[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 135 (Saturday, November 20, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H10226-H10229]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          WHERE TO FROM HERE?

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, the election of 2004 is now history. It is 
time to ponder our next 4 years. Will our country becoming freer, 
richer, safer, and more peaceful? Or will we continue to suffer from 
lost civil liberties, a stagnant economy, terrorist threats, and an 
expanding war in the Middle East and Central Asia? Surely the 
significance of the election was reflected in its intensity and 
divisiveness.
  More people voted for President Bush than any other Presidential 
candidate in our history. And because of the turnout, more people voted 
against an incumbent president than ever before. However, President 
Bush was reelected by the narrowest margin vote of any incumbent 
president since Woodrow Wilson in 1916. The numbers are important and 
measurable. The long-term results are less predictable.
  The President and many others have said these results give the 
President a mandate. Exactly what that means and what it may lead to is 
of great importance to us all. Remember, the Nation elected a president 
in 1972 with a much bigger mandate who never got a chance to use his 
political capital.
  The bitter campaign and the intensity with which both sides engaged 
each other implies that a great divide existed between two competing 
candidates with sharply different philosophies. There were plenty of 
perceived differences, obviously, or a heated emotional contest would 
not have materialized.
  The biggest difference involved their views on moral and family 
values. It was evident that the views regarding gay marriage and 
abortion held by Senator Kerry did not sit well with the majority of 
American voters, who were then motivated to let their views be known 
through their support of President Bush. This contributed to the 
mandate the President received more than any other issue. But it begs 
the question: If the mandates given was motivated by views held on 
moral issues, does the President get carte blanche on all the other 
programs that are less conservative? It appears that the President and 
his neo-con advisers assume the answer is yes.
  Ironically, the reason the family and moral values issues played such 
a big role in the election is that on other big issues little 
differences existed between the two candidates. Interestingly enough, 
both candidates graduated from Yale and both were members of the 
controversial and highly secretive Skull and Bones Society. This fact 
elicited no interest with the media in the campaign.
  Both candidates supported the war in Iraq and the continuation of it. 
Both supported the PATRIOT Act and its controversial attack on personal 
privacy. Both supported the U.N. and the internationalization under 
UNESCO, IMF, World Bank, and the WTO. Both candidates agreed that a 
President can initiate a war without a declaration by Congress. Both 
supported foreign interventionism in general, foreign aid, and pursuing 
American interests by maintaining a worldwide American empire. Both 
supported our current monetary system, which permits the Federal 
Reserve to accommodate deficit spending by Congress through the 
dangerous process of debt monetization. Both supported expanding 
entitlements, including programs like the National Endowment for the 
Arts, medical benefits, and Federal housing programs. Both candidates 
supported deficit financing. Both candidates supported increased 
spending in almost all categories.
  Though President Bush was more favorably inclined to tax cuts, this, 
in reality, has limited value if spending continues to grow. All 
spending must be paid for by a tax, even if it is the inflation tax, 
whereby printing press money pays the bills and the tax is paid through 
higher prices, especially by the poor and the middle class.
  The immediate market reaction to the reelection of President Bush was 
interesting. The stock market rose significantly, led by certain 
segments thought to benefit from a friendly Republican administration, 
such as pharmaceuticals, HMOs, and the weapons industry. The Wall 
Street Journal summed up the election with a headline the following 
day: Winner is Big Business.

                              {time}  1645

  The stock market rally following the election likely will be short-
lived, however, as the fundamentals underlying the bear market that 
started in 2000 are still in place.
  More important was the reaction of the international exchange markets 
immediately following the election. The dollar took a dive and gold 
rose. This indicated that holders of the trillion dollars slushing 
around the world interpreted the results to mean that, even with 
conservatives in charge, unbridled spending will not decrease and will 
actually grow. They also expect the current account deficit and our 
national debt to increase. This means the economic consequence of 
continuing our risky fiscal and monetary policy is something Congress 
should be a lot more concerned about.
  One Merrill Lynch money manager responded to the election by saying, 
``Bush getting re-elected means a bigger deficit, a weaker dollar, and 
higher gold prices.'' Another broker added, ``Four more years of Bush 
is a gift to the gold markets, more war and more deficits and more 
division.''
  During the Bush administration, gold surged 70 percent, and the 
dollar lost 30 percent of its value. A weakened currency is never 
beneficial, although it is argued it helps our exporters. People who 
work to earn and save dollars should never have the value of those 
dollars undermined and diminished by capricious manipulation of the 
money supply by our government officials.
  The value of the dollar is a much more important issue than most 
realize in Washington. Our current account deficit of 6 percent of GDP 
and our total foreign indebtedness of over $3 trillion pose a threat to 
our standard of living. Unfortunately, when the crisis

