they’re
saying but I do not believe that I have to
sacrifice my Liberty to be safer and that is what I believe there are some who claim that you can
give up and give up your economic liberties but they do not want to give
up the personal civil liberties I say and argue the case that they are one in
the same today our civil liberties are being
severely challenged we have national ID cards with the Real ID we have the
government’s ability now or at least the technical legality and the authority to
know everything about you they are allowed to spy on you without warrants
they are allowed to hold American citizens now without with with without
due process and in in this is continuous and it’s the atmosphere that has come
out of 9/11 well anything it’ll make me savor I’m willing to do it versus the
others who would say no we don’t want to give up our liberties the purpose of a
government is to protect our liberties and I am absolutely convinced that in
the freer we are the safer we are so I don’t ever have to to make this choice
about sacrificing some of our civil liberties and due process in court
thinking that I am going to be safer but we are undermining our personal
liberties our rights in our courts we are undermining our privacy and at the
same time we have enhanced the ability of governments to be secret I as a
president would do everything conceivable to make government more open
not work towards secrecy emphasizing only that on a rare time with some
information for national security reasons might be necessary there is
probably room for that but that’s not what’s going on in this country there’s
the the goal of government today is protecting government secrecy and
undermining your privacy it should be reversed we should have government
openness with a government protecting your privacy you know the basic understanding of
constitutional Liberty and the protection of our rights comes from a
basic notion I believe on where our rights and our lives come from my
personal opinion is our lives come my life comes from a creator and that this
my creator created my life and also my right to my life and responsibility for
my life and a responsibility not to hurt other people others might not want to
use those same terms and they might call it a natural right and they are very
very similar that you are born with a natural right to be left alone but
you’re also born with responsibility to take care of yourselves and take care of
your families and your children and raise your families and make these
decisions and not make these may allow these decisions to be made in Washington
or by government because every time government makes an economic or a
personal decision or an international decision it’s always at the expense of
personal liberty and whether it’s the extraction of money from your pocketbook
or the use of you as an individual to police the world the two in the two
issues that I think demonstrates so clearly that we have lost that because
there’s the economic attack on your personal right is the idea of the income
tax the income tax means that the it it perpetuate the thought the government
owns every bit of your income and they’ll allow you to keep a certain
percentage so even if you had a 1% tax on your income it means the government
allowed you to keep one percent of your income so the notion that there is to be
a tax on your income sort of confirms the fact that the government and big
government people would like to believe that they own your life and they own
everything you earn the other thing that confers ownership by government on our
lives is the concept of the draft the military draft we don’t have a military
draft today but I think it’s possible it will come attitudes are opposed to it
right now you had a bad experience with in the 60s
and they claim that it will never happen but today they had to extend tours of
duty of a hundred thousand of our military nobody wants to
join up anymore and older people are joining it’s a real mess we’re in a bad
shape for our defense but they never got rid of the Selective Service you know
since the seventies since we got rid of the draft and ever since I’ve been in
Congress I’m always offering a bill to get rid of Selective Service and besides
I think it was a time of while ago didn’t we outlaw involuntary servitude
and I think it’s very important that we eventually get rid of Selective Service
and never have the draft if this country is truly attacked
I believe that a free society and especially us as Americans would defend
this country and we would volunteer no matter what our age was and no matter
what the sex was I think we would be all willing to but that’s not what’s
happening today and when rather than if it’s more likely
when there’s war spreads in the Middle East unless we have a change in policy
and start bringing our troops home I would say that when it spreads into Iran
and they attack and kill a lot of Americans the American public will be
outraged and they will want to retaliate and they say what we don’t have the
troops well you better draft them besides
that’s equal to distribution of penalties there are some people in
Washington promoting the draft because they would like to see equal
distribution of the injury just not on volunteers but on everybody and that’s
their idea of equality but that’s not my idea of equality my idea of equality is
to let you make up your own mind about what you want to do with your own life
and that you assume responsibility for yourselves so this the times that we
live in are precarious I believe they are financially precarious because of
the threat to the dollar on our economic system but we also live in very good
times we live in good times today compared to 30 or 40 years ago because
the information dealing with this very subject was not well talked about the
availability of ideas on Liberty spread now like
over the Internet when I first study in the these principles it was hard to find
literature there were very few organization that promoted these ideas
and they didn’t talk about the Constitution today there’s a growing
