[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 7 (Wednesday, February 2, 2000)]
[House]
[Pages H185-H191]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT, PART 2

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 1999, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, I took a special order to discuss 
the importance of the American Republic and why it should be preserved. 
Today, I will continue with that special order.
  When it comes to executive orders, it has gotten completely out of 
hand. Executive orders may legitimately be used by a President to carry 
out his constitutionally authorized duties, but that would require far 
fewer orders than modern day Presidents have issued as the 20th century 
comes to a close, we find the executive branch willfully and arrogantly 
using the executive order to deliberately circumvent the legislative 
body, and bragging about it.
  Although nearly 100,000 American battle deaths have occurred since 
World War II and both big and small wars have been fought almost 
continuously, there has not been a congressional declaration of war 
since 1941. Our Presidents now fight wars not only without explicit 
congressional approval but also in the name of the United Nations, with 
our troops now serving under foreign commanders.
  Our Presidents have assured us that U.N. authorization is all that is 
needed to send our troops into battle. The 1973 War Powers Resolution 
meant to restrict presidential war powers has either been ignored by 
our Presidents or used to justify war up to 90 days. The Congress and 
the people too often have chosen to ignore this problem, saying little 
about the recent bombing in Serbia. The continual bombing of Iraq which 
has now been going on for over 9 years is virtually ignored.
  If a President can decide on the issue of war without a vote of the 
Congress, a representative republic does not exist. Our President 
should not have the authority to declare national emergencies and they 
certainly should not have authority to declare martial law, a power the 
Congress has already granted to any future emergency.
  Economic and political crises can develop quickly and overly 
aggressive Presidents are only too willing to enhance their own power 
in dealing with them. Congress sadly throughout this century has been 
only too willing to grant authority to our Presidents at the sacrifice 
of its own.
  The idea of separate but equal branches of government has been 
forgotten and the Congress bears much of the responsibility for this 
trend. Executive powers in the past 100 years have grown steadily with 
the creation of agencies that write and enforce their own regulations 
and with Congress allowing the President to use executive orders 
without restraint.
  But in addition, there have been various other special vehicles that 
our Presidents use without congressional oversight. For example, the 
exchange stabilization fund set up during the depression has over $34 
billion available to be used at the President's discretion without 
congressional approval. This slush fund grows each year as it is paid 
interest on the securities it holds. It was instrumental in the $50 
billion Mexican bailout in 1995.
  The CIA is so secretive that even those Congressmen privy to its 
operation have little knowledge of what this secret government actually 
does around the world.

                              {time}  1245

  We know, of course, it has been involved in the past 50 years in 
assassinations and government overthrows on frequent occasions. The 
Federal Reserve operation, which works hand in hand with the 
administration, is not subject to congressional oversight. The Fed 
manipulates currency exchange rates, controls short-term interest 
rates, and fixes the gold price, all behind closed doors.
  Bailing out foreign governments, financial corporations and huge 
banks can all be achieved without congressional approval. One hundred 
years ago when we had a gold standard, credit could not be created out 
of thin air, and, because a much more limited government philosophy 
prevailed, this could not have been possible. Today it is hard to even 
document what goes on, let alone expect Congress to control it.
  The people should be able to closely monitor the Government, but as 
our government grows in size and scope, it, the Government, seeks to 
monitor our every move. Attacks on our privacy are an incessant and 
always justified by citing so-called legitimate needs of the State, 
efficiency and law enforcement.
  Plans are laid for numerous data banks to record everyone's 
activities. A national ID card using our Social Security number is the 
goal of many, and even though we achieved a significant delivery in 
delaying its final approval last year, the promoters will surely 
persist in their efforts.
  Plans are made for a medical data bank to be kept and used against 
our wishes. Job banks and details of all our lending activities 
continue to be of interest to all our national policy agencies, to make 
sure they know exactly where the drug dealers, the illegal aliens, and 
tax dodgers are and what they are doing, it is argued.
  For national security purposes, the Echelon system of monitoring all 
overseas phone calls has been introduced, yet the details of this 
program are not available to any inquiring Member of Congress.
  The Government knew very little about each individual American 
citizen in 1900. But, starting with World War I, there has been a 
systematic growth of Government surveillance of everyone's activities, 
with multiple records being kept. Today, true privacy is essentially a 
thing of the past. The FBI and the IRS have been used by various 
administrations to snoop and harass political opponents, and there has 
been little effort by Congress to end this abuse. A free society, that 
is, a constitutional republic, cannot be maintained if privacy is not 
highly cherished and protected by the Government, rather than abused by 
it. We can expect it to get worse.
  Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen was recently quoted as saying, 
``Terrorism is escalating to the point that U.S. citizens may have to 
choose between civil liberties and more intrusive forms of 
protection.'' This is all in the name of taking care of us.
  As far as I am concerned, we could all do with a lot less Government 
protection and security. The offer of Government benevolence is the 
worst reason to sacrifice liberty, but we have seen a lot of that 
during the 20th century.
  Probably the most significant change in attitude that occurred in the 
20th century was that with respect to life

[[Page H186]]

itself. Although abortion has been performed for hundreds, if not for 
thousands, of years, it was rarely considered an acceptable and routine 
medical procedure without moral consequence.
  Since 1973, abortion in America has become routine and justified by a 
contorted understanding of the right to privacy. The difference between 
American rejection of abortion at the beginning of the century compared 
to today's casual acceptance is like night and day. Although a vocal 
number of Americans express their disgust with abortion on demand, our 
legislative bodies and the courts claim that the procedure is a 
constitutionally protected right, disregarding all scientific evidence 
and legal precedents that recognize the unborn as a legal, living 
entity, deserving protection of the law.