[[Page H10227]]

hits, our leaders will have little ability to stem the tide of price 
inflation and higher interest rates that will usher in a dangerous 
period of economic weakness.
  Our dependency on foreign borrowing to finance our spendthrift habits 
is not sustainable. We borrow more than $1.8 billion a day. The 
solution involves changing our policy with regards to foreign 
commitments, foreign wars, empires overseas, and ever-growing 
entitlement system here at home. This change is highly unlikely without 
significant turmoil, and it is certainly not on the administration's 
agenda for the next 4 years. That is why the world is now betting 
against the dollar.
  When the shift in sentiment comes regarding the U.S. dollar, dollars 
will come back home. They will be used to buy American assets, 
especially real property. In the late 1970s it annoyed many Americans 
when Japan, which was then in the driver's seat of the world economy, 
started ``buying up America.'' This time a lot more dollars will be 
repatriated.
  It's important to note that total future obligations of the United 
States government are estimated at well over $70 trillion. These 
obligations obviously cannot be met. This indebtedness equates to an 
average household share of the national debt of $474,000!
  One cannot expect the needed changes to occur soon, considering that 
these options were not even considered or discussed in the campaign. 
But just because they weren't part of the campaign, and there was no 
disagreement between the two candidates on the major issues, doesn't 
distract from their significance nor disqualify these issues from being 
crucial in the years to come. My guess is that in the next 4 years 
little legislation will be offered dealing with family and moral 
issues. Foreign policy and domestic spending, along with the ballooning 
deficit, will be thrust into the forefront and will demand attention. 
The inability of our Congress and leaders to change direction, and 
their determination to pursue policies that require huge expenditures, 
will force a financial crisis upon us as the dollar is further 
challenged as the reserve currency of the world on international 
exchange markets.
  There will be little resistance to spending and deficits because it 
will be claimed they are necessary to ``fight terrorism.'' The irony is 
that PATRIOT Act-type regulations were all proposed before 9-11, and 
now becoming a costly burden to American businesses. I'm getting more 
calls every day from constituents who are being harassed by government 
bureaucrats for ``infractions'' of all kinds totally unrelated to 
national security. This immeasurable cost from the stepped-up activity 
of government bureaucrats will further burden our economy as it slips 
toward recession--and do little to enhance homeland security.
  The only thing that allows our borrowing from foreigners to continue 
is the confidence they place in our economic system, our military 
might, and the dollar itself. This is all about to change. Confidence 
in us, with the continuous expansion of our military presence overseas 
and with a fiscal crisis starring us in the face, is already starting 
to erode. Besides, paper money--and that's all the U.S. dollar is--
always fails when trust is lost. That's a fact of history, not 
someone's opinion. Be assured trust in paper money never lasts forever.
  The problem the country faces is that social issues garnered intense 
interest and motivated many to vote both for and against the 
candidates, yet these issues are only a tiny fraction of the issues 
dealt with at the national level. And since the election has passed, 
the odds of new legislation dealing with social issues are slim. 
Getting a new Supreme Court that will overthrow Roe vs. Wade is a long 
shot despite the promises. Remember, we already have a Supreme Court 
where seven of the nine members were appointed by Republican presidents 
with little to show for it.
  Though the recent election reflected the good instincts of many 
Americans concerned about moral values, abortion, and marriage, let's 
hope and pray this endorsement will not be used to justify more pre-
emptive/unnecessary wars, expand welfare, ignore deficits, endorse the 
current monetary system, expand the domestic police state, and promote 
the American empire worldwide.
  We're more likely to see entitlements and domestic spending continue 
to increase. There are zero plans for reigning in the Department of 
Education, Government medical care, farm subsidies, or Federal housing 
programs. Don't expect the National Endowment for the Arts to be 
challenged. One can be assured its budget will expand as it has for the 
last 4 years, with much of the tax money spent on ``arts'' ironically 
being used to attack family values.
  Deficits never were much of a concern for Democrats, and the current 
Republican leadership has firmly accepted the supply-sider argument 
that ``deficits don't matter,'' as Vice President Cheney declared 
according to Former Secretary of the Treasury Paul O'Neill.
  Expenditures for foreign adventurism, as advocated by the neo-cons 
who direct our foreign policy, have received a shot in the arm with the 
recent election. Plans have been in the workings for expanding our 
presence throughout the Middle East and central Asia. Iran is the 
agreed-on next target for those who orchestrated the Iraq invasion and 
occupation.
  A casual attitude has emerged regarding civil liberties. The post 9-
11 atmosphere has made it politically correct to sacrifice some of our 
personal liberties in the name of security, as evidenced by the PATRIOT 
Act.
  No serious thoughts are expressed in Washington about the 
constitutional principal of local government. The notion of a loose-
knit republican form of government is no longer a consideration. The 
consensus is that the federal government has responsibility for solving 
all of our problems, and even amending the Constitution to gain proper 
authority is no longer thought necessary.
  President Eisenhower, not exactly a champion of a strict 
interpretation of the Constitution, made some interesting comments 
years ago when approached about more welfare benefits for the needy: 
``If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. 
They'll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if 
an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human 
being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government.'' Our 
country sure could use a little bit more of this sentiment, as Congress 
rushes to pass new laws relating to the fear of another terrorist 
attack.
  There are even more reasons to believe the current government status 
quo is unsustainable. As a nation dependent on the willingness of 
foreigners to loan us the money to finance our extravagance, we now are 
consuming 80% of the world's savings. Though the Fed does its part in 
supplying funds by purchasing Treasury debt, foreign central banks and 
investors have loaned us nearly twice what the Fed has, to the tune of 
$1.3 trillion. The daily borrowing needed to support our spending 
habits cannot last. It can be argued that even the financing of the 
Iraq war cannot be accomplished without the willingness of countries 
like China and Japan to loan us the necessary funds. Any shift, even 
minor, in this sentiment will send chills through the world financial 
markets. It will not go unnoticed, and every American consumer will be 
affected.

  The debt, both domestic and foreign, is difficult to comprehend. Our 
national debt is $7.4 trillion, and this limit will be raised in the 
lame duck session. This plus our U.S. foreign debt breaks all records, 
and is a threat to sustained economic growth. The amazing thing is that 
deficits and increases in the debt limit no longer have a stigma 
attached to them. Some demagoguery takes place, but the limit is easily 
raised. With stronger partisan control over Congress, the President 
will have even less difficulty in raising the limit as necessary. It is 
now acceptable policy to spend excessively without worrying about debt 
limits. It may be a sign of the times, but the laws of economics cannot 
be repealed and eventually a price will be paid for this extravagance.
  Few in Washington comprehend the nature of the crisis. But liberal 
Lawrence Summers, Clinton's Secretary of the Treasury and now president 
of Harvard, perceptively warns of the danger that is fast approaching. 
He talks of, ``A kind of global balance of financial terror'' that we 
should be concerned about. He goes on to say: ``there is surely 
something off about the world's greatest power being the world's 
greatest debtor. In order to finance prevailing levels of consumption 
and investment, must the United States be as dependent as it is on the 
discretionary acts of what are inevitably political entities in other 
countries?'' An economist from the American Enterprise Institute also 
expressed concern by saying that foreign central banks ``now have 
considerable ability to disrupt U.S. financial markets by simply 
deciding to refrain from buying further U.S. government paper.''
  We must remember the Soviet system was not destroyed from without by 
military confrontation; it succumbed to the laws of economics that 
dictated communism a failure, and it was unable to finance its empire. 
Deficit-financed welfarism, corporatism, Keynesianism, inflationism, 
and Empire, American style, are no more economically sound than the 
more authoritarian approach of the Soviets. If one is concerned with 
the Red/Blue division in this country and the strong feelings that 
exist already, an economic crisis will make the conflict much more 
intense.


               the crucial moral issue--Respect for Life

  It has been said that a society is defined by how it treats its 
elderly, its infirm, its weak, its small, its defenseless, and its 
unborn.
  The moral issue surrounding abortion and the right to life is likely 
the most important issue of our age. It is imperative that we resolve 
the delimma of why it's proper to financially reward an abortionist who 
acts one minute before birth, yet we arrest and prosecute a new mother 
who throws her child into a garbage bin one minute after birth. This

[[Page H10228]]

moral dilemma, seldom considered, is the source of great friction in 
today's society as we witnessed in the recent election.
  This is a reflection of personal moral values and society's 
acceptance of abortion more than a reflection of a particular law or 
court ruling. In the 1960s, as part of the new age of permissiveness, 
people's attitudes changed regarding abortion. This led to a change in 
the law as reflected in court rulings--especially Roe vs. Wade. The 
people's moral standards changed first, followed by the laws. It was 
not the law or the Supreme Court that brought on the age of abortion.
  I've wondered if our casual acceptance of the deaths inflicted on 
both sides in the Vietnam War, and its association with the drug 
culture that many used to blot out the tragic human losses, contributed 
to the cheapening of pre-born human life and the acceptance of abortion 
as a routine and acceptable practice. Though abortion is now an 
ingrained part of our society, the moral conflict over the issue 
continues to rage with no end in sight.
  The 1973 Roe vs. Wade ruling caused great harm in two distinct ways. 
First, it legalized abortion at any stage, establishing clearly that 
the Supreme Court and the government condoned the cheapening of human 
life. Second, it firmly placed this crucial issue in the hands of the 
federal courts and national government. The federalization of abortion 
was endorsed even by those who opposed abortion. Instead of looking for 
State-by-State solutions and limiting Federal court jurisdiction, those 
anxious to protect life came to rely on Federal laws, eroding the 
constitutional process. The authors of the Constitution intended for 
criminal matters and acts of violence, except for a few rare 
exceptions, to be dealt with at the state level. Now, however, 
conservatives as well as liberals find it acceptable to nationalize 
issues such as abortion, marriage, prayer, and personal sexual 
matters--with more federal legislation offered as the only solution. 
This trend of transferring power from the States to the Federal 
Government compounds our problems--for when we lose, it affects all 50 
States, and overriding Congress or the Supreme Court becomes far more 
difficult than dealing with a single State.
  The issue of moral values and the mandate that has been claimed after 
the election raises serious questions. The architects of the Iraq 
invasion claim a stamp of approval from the same people who voted for 
moral values by voting against abortion and gay marriage. The question 
must be asked whether or not the promotion of pre-emptive war and a 
foreign policy of intervention deserve the same acceptance as the pro-
life position by those who supported moral values. The two seem 
incompatible: being pro-life yet pro-war, with a callous disregard for 
the innocent deaths of thousands. The minister who preaches this mixed 
message of protecting life for some while promoting death for others 
deserves close scrutiny. Too often the message from some of our 
national Christian leaders sounds hateful and decidedly un-Christian in 
tone. They preach the need for vengence and war against a country that 
never attacked nor posed a threat to us. It's just as important to 
resolve this dilemma as the one involving the abortionist who is paid 
to kill the unborn while the mother is put in prison for killing her 
newborn.
  To argue the invasion and occupation of Iraq is pro-life and pro-
moral values is too much of a stretch for thinking Americans, 
expecially conservative Christians.
  One cannot know the true intention of the war promoters, but the 
policy and its disastrous results require out attention and criticism. 
Pre-emptive war, especially when based on erroneous assumptions, cannot 
be ignored--nor can we ignore the cost in life and limb, the financial 
costs, ant the lost liberties.
  Being more attuned to our Constitution and having a different 
understanting of morality would go a long way toward preventing 
unnecessary and dangerous wars. I'd like to make a few points about 
this different understanding:
  First: The United States should never go to war without an express 
Declaration by Congress. If we had followed this crucial but long-
forgotten rule the lives lost in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and 
Iraq might have been prevented. And Instead of making us less secure, 
this process would make us more secure. Absent our foreign occupations 
and support for certain governments in the Middle East and central Asia 
over the past fifty years, the 9-11 attack would have been far less 
likely to happen.
  Second: A defensive war is normally permissable and justified, even 
required. Just as a criminal who invades our house and threatens our 
family deserves to be shot on the spot, so too does a nation have the 
moral duty to defend against invasion or an imminent threat. For 
centuries the Christian definition of a just war has guided many 
nations in making this decision.
  Third: The best test (a test the chicken hawks who promoted the war 
refused to take) for those who are so eager to send our troops to die 
in no-win wars is this: ``Am I willing to go; am I willing to be shot; 
am I willing to die for this cause; am I willing to sacrifice my 
children and grandchildren for this effort?'' The bottom line: Is this 
Iraq war worth the loss of more than 1,200 dead Americans, and 
thousands of severe casualties, with no end in sight, likely lasting 
for years and motivating even more suicidal attacks on innocent 
Americans here at home?
  Fourth: Can we as a moral people continue to ignore the loss of 
innocent life on the other side? Can we as a nation accept the 
callousness of the war proponents regarding the estimated 100,000 Iraqi 
civilian deaths? Can we believe these deaths are a mere consequence of 
our worthy effort to impse our will on an alien culture? Is it really 
our duty to sacrifice so much to pursue a questionable policy of 
dictating to others what we think is best for them? Can these deaths be 
dismissed as nothing more than ``collateral damage,'' and even 
applauded as proof of the professed progress we are making in our 
effort to democratize the Middle East? By ignoring the human costs ot 
the conflict we invite problems, and the consequence of our actions 
will come back to haunt us.
  Fifth: Arguing that the war in Iraq is necessary for our national 
security is pure fiction; that has something to do with the 9-11 attack 
or WMDs is nonsense. Our meddling in the Middle East and the rest of 
the World actually increases the odds of us being attacked again by 
suicidal guerrillas here at home. Tragically, this is something the 
neo-cons will never admit.
  Sixth: What kind of satisfaction can we achieve from the civil was we 
have instigated? A significant portion of the killing in Iraq now 
occurs amongst Iraqis themselves, at our urging. The country is in 
chaos, despite the assurances of our leaders. Even under the thug 
Saddam Hussein, Christians at least were protected by the government--
whereas today their churches are bombed and many are struggling to 
escape the violence by fleeing to Syria. There is no evidence that our 
efforts in the Middle East have promoted life and peace. Tragically, no 
one expects the death and destruction in Iraq to end anytime soon.
  To not be repulsed and outraged over our failed policy undermines our 
commitment to pro-life and moral values. Of course it's hard for many 
Americans to be outraged since so few know or even care about cities 
like Fallujah. The propaganda machine has achieved its goal of 
ignorance and denial for most of our citizens.
  Main Street America will rise up in indignation only after 
conditionsin the Persian Gulf deteriorate further, many more Americans 
lives are lost, and the cost becomes obvious and prohibitive. It's sad, 
but only then will we consider changing our policy. The losses likely 
to occur between now and then will be tragic indeed.
  Though the election did not reflect a desire for us to withdraw from 
Iraq, it will be a serious mistake for those who want to expand the war 
into Syria or Iran to claim the election results were an endorsement of 
the policy of preemptive war. Yet that's exactly what may happen if no 
one speaks out against our aggressive policy of foreign intervention 
and occupation.
  What can't be ignored is that our activities in the Middle East have 
stirred up Russian and Chinese animosity. Their concern for their own 
security may force us to confront much greater resistance that we have 
met so far in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  A Chinese news agency recently reported that the Chinese government 
made a $70 billion investment commitment in Iran for the development of 
natural gas resources. This kind of investment by a neighbor of Iran 
will be of great significance if the neo-cons have their way and we 
drag Iran into the Afghanistan and Iraqi quagmire. The close alliance 
between Iranian Shias and their allies in Iraq makes a confrontation 
with Iran likely, as the neocons stoke the fire of war in the region.
  By failing to understand the history of the region and the nature of 
tribal culture, we have made victory virtually impossible. Tribal 
customs and religious beliefs that have existed for thousands of years 
instruct that family honor requires reciprocal killing for every member 
of the family killed by infidels/Americans. For each of the possible 
100,000 Iraqis killed, there's a family that feels a moral obligation 
to get revenge by killing an American, any American if possible.
  Ronald Reagan learned this lesson the hard way in coming to 
understand attitudes in Lebanon. Reagon spoke boldly that he would not 
turn tail and run no matter how difficult the task when he sent Marines 
to support the Israeli/Christian side of the Lebanese civil war in 
1983. But he changed his tune after 241 Marines were killed. He wrote 
about the incident in his autobiography: ``Perhaps we didn't appreciate 
fully enough the depth of the hatred and complexity of the problems 
that made the Middle East such a jungle. Perhaps the idea of a suicide 
car bomber committing mass

[[Page H10229]]

murder to gain instant entry to Paradise was so foreign to our own 
values and consciousness that it did not create in us the concern for 
the Marines' safety that it should have . . . In the weeks immediately 
after the bombing, I believed the last thing we should do was turn tail 
and leave . . . Yet, the irrationality of Middle Eastern politics 
forced us to re-think our policy there.'' Shortly thereafter Reagan 
withdrew the Marines from Lebanon, and no more Americans were killed in 
that fruitless venture.
  Too bad our current foreign policy experts don't understand the 
``irrationality of Middle Eastern politics.'' By leaving Lebanon, 
Reagan saved lives and proved our intervention in the Lebanese war was 
of no benefit to Lebanon or the United States.
  Reagan's willingness to admit error and withdraw from Lebanon was 
heroic, and proved to be life-saving. True to form, many neo-cons with 
their love of war exude contempt for Reagan's decision. To them, force 
and violence are heroic, not reassessing a bad situation and changing 
policy accordingly.
  One of the great obstacles to our efforts in Iraq is pretending we're 
fighting a country. We wrongly expect occupation and 
``democratization'' to solve our problems. The notion that the Iraq war 
is part of our retaliation for the 9-11 attacks is a serious error that 
must be corrected if we are to achieve peace and stability in the 
Middle East and security here at home.
  We must come to realize that we're fighting an ideology that is 
totally alien to us. Within that ideology the radical Islamists and the 
traditional tribal customs are in conflict with more moderate and 
secular Muslims. We're seen as intruding in this family feud, and thus 
serve the interests of the radicals as we provide evidence that they 
are under attack by Western crusaders. With each act of violence the 
hatred between the two is ratcheted upward, as fighting spreads 
throughout the entire Muslim world.
  Ironically, this fight over religious values and interpretations in 
the Middle East encourages a similar conflict here at home among 
Christians. The conservative Christian community too often sounds 
militantly pro-war. Too many have totally forgotten the admonition 
``blessed are the peacemakers.'' This contrasts with the views of some 
Christians, who find pre-emptive war decidedly un-Christian. Though 
civil, the two Christian views are being more hotly contested every 
day.
  A policy that uses the religious civil war within the Muslim faith as 
an excuse for remaking the entire Middle East by force makes little 
sense and will not end well. The more we fight and the more we kill the 
greater the animosity of those who want us out of their family feud--
and out of their countries.
  It's clear the Christian conservative turnout was critical to the 
President's re-election. Though many may well have voted for the 
family/moral values touted by the President and mishandled by Senator 
Kerry, most agree with the Christian Right that our policy of pre-
emptive war in the Middle East is not in conflict with pro-family and 
pro-life values. This seems strange indeed, since a strong case can be 
made that the conservation Christian Right, those most interested in 
the pro-life issue, ought to be the strongest defenders of peace and 
reject unnecessary pre-emptive war.
  Here are a few reasons why conservatives ought to reject the current 
policy of pre-emptive war:
  1. The Constitution is on the side of peace. Under the Constitution--
the law of the land--only Congress can declare war. The President is 
prohibited from taking us to war on his own.
  2. The Founders and all the early presidents argued the case for non-
intervention overseas, with the precise goals of avoiding entangling 
alliances and not involving our people in foreign wars unrelated to our 
security.
  3. The American tradition and sense of morality for almost all our 
history rejected the notion that we would ever deliberately start a 
war, even with noble intentions.
  4. The Christian concept of just war rejects all the excuses given 
for marching off to Iraq with the intention of changing the whole 
region into a western-style democracy by force, with little regard for 
the cost in life and limb and the economic consequences here at home.
  5. America faces a $7.5 trillion national debt that is increasing by 
$600 billion per year. Fiscal conservatives cannot dismiss this, even 
as they clamor for wars we cannot afford.
  6. History shows the size of the state always grows when we're at 
war. Under conditions of war, civil liberties are always sacrificed--
thus begging the point. We go hither and yon to spread our message of 
freedom, while sacrificing our freedoms here at home and eating away at 
the wealth of the country.
  7. Those who understand the most important function of our national 
government is to provide strong national defense should realize that 
having troops in over 100 countries hardly helps us protect America, 
secure our borders, or avoid alienating our allies and potential 
enemies.
  8. The best way to prevent terrorism is to change our policies, stop 
playing crusader, and stop picking sides in religious civil wars or any 
other civil wars. ``Blowback'' from our policies is not imaginary.
  9. Promoting true free trade and promoting prosperity through low 
taxes and less regulation sends a strong message to the world and those 
interested in peace and commerce.
  10. A policy of free exchange with other nations avoids the trappings 
of the new isolationists, who influence our foreign policy with the 
generous use of sanctions, trade barriers, and competitive currency 
devaluations. They are only too willing to defer to the World Trade 
Organization and allow it to dictate our trade and tax policies.
  Conservatives who profess to uphold the principle of right-to-life 
should have little trouble supporting the position of the Founders and 
the Constitution: a foreign policy of ``peace and commerce with those 
who choose and no entangling alliances.''

                          ____________________