number of people growing by leaps and bounds
much further ahead outside of Washington and that they are the American people
are much further hit in Congress on this war they’re sick and tired of the war
they’d like us to come home and that’s what I think we ought to do we ought to
come home as soon as possible but the opportunities we have are
outstanding whether it’s in the campaign or whether
it’s a spread of ideas the Internet is magnificent
this is why I vote tenaciously against any regulation whatsoever on the
internet which politically can get me into a little bit of trouble because
some people would like to do you a service and to make sure you don’t read
anything on the internet that might be harmful to you and there might be some
pictures on there that you shouldn’t see assuming the government should be the
policeman I vote against all regulation and taxation of the internet because
it’s a dangerous move it’s the greatest free-market mechanism of transferring
information ever known to man and it can be very useful in a campaign
the special interest will have a lot of money and a lot of influence but
campaigns can be run and helped immensely with with the internet raising
money raising necessary funds is fine as well as finding allies and supporters
and this is available which has each year become more available to us and of
course this is very annoying to those who have a lot of money and this is the
reason you see the move away from the caucus system in the early primary of
New Hampshire because low and behold they surely wouldn’t want an independent
candidate to have a voice what they want is to have all the primaries at the same
time and you better have 50 to 75 or 100 million dollars in the bank this is this
they made to be a billion dollar campaign that’s coming up they want us
to be able to run in California New York and Florida and Texas all at one time to
make sure that Iowa has no say I think that that is the wrong direction and
that we should maintain this ability of candidates who are independent minded
who will come and tell you the truth and visit with individuals and maybe make a
mark and and have representation and do well in a state like Iowa to me that is
very very important but money is the name of the game and unfortunately we
are moving in that direction so we have a great task ahead which means the
organization to overcome that because it’s not like the Knicks go run it might
be this go-around that they’ll be able to Maine be able to change it where all
the big elections will occur in January and February right at the same time as
the caucus or the New Hampshire primary I think that is a bad move I think that
we certainly ought to work and strive to allow the people to speak out and allow
independent candidates to have a voice in the 1970s there was not much
knowledge about the true purpose of this government on our country and the true
purpose of individual liberty it’s much better known today is reason for me to
be very optimistic there is a change going on and yet I don’t know exactly
what tomorrow will bring next month will bring or the next election will bring
but I know that we are moving in the right direction but it does take
determination in a lot of work and effort and we can’t just sit back and
say oh it will work out your concern about the economy it is fictitious the
war will soon end over there the Iranians would never attack us and and
besides this attack on on our civil liberties is not real most of us are
still free and we don’t have to worry about the ending Carsten a incarcerated
without due process and and and be complacent I say this is the time to be
active to be involved and I want to close by thanking you very much for this
opportunity and to invite you to help me in any way possible to promote the cause
of Liberty thank you very much thank you Thank You Ike I think there’s a little
bit of time left I was told that we could take some some questions so I will
take some questions please shout them out as loud as you can to make sure I
can hear them init the other people can hear them as well is there somebody that
would like to ask a question there we go I’m a strict constitutionalist I believe
the founders were libertarians and I believe the Constitution is a very
libertarian document I joined the libertarian party in 1987 and I became a
lifetime member and I have not rejected it I’ve never run for Congress other
than as a Republican hi ray I was a Republican in the 70s and early 80s I
went home and that was when I participated with the libertarian party
for a year and then after 12 years I went back into the Congress as a
Republican once again I think one thing a state could do if if there’s a lot of
influential people in this room to talk to your legislature and and I don’t even
know what your law is but individuals ought to be allowed to run on both on
two ballots you know if you’re a liberal Democrat and you want to run as a
greenie Anna and a Democrat I think that should be permissible in New York you
can run as a conservative and a Republican a liberal and a Democrat but
in most states you’re not allowed and this would help identify your views it’s
very very difficult all the laws are biased against third parties and it’s
hard to run in a third party because it’s difficult to get on ballots so I
would say it’d be good to allow an individual and I would run for Congress
as both a libertarian Anna and a Republican and I’m not embarrassed by it
I don’t endorse everything from the libertarian party platform
I didn’t even in 1980 when I ran I happen to be a right to life liberty I
believe in the sanctity of life but I believe it should be enforced at the
state level and we don’t need federal laws dealing with it but I’m for
repealing Roe versus Wade and allowing the states to make these determinations
so I had disagreements with it but it doesn’t matter whether
I volunteer the label libertarian it comes up every single time and in every
article in Texas so it really hasn’t hurt me politically and they tried to