  Ironically, the greatest proponents of abortion are the same ones who 
advocate imprisonment for anyone who disturbs the natural habitat of a 
toad. This loss of respect for human life in the latter half of the 
20th century has yet to have its full impact on our society. Without a 
deep concern for life and with the casual disposing of living human 
fetuses, respect for liberty is greatly diminished. This has allowed a 
subtle but real justification for those who commit violent acts against 
fellow human beings.
  It should surprise no one that a teenager delivering a term newborn 
is capable of throwing the child away in a garbage dumpster. The new 
mother in this circumstance is acting consistently, knowing that if an 
abortion is done just before a delivery, it is legally justified and 
the abortionist is paid to kill the child. Sale of fetal parts to tax-
supported institutions is now an accepted practice. This moral dilemma 
that our society has encountered over the past 40 years, if not 
resolved in the favor of life, will make it impossible for a system of 
laws to protect the life and liberty of any citizen.
  We can expect senseless violence to continue as the sense of worth is 
undermined. Children know that mothers and sisters, when distraught, 
have abortions to solve the problem of an unwanted pregnancy. 
Distraught teenagers in coping with this behavior are now prone to use 
violence against others or themselves when provoked or confused. This 
tendency is made worse because they see in this age of abortion their 
own lives as having less value, thus destroying self-esteem.
  The prime reason government is organized in a free society is to 
protect life, not to protect those who take life. Today, not only do we 
protect the abortionist, we take taxpayers' funds to pay for abortions 
domestically as well as overseas. This egregious policy will continue 
to plague us well into the 21st century.
  A free society designed to protect life and liberty is incompatible 
with Government sanctions and financing abortion on demand. It should 
not be a surprise to anyone that as abortion became more acceptable, 
our society became more violent and less free. The irony is that Roe v. 
Wade justified abortion using the privacy argument, conveniently 
forgetting that not protecting the innocent unborn is the most serious 
violation of privacy possible.
  If the location of the fetus is the justification for legalized 
killing, the privacy of our homes would permit the killing of the 
newborn, the deformed and the elderly, a direction, unfortunately, in 
which we find ourselves going. As government-financed medical care 
increases, we will hear more economic arguments for euthanasia, that 
is, mercy killing, for the benefit of the budget planners. Already we 
hear these economic arguments for killing the elderly and terminally 
ill.
  Last year the House made a serious error by trying to federalize the 
crime of killing a fetus occurring in an act of violence. The stated 
goal was to emphasize that the fetus deserved legal protection under 
the law, and, indeed, it should and does at the State level. 
Federalizing any act of violence is unconstitutional. Essentially, all 
violent acts should be dealt with by the States, and, because we have 
allowed the courts and Congress to federalize such laws, we find more 
good State laws are overridden than good Federal laws written.
  Roe v. Wade federalized State abortion laws and ushered in the age of 
abortion. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, if passed into law, will 
do great harm by explicitly excluding the abortionist, thus codifying 
for the first time the Roe v. Wade concept and giving even greater 
legal protection to the abortionist.
  The responsibility of Congress is twofold: first, we should never 
fund abortions. Nothing could be more heinous than forcing those with 
strong right-to-life beliefs to pay for abortions.
  Second, Roe v. Wade must be replaced by limiting jurisdiction, which 
can be done through legislation, a constitutional option. If we as a 
Nation do not once again show respect and protect the life of the 
unborn, we can expect the factions that have emerged on each side of 
this issue to become more vocal and violent. A Nation that can casually 
toss away its smallest and most vulnerable members and call it a 
``right'' cannot continue to protect the lives or rights of its other 
citizens.
  Much has changed over the past 100 years, where technology has 
improved our living standards. We find that our Government has 
significantly changed from one of limited scope to that of pervasive 
intervention.
  One hundred years ago it was generally conceded that one extremely 
important function of government was to enforce contracts made 
voluntarily in the marketplace. Today, government notoriously 
interferes with almost every voluntary economic transaction. 
Consumerism, labor laws, wage standards, hiring and firing regulations, 
political correctness, affirmative action, the Americans with 
Disability Act, the Tax Code, and others place a burden on the two 
parties struggling to transact business.

  The EPA, OSHA and government-generated litigation also interferes 
with voluntary contracts. At times, it seems a miracle that our society 
adapts and continues to perform reasonably well in spite of the many 
bureaucratic dictates.
  As the 20th century comes to a close, we see a dramatic change from a 
government that once served an important function by emphasizing the 
value of voluntary contracts to one that excessively interferes with 
them. Although the interference is greater in economic associations 
than in social, the principle is the same. Already we see the political 
correctness movement interfering with social and religious 
associations. Data banks are set up to keep records on everyone, 
especially groups with strong religious views and anybody to be so bold 
as to call himself a patriot. The notion that there is a difference 
between murder and murder driven by hate has established the principles 
of a thought crime, a dangerous trend indeed.
  When the business cycle turns down, all the regulations and laws that 
interfere with economic and personal transactions will not be as well 
tolerated, and then the true cost will become apparent. It is under the 
conditions of a weak economy that such government interference 
generates a reaction to the anger over the rules that have been 
suppressed.
  To the statist, the idea that average people can and should take care 
of themselves by making their own decisions and that they do not need 
Big Brother to protect them in everything they do is anathema to the 
way they think.
  The bureaucratic mindset is convinced that without the politicians' 
effort, no one would be protected from anything, rejecting the idea of 
a free market economy out of ignorance or arrogance. This change in the 
20th century has significantly contributed to the dependency of our 
poor on Government handouts, the recipients being convinced that they 
are entitled to help and that they are incapable of taking care of 
themselves. A serious loss of self-esteem and unhappiness results, even 
if the system in the short run seems to help them get by.
  There were no Federal laws at the end of the 19th century dealing 
with drugs or guns. Gun violence was rare and abuse of addictive 
substances was only a minor problem. Now, after 100 years of 
progressive Government intervention in dealing with guns and drugs, 
with thousands of laws and regulations, we have more gun violence and a 
huge drug problem.
  Before the social authoritarians decided to reform the gun and drug 
culture, they amended the Constitution enacting alcohol prohibition. 
Prohibition failed to reduce alcohol usage and

[[Page H187]]

a crime wave resulted. After 14 years, the American people demanded 
repeal of this social engineering amendment, and got it.
  Prohibition prompted the production of poor quality alcohol with 
serious health consequences, while respect for the law was lost as it 
was flagrantly violated. At least at that time the American people 
believed the Constitution had to be amended to prohibit the use of 
alcohol, something that is entirely ignored today in the Federal 
Government's effort to stop drug usage.
  In spite of the obvious failure of alcohol prohibition, the Federal 
Government, after its repeal, turned its sights on gun ownership and 
drug usage. The many Federal anti-gun laws written since 1934, along 
with the constant threat of outright registration and confiscation, 
have put the FBI and the BATF at odds with millions of law abiding 
citizens who believe the Constitution is explicit in granting the right 
of gun ownership to all nonviolent Americans.

                              {time}  1300

  Our government pursued alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and 
confiscation of gold in the 1930s, so it is logical to conclude that 
our government is quite capable of confiscating all privately-owned 
firearms. That has not yet occurred; but as we move into the next 
century, many in Washington advocate just that and would do it if they 
did not think the American people would revolt, just as they did 
against alcohol prohibition.
  Throughout this century, there has been a move toward drug 
prohibition starting with the Harrison Act of 1912. The first Federal 
marijuana law was pushed through by FDR in 1938, but the real war on 
drugs has been fought with intensity for the past 30 years.
  Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent and not only is there 
no evidence of reduced drug usage, we have instead seen a tremendous 
increase. Many deaths have occurred from overdoses of street drugs 
since there is no quality control or labeling. Crime as a consequence 
of drug prohibition has skyrocketed and our prisons are overflowing. 
Many prisoners are nonviolent and should be treated as patients with 
addictions, not as criminals. Irrational mandatory minimum sentences 
have caused a great deal of harm. We have nonviolent drug offenders 
doing life sentences, and there is no room to incarcerate the rapists 
and murderers.
  With drugs and needles illegal, the unintended consequence of the 
spread of AIDS and hepatitis through dirty needles has put a greater 
burden on the taxpayers who are forced to care for the victims.
  This ridiculous system that offers a jail cell for a sick addict 
rather than treatment has pushed many a young girl into prostitution to 
pay for the drugs priced hundreds of times higher than they are worth, 
but the drug dealers love the system and dread a new approach.
  When we finally decide that drug prohibition has been no more 
successful than alcohol prohibition, the drug dealers will disappear. 
The monster drug problem we have created is compounded by moves to tax 
citizens so government can hand out free needles to drug addicts who 
are breaking the law in hopes that there will be less spread of 
hepatitis and AIDS in order to reduce government health care costs.
  This proposal shows how bankrupt we are at coming to grips with this 
problem, and it seems we will never learn.
  Tobacco is about to be categorized as a drug and prohibition of sorts 
imposed. This will make the drug war seem small if we continue to 
expand the tobacco war. Talk about insane government policies of the 
20th century, tobacco policy wins the prize. First, we subsidize 
tobacco in response to demands by the special interests, knowing full 
well even from the beginning that tobacco had many negative health 
consequences. Then we spend taxpayers' money warning the people of its 
dangers, without stopping the subsidies.
  Government then pays for the care of those who choose to smoke, 
despite the known dangers and warnings. But it does not stop there. The 
trial lawyers' lobby saw to it that the local government entities could 
sue tobacco companies for reimbursement of the excess costs that they 
were bearing in taking care of smoking-related illnesses, and the only 
way this could be paid for was to place a tax on those people who did 
not smoke.
  How could such silliness go on for so long? For one reason. We as a 
nation have forgotten the basic precept of a free society, that all 
citizens must be responsible for their own acts. If one smokes and gets 
sick, that is the problem of the one making the decision to smoke or 
take any other risk for that matter, not the innocent taxpayers who 
have already been forced to pay for the tobacco subsidies and 
government health warning ads.
  Beneficiaries of this monstrous policy have been tobacco farmers, 
tobacco manufacturers, politicians, bureaucrats, smokers, health 
organizations, and physicians, and especially the trial lawyers. Who 
suffers? The innocent taxpayers that have no choice in the matter and 
who acted responsibly and chose not to smoke.
  Think of what it would mean if we followed this simple logic and 
implemented a Federal social program, similar to the current war on 
smoking, designed to reduce the spread of AIDS within the gay 
community. Astoundingly, we have done the opposite by making AIDS a 
politically correct disease. There was certainly a different attitude a 
hundred years ago regarding those with sexually transmitted diseases 
like syphilis compared to the special status given AIDS victims today.
  It is said that an interventionist economy is needed to make society 
fair to everyone. We need no more government fairness campaigns. 
Egalitarianism never works and inevitably penalizes the innocent. 
Government in a free society is supposed to protect the innocent, 
encourage self-reliance and impose equal justice while allowing 
everyone to benefit from their own effort and suffer the consequences 
of their own acts. A free and independent people need no authoritarian 
central government dictating eating, drinking, gambling, sexual, or 
smoking habits.
  When the rules are required, they should come from the government 
closest to home as it once did prior to America's ill-fated 20th 
Century experiment with alcohol prohibition. Let us hope we show more 
common sense in the 21st Century in these matters than we did in the 
20th.
  A compulsive attitude by politicians to regulate nonviolent behavior 
may be well intentioned but leads to many unintended consequences. 
Legislation passed in the second half of the 20th Century dealing with 
drugs and personal habits has been the driving force behind the 
unconstitutional seizure and forfeiture laws and the loss of financial 
privacy.
  The war on drugs is the most important driving force behind the 
national police state. The excuse given for calling in the Army 
helicopters and tanks at the Waco disaster was that the authorities had 
evidence of an amphetamine lab on the Davidian property. This was never 
proven, but nevertheless it gave the legal cover but not the proper 
constitutional authority for escalating the attack on the Davidians 
which led to the senseless killing of so many innocent people.
  The attitudes surrounding this entire issue needs to change. We 
should never turn over the job of dealing with bad habits to our 
Federal Government. That is a recipe for disaster.
  America has not only changed technologically in the last 100 years 
but our social attitudes and personal philosophies have changed as 
well. We have less respect for life and less love for liberty. We are 
obsessed with material things, along with rowdy and raucous 
entertainment. Needs and wants have become rights for both poor and 
rich. The idea of instant gratification too often guides our actions, 
and when satisfaction is not forthcoming anger and violence breaks out. 
Road rage and airline passenger rage are seen more frequently. 
Regardless of fault, a bad outcome in almost anything, even if beyond 
human control, will prompt a lawsuit. Too many believe they deserve to 
win the lottery and a lawsuit helps the odds.
  Unfortunately, the only winners too often are the lawyers hyping the 
litigation. Few Americans are convinced anymore that productive effort 
is the most important factor in economic success and personal 
satisfaction. One did not get rich in the 1990s investing

[[Page H188]]

in companies that had significant or modest earnings. The most 
successful investors bought companies that had no earnings and the 
gambling paid off big. This attitude cannot create perpetual wealth and 
must some day end.
  Today, financial gurus are obsessed with speculation in the next 
initial public offering and express no interest in the cause of liberty 
without which markets cannot exist.
  Lying and cheating are now acceptable by the majority. This was not 
true 100 years ago when moral standards were higher. The October 1999 
issue of U.S. News and World Report reveals that 84 percent of college 
students believe cheating is necessary to get ahead in today's world, 
and 90 percent are convinced there is no price to pay for the cheating. 
Not surprisingly, 90 percent of college students do not believe 
politicians, and an equal number of percentage believes the media 
cheats as well.
  There is no way to know if this problem is this bad in the general 
population, but these statistics indicate our young people do not trust 
our politicians or media. Trust has been replaced with a satisfaction 
in the materialism that speculative stock markets, borrowing money, and 
a spendthrift government can generate.

  What happens to our society if the material abundance which we enjoy 
is ephemeral and human trust is lost? Social disorder will surely 
result and there will be a clamor for a more authoritarian government. 
This scenario may indeed threaten the stability of our social order and 
significantly undermine all our constitutional protections, but there 
is no law or ethics committee that will solve this problem of 
diminishing trust and honesty. That is a problem of the heart, mind and 
character to be dealt with by each individual citizen.
  The importance of the family unit today has been greatly diminished 
compared to the close of the 19th Century. Now, fewer people get 
married, more divorces occur and the number of children born out of 
wedlock continues to rise. Tax penalties are placed on married couples. 
Illegitimacy and single parenthood are rewarded by government 
subsidies, and we find many authoritarians arguing that the definition 
of marriage should change in order to allow non-husband and -wife 
couples to qualify for welfare handouts.
  The welfare system has mocked the concept of marriage in the name of 
political correctness, economic egalitarianism, and heterophobia. 
Freedom of speech is still cherished in America but the political 
correctness movement has seriously undermined dissent on our university 
campuses. A conservative or libertarian black intellectual is clearly 
not treated with the same respect afforded an authoritarian black 
spokesman.
  We now hear of individuals being sent to psychiatrists when personal 
and social views are crude or out of the ordinary. It was commonplace 
in the Soviet system to incarcerate political dissenters in so-called 
mental institutions. Those who received a Soviet government designation 
of socially undesirable elements were stripped of their rights. Will 
this be the way we treat political dissent in the future?
  We hear of people losing their jobs because of socially undesirable 
thoughts or for telling off-color jokes. Today, sensitivity courses are 
routinely required in America to mold social thinking for the simplest 
of infractions. The thought police are all around us. It is a bad sign.
  Any academic discussion questioning the wisdom of our policies 
surrounding World War II is met with shrill accusations of anti-
Semitism and Nazi lover. No one is ever even permitted, without 
derision by the media, the university intellectuals and the 
politicians, to ask why the United States allied itself with the 
murdering Soviets and then turned over Eastern Europe to them while 
ushering in a 45-year saber-rattling, dangerous Cold War period.
  Free speech is permitted in our universities for those who do not 
threaten the status quo of welfarism, globalism, corporatism, and a 
financial system that provides great benefit to the powerful special 
interests. If a university professor does not follow the party line, he 
does not receive tenure.
  We find ourselves at the close of this century realizing all our 
standards have been undermined. A monetary standard for our money is 
gone. The dollar is whatever the government tells us it is. There is no 
definition and no promise to pay anything for the notes issued ad 
infinitum by the government. Standards for education are continually 
lowered, deemphasizing excellence. Relative ethics are promoted and 
moral absolutes are ridiculed. The influence of religion on our 
standards is frowned upon and replaced by secular humanistic standards. 
The work ethic has been replaced by a welfare ethic based on need, not 
effort. Strict standards required for an elite military force are gone 
and our lack of readiness reflects this.
  Standards of behavior of our professional athletes seem to reflect 
the rules followed in the ring by the professional wrestlers where 
anything goes. Managed medical care driven by government decrees has 
reduced its quality and virtually ruined the doctor-patient 
relationship.
  Movie and TV standards are so low that our young people's senses are 
totally numbed by them. Standards of courtesy on highways, airplanes, 
and shops are seriously compromised and at times leads to senseless 
violence.
  With the acceptance of abortion, our standards for life have become 
totally arbitrary as they have become for liberty. Endorsing the 
arbitrary use of force by our government morally justifies the direct 
use of force by disgruntled groups not satisfied with the slower 
government process. The standards for honesty and truth have certainly 
deteriorated during the past 100 years.

                              {time}  1315

  Property ownership has been undermined through environmental 
regulations and excessive taxation. True ownership of property no 
longer exists. There has been a systematic undermining of legal and 
constitutional principles once followed and respected for the 
protection of individual liberty.
  A society cannot continue in a state of moral anarchy. Moral anarchy 
will lead to political anarchy. A society without clearly understood 
standards of conduct cannot remain stable any more than an architect 
can design and build a sturdy skyscraper with measuring instruments 
that change in value each day. We recently lost a NASA space probe 
because someone failed to convert inches to centimeters, a simple but 
deadly mistake in measuring physical standards. If we as a people 
debase our moral standards, the American Republic will meet a similar 
fate.
  Many Americans agree that this country is facing a moral crisis that 
has been especially manifested in the closing decade of the 21st 
century. Our President's personal conduct, the characters of our 
politicians in general, the caliber of the arts, movies, and 
television, and our legal system have reflected this crisis.
  The personal conduct of many of our professional athletes and movie 
stars has been less than praiseworthy. Some politicians, sensing this, 
have pushed hard to write and strictly enforce numerous laws regarding 
personal nonviolent behavior with the hope that the people will become 
more moral.
  This has not happened, but has filled our prisons. This year it will 
cost more than $40 billion to run our prison system. The prison 
population, nearing 2 million, is up 70 percent in the last decade, and 
two-thirds of the inmates did not commit an act of violence. Mandatory 
minimum drug sentencing laws have been instrumental in this trend.
  Laws clearly cannot alter moral behavior, and if it is attempted, it 
creates bigger problems. Only individuals with moral convictions can 
make society moral. But the law does reflect the general consensus of 
the people regarding force and aggression, which is a moral issue. 
Government can be directed to restrain and punish violent aggressive 
citizens, or it can use aggressive force to rule the people, 
redistribute wealth, and make citizens follow certain moral standards, 
and force them to practice certain personal habits.
  Once government is permitted to do the latter, even in a limited 
sense, the guiding principle of an authoritarian government is 
established, and its power and influence over the people will steadily 
grow, at the expense of personal liberty. No matter how well-
intentioned, the authoritarian government always abuses its powers. In 
its effort to achieve an egalitarian society, the principle of 
inequality that freedom recognizes and protects is lost.

[[Page H189]]

  Government, then, instead of being an obstruction to violence, 
becomes the biggest perpetrator. This invites all the special interests 
to manipulate the monopoly and evil use of government power. Twenty 
thousand lobbyists currently swarm Washington seeking special 
advantage. That is where we find ourselves today.
  Although government cannot and should not try to make people better 
in the personal, moral sense, proper law should have a moral, 
nonaggressive basis to it: no lying, cheating, stealing, killing, 
injuring, or threatening. Government then would be limited to 
protecting contracts, people, and property, while guaranteeing all 
personal nonviolent behavior, even the controversial.
  Although there are degrees in various authoritarian societies as to 
how much power a government may wield, once government is given the 
authority to wield power, it does so in an ever-increasing manner. The 
pressure to use government authority to run the economy in our lives 
depends on several factors. These include a basic understanding of 
personal liberty, respect for a constitutional republic, economic 
myths, ignorance, and misplaced good intentions.

  In every society there are always those waiting in the wings for an 
opportunity to show how brilliant they are as they lust for power, 
convinced that they know what is best for everyone. But the defenders 
of liberty know that what is best for everyone is to be left alone, 
with a government limited to stopping aggressive behavior.
  The 20th century has produced socialist dictators the world over, 
from Stalin, Hitler, and Mao to Pol Pot, Castro, and Ho Chi Minh. More 
than 200 million people died as a result of bad ideas of these evil 
men. Each and every one of these dictators despised the principle of 
private property ownership, which then undermined all the other 
liberties cherished by the people.
  It is argued that the United States and now the world have learned a 
third way, something between extreme socialism and mean-spirited 
capitalism. But this is a dream. The so-called friendly third way 
endorses 100 percent the principle that government authority can be 
used to direct our lives and the economy. Once this is accepted, the 
principle that man alone is responsible for his salvation and his life 
on Earth, which serves as the foundation for free market capitalism, is 
rejected.
  The third way of friendly welfarism or soft fascism, where government 
and businesses are seen as partners, undermines and sets the stage for 
authoritarian socialism. Personal liberty cannot be preserved if we 
remain on the course at which we find ourselves at the close of the 
20th century.
  In our early history, it was understood that a free society embraced 
both personal civil liberties and economic liberties. During the 20th 
century this unified concept of freedom has been undermined. Today we 
have one group talking about economic freedom while interfering with 
our personal liberty, and the other group condemning economic liberty 
while preaching the need to protect personal civil liberties. Both 
groups reject liberty 50 percent of the time. That leaves very few who 
defend liberty all the time. Sadly, there are too few in this country 
who today understand and defend liberty in both areas.
  A common debate that we hear occurs over how we can write laws 
protecting normal speech and at the same time limiting commercial 
speech, as if they were two entirely different things. Many Americans 
wonder why Congress pays so little attention to the Constitution and 
are bewildered as to how so much inappropriate legislation gets passed.
  But the Constitution is not entirely ignored. It is used correctly at 
times when it is convenient and satisfies a particular goal, but never 
consistently across-the-board on all legislation.
  Two, the Constitution is all too frequently made to say exactly what 
the authors of special legislation want it to say. That is the modern 
way language can be made relative to our times, but without a precise 
understanding and respect for the supreme law of the land, that is, the 
Constitution, it no longer serves as the guide for the rule of law. In 
its place, we have substituted the rule of man and the special 
interests.
  That is how we have arrived at the close of this century without a 
clear understanding or belief in the cardinal principles of the 
Constitution: the separation of powers and the principle of Federalism. 
Instead, we are rushing toward a powerful executive, centralized 
control, and a Congress greatly diminished in importance.
  Executive orders, agency regulations, Federal court rulings, 
unratified international agreements, direct government, economy, and 
foreign policy. Congress has truly been reduced in status and 
importance over the past 100 years. When the people's voices are heard, 
it is done indirectly through polling, allowing our leaders to decide 
how far they can go without stirring up the people.
  But this is opposite to what the Constitution was supposed to do. It 
was meant to protect the rights of the minority from the dictates of 
the majority. The majority vote of the powerful and influential was 
never meant to rule the people.
  We may not have a king telling us which trees we can cut down today, 
but we do have a government bureaucracy and a pervasive threat of 
litigation by radical environmentalists who keep us from cutting our 
own trees, digging a drainage ditch, or filling a puddle, all at the 
expense of private property ownership.
  The key element in a free society is that individuals should wield 
control of their lives, receiving the benefits and suffering the 
consequences of all their acts. Once the individual becomes a pawn of 
the state, whether a monarch- or a majority-ruled state, a free society 
can no longer endure.
  We are dangerously close to that happening in America, even in the 
midst of plenty and with the appearance of contentment. If individual 
liberty is carelessly snuffed out, the creative energy needed for 
productive pursuits will dissipate. Government produces nothing, and in 
its effort to redistribute wealth, can only destroy it.
  Freedom too often is rejected, especially in the midst of plenty, 
when there is a belief that government largesse will last forever. This 
is true because it is tough to accept personal responsibility, practice 
the work ethic, and follow the rules of peaceful coexistence with our 
fellow man.
  Continuous vigilance against the would-be tyrants who promise 
security at minimum cost must be maintained. The temptation is great to 
accept the notion that everyone can be a beneficiary of the caring 
state and a winner of the lottery or a class action lawsuit. But 
history has proven there is never a shortage of authoritarians, 
benevolent, of course, quite willing to tell others how to live for 
their own good. A little sacrifice of personal liberty is a small price 
to pay for long-time security, it is too often argued.
  I have good friends who are in basic agreement with my analysis of 
the current state of the American republic, but argue it is a waste of 
time and effort to try and change the direction in which we are going. 
No one will listen, they argue. Besides, the development of a strong, 
centralized, authoritarian government is too far along to reverse the 
trends of the 20th century. Why waste time in Congress when so few 
people care about liberty, they ask? The masses, they point out, are 
interested only in being taken care of, and the elite want to keep 
receiving the special benefits allotted to them through special 
interest legislation.
  I understand the odds, and I am not naive enough to believe the 
effort to preserve liberty is a cake walk. I am very much aware of my 
own limitations in achieving this goal. But ideas based on sound and 
moral principles do have consequences, and powerful ideas can make 
major consequences beyond our wildest dreams.
  Our Founders clearly understood this, and they knew they would be 
successful, even against the overwhelming odds they faced. They 
described this steady confidence they shared with each other when hopes 
were dim as ``divine Providence.''
  Good ideas can have good results, and we must remember, bad ideas can 
have bad results. It is crucial to understand that vague and confusing 
idealism produces mediocre results, especially when it is up against a 
determined effort to promote an authoritarian system that is sold to 
the people as conciliatory and nonconfrontational, a compromise, they 
say, between the two extremes.

[[Page H190]]

  But it must be remembered that no matter how it is portrayed, when 
big government systematically and steadily undermines individual rights 
and economic liberty, it is still a powerful but negative idea and it 
will not fade away easily.
  Ideas of liberty are a great threat to those who enjoy planning the 
economy and running other peoples' lives. The good news is that our 
numbers are growing. More Americans than ever before are very much 
aware of what is going on in Washington and how, on a daily basis, 
their liberties are being undermined. There are more intellectual think 
tanks than ever before promoting the market economy, private property 
ownership, and personal liberty.
  The large majority of Americans are sick and tired of being 
overtaxed, and despise the income tax and the inheritance tax. The 
majority of Americans know government programs fail to achieve their 
goals and waste huge sums of money. A smoldering resentment against the 
unfairness of government and efforts to force equality on us can 
inspire violence, but instead, it should be used to encourage an honest 
system of equal justice based on individual, not collective, rights.
  Sentiment is moving in the direction of challenging the status quo of 
the welfare and international warfare state. The Internet has given 
hope to millions who have felt their voices were not being heard, and 
this influence is just beginning. The three major networks and 
conventional government propaganda no longer control the information 
now available to everyone with a computer.
  The only way the supporters of big government can stop the Internet 
will be to tax, regulate, and monitor it. Although it is a major 
undertaking, plans are already being laid to do precisely that. Big 
government proponents are anxious to make the tax on the Internet an 
international tax, as advocated by the United Nations, apply the 
Eschelon principle used to monitor all overseas phone calls to the 
Internet, and prevent the development of private encryption that would 
guarantee privacy on the Internet.
  These battles have just begun. If the civil libertarians and free 
market proponents do not win this fight to keep the Internet free and 
private, the tools for undermining authoritarian government will be 
greatly reduced. Victory for liberty will probably elude us for 
decades.
  The excuse they will give for controlling the Internet will be to 
stop pornography, catch drug dealers, monitor child molesters, and do 
many other so-called good things. We should not be deceived. We have 
faced tough odds, but to avoid battle or believe there is a place to 
escape to, someplace else in the world, would concede victory to those 
who endorse authoritarian government.
  The grand experiment in human liberty must not be abandoned. A 
renewed hope and understanding of liberty is what we need as we move 
into the 21st century. A perfectly free society we know cannot be 
achieved, and the ideal perfect socialism is an oxymoron. Pursuing that 
goal throughout the 20th century has already caused untold suffering.
  The clear goal of a free society must be understood and sought, or 
the vision of the authoritarians will face little resistance and will 
easily fill the void.
  There are precise goals Congress should work for, even under today's 
difficult circumstances. It must preserve in the best manner possible 
voluntary options to failed government programs.

                              {time}  1330

  We must legalize freedom to the maximum extent possible.
  1. Complete police protection is impossible; therefore, we must 
preserve the right to own weapons in self-defense.
  2. In order to maintain economic protection against Government 
debasement of the currency, gold ownership must be preserved, something 
taken away from the American people during the Depression.
  3. Adequate retirement protection by the Government is limited, if 
not ultimately impossible. We must allow every citizen the opportunity 
to control all of his or her retirement funds.
  4. Government education has clearly failed. We must guarantee the 
right of families to home school or send their kids to private schools 
and help them with tax credits.
  5. Government snoops must be stopped. We must work to protect all 
privacy, especially on the Internet, prevent the national ID card, and 
stop the development of all Government data banks.
  6. Federal police functions are unconstitutional and increasingly 
abusive. We should disarm all Federal bureaucrats and return the police 
function to local authorities.
  7. The Army was never meant to be used in local policing activities. 
We must firmly prevent our Presidents from using the military in local 
law enforcement operations, which is now being planned for under the 
guise of fighting terrorism.
  8. Foreign military intervention by our Presidents in recent years to 
police the American empire is a costly failure. Foreign military 
intervention should not be permitted without explicit congressional 
approval.
  9. Competition in all elections should be guaranteed, and the 
monopoly powers gained by the two major parties through unfair 
signature requirements, high fees, and campaign donation controls 
should be removed. Competitive parties should be allowed in all 
government-sponsored debate.
  10. We must do whatever is possible to help instill a spirit of love 
for freedom and recognize that our liberties depend on responsible 
individuals, not the group or the collective or the society as a whole. 
The individual is the building block of a free and prosperous social 
order.
  The Founders knew full well that the concept of liberty was fragile 
and could easily be undermined. They worried about the dangers that lay 
ahead. As we move into the new century, it is an appropriate time to 
rethink the principles upon which a free society rest.
  Jefferson, concerned about the future wrote, ``Yes, we did produce a 
near-perfect republic, but will they keep it? Or will they, in the 
enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance 
without character is the path of destruction.''
  ``They,'' that he refers to are ``we.'' And the future is now. 
Freedom, Jefferson knew, would produce plenty, and with material 
abundance it is easy to forget the responsibility the citizens of a 
free society must assume if freedom and prosperity are to continue.
  The key element for the Republic's survival for Jefferson was the 
character of the people, something no set of laws can instill. The 
question today is not that of abundance, but of character, respect for 
others, and their liberty and their property. It is the character of 
the people that determines the proper role for government in a free 
society.
  Samuel Adams, likewise, warned future generations. He referred to 
``good manners'' as the vital ingredient that a free society needs to 
survive. Adams said, ``Neither the wisest Constitution nor the wisest 
laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners 
are universally corrupt.''

  The message is clear. If we lose our love of liberty and our manners 
become corrupt, character is lost and so is the Republic. But character 
is determined by free will and personal choice by each of us 
individually. Character can be restored or cast aside at a whim. The 
choice is ours alone, and our leaders should show the way.
  Some who are every bit as concerned as I am about our future and the 
pervasive corrupt influence in our Government in every aspect of our 
lives offer other solutions. Some say to solve the problem all we have 
to do is write more detailed laws dealing with campaign finance reform, 
ignoring how this might undermine the principles of liberty. Similarly, 
others argue that what is needed is merely to place tighter 
restrictions on the lobbyists in order to minimize their influence. But 
they fail to realize this undermines our constitutional right to 
petition our Government for redress of grievances.
  And there are others with equally good intentions that insist on 
writing even more laws and regulations punishing nonviolent behavior in 
order to teach good manners and instill character. But they fail to see 
that tolerating nonviolent behavior, even when stupid and dangerous to 
one's own self, is the same as our freedom to express unpopular 
political and offensive ideas

[[Page H191]]

and to promote and practice religion in any way one chooses.
  Resorting to writing more laws with the intent of instilling good 
character and good manners in the people is anathema to liberty. The 
love of liberty can come only from within and is dependent on a stable 
family and a society that seeks the brotherhood of man through 
voluntary and charitable means.
  And there are others who believe that government force is legitimate 
in promoting what they call ``fair redistribution.'' The proponents of 
this course have failed to read history and instead adhere to economic 
myths. They ignore the evidence that these efforts to help their fellow 
man will inevitably fail. Instead, it will do the opposite and lead to 
the impoverishment of many.
  But more importantly, if left unchecked, this approach will destroy 
liberty by undermining the concept of private property ownership and 
free markets, the bedrock of economic prosperity.
  None of these alternatives will work. Character and good manners are 
not a government problem. They reflect individual attitudes that can 
only be changed by individuals themselves. Freedom allows virtue and 
excellence to blossom. When government takes on the role of promoting 
virtue, illegitimate government force is used and tyrants quickly 
appear on the scene to do the job. Virtue and excellence become 
illusive, and we find instead that the government officials become 
corrupt and freedom is lost, the very ingredient required for promoting 
virtue, harmony, and the brotherhood of man.
  Let us hope and pray that our political focus will soon shift toward 
preserving liberty and individual responsibility and away from 
authoritarianism. The future of the American Republic depends on it. 
Let us not forget that the American dream depends on keeping alive the 
spirit of liberty.

                          ____________________