hurt me with it on the drug issue but I expressed myself on the drug issue
because I think the drug war has been a failure and I live in the Bible Belt
it’s very Christian very conservative a lot of homeschoolers it never hurt me so
I think the people are way ahead of the US Congress on the ill effects of the
drug war but I think one thing you have to convince and I as a parent and as a
grandparent as a physician I think I convinced my district but I don’t like
the drugs you know I think they’re very dangerous but I think it’s your personal
choice but some people want to hurt that hurt themselves but I also point out
that prescription drugs are probably a lot more dangerous and a lot more harm
done by the illegal drugs make it loud right he’s talking about the consequence
of some of the concerns that many of us expressed when they passed NAFTA NAFTA
was supposed to be all about free trade it was a little bit about free trade but
it was more about international government and managed trade for the
benefit of certain companies so I was opposed to NAFTA and as many of us
predicted it has led to the next stage and that’s the SP SPP the Security and
Prosperity project and and one of the things that they are planning is a
highway from Mexico all the way to Canada first time Mexican trucks will
have to stop us in Kansas City and it’s very real our Texas governor is moving
it along there’s been some small appropriations already in the US
Congress the people outside of Washington are
much more concerned and know about it they realize what how many millions of
acres will be taken under eminent domain and what it will do with the concept of
breaking down our borders and making the illegal immigration problem actually
worse I think it’s very real but I’m opposed to big government in Washington
so I’m certainly opposed to big government over and above the government
in Washington whether it’s it’s a NAFTA type of government or the UN or any of
these organizations and yet I am not opposed to trade a matter of fact I’m
not an isolationist and I’m not a protectionist I would like I would like
honest free trade with as many people who are willing I think the trade that
we have with Vietnam should have been tried before we fought him you know we
find killed a lot of them they kill a lot of us and now what are we doing with
trading with Vietnam that’s what we should have been doing with Cuba a long
time ago but I think Castro would have been taken out a long time ago because
they would have seen the benefits instead of using us as the reason to
maintain power with the dictatorship but no I don’t like that movement I don’t
want to see a North American Union and yet I would like to see his friends with
our neighbors and trading with our neighbors but I don’t think we should
have illegal immigration I don’t think we should have amnesty I don’t think we
should have birthright citizenship and I don’t think you
should ever be forced to pay for the healthcare or the education of Hillel
aliens okay you wanted me to explain the
Federal Reserve a little bit I mentioned it because I talked about the the
currency itself but the Federal Reserve is a central bank there’s no authority
in a constitution to establish a central bank so it’s unconstitutional but the
the federal Center Reserve has been created by government but it’s very
secretive and in many ways very private and and the Congress has no although we
we get to talk and quiz Bernanke and Greenspan and I have many times over the
years we have no real jurisdiction we don’t have true oversight we can’t have
an audit of the Federal Reserve but the main reason why they’re so important is
because they create money out of thin air they have be given the monopoly
control over money and credit and in it benefits not only the politicians who
like to spend money but it also benefits the bankers who get to expand that money
in credit through fractional reserve banking but it is the it is this power
that distorts markets the most important part of a market economy is to have a
pricing structure von Mises the great Austrian economist predicted as
socialism and communism would fail because they don’t have a pricing
mechanism and he was correct communism fell apart and it didn’t work and we
didn’t need to find a war with them but the same way if you manipulate money and
credit and in the price of money which is the interest rates you will cause
distortions there for a while in the early part of this decade they had
interest rate overnight rates for bankers down at 1% and they’ve been
drastically low and they have caused a tremendous boom to the economy and once
all the money went into the stock market there was a stock market crash and then
you know the stock market the Nasdaq is only half or less than half of what it
used to be the Dow in real terms is about where it was in nineteen in the
year 2000 it’s all a result of the Federal Reserve causing a boom and in
the bus and then all of a sudden they were able to translate that boo
by pumping money into the housing industry well the prices went up and
everybody bought a house but now there’s the liquidation the people who have
houses and can’t afford it and in and that is depression that’s all due to the
Federal Reserve but the Federal Reserve is very mischievous there are very
detrimental to the economy but more importantly is I think it’s an immoral
act to allow our governments to counterfeit money and the Federal
Reserve it’s wrong to allow it because it’s not constitutional but one of the
worst aspects of the Federal Reserve it allows governments to grow and do things
that they not authorized just think of what it would be like that if each and
every one of us would have to pay our tax bill to pay for all the government
that we get if we had to do that every single month for the war and for the
entitlement we would repeal and yet what happens now is we can borrow the money
and pass the debt on to the next generation and also we can pass this
this invisible test is this invisible test is this invisible

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *