[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 145 (Wednesday, November 14, 2012)]
[House]
[Pages H6362-H6367]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          FAREWELL TO CONGRESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dold). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, this may be the last time I speak on the House 
floor. At the end of the year, I'll leave Congress after 23 years in 
office over a 36-year period. My goals in 1976 were the same as they 
are today: promote peace and prosperity by a strict adherence to the 
principles of individual liberty.
  It was my opinion that the course that the U.S. embarked on in the 
latter part of the 20th century would bring us a major financial crisis 
and engulf us in a foreign policy that would overextend us and 
undermine our national security.
  To achieve these goals I sought, the government would have had to 
shrink in size and scope, reduce spending, change the monetary system, 
and reject the unsustainable cost of policing the world and expanding 
the American Empire.
  The problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet 
from my viewpoint, just following the constraints placed on the Federal 
Government by the Constitution would have been a good place to start.

                              {time}  1410

  Just how much did I accomplish? In many ways, according to 
conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress from 1976 to 2012 
accomplished very little--no named legislation, no named Federal 
buildings or highways, thank goodness.
  In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes 
remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible 
regulations continues. Wars are constant and pursued without 
congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is 
rampant, and dependency on the Federal Government is now worse than any 
time in our history. All this, with minimal concerns for the deficits 
and unfunded liabilities that common sense tells us cannot go on much 
longer.
  A grand, but never mentioned, bipartisan agreement allows for the 
well-kept secret that keeps the spending going. One side doesn't give 
up one penny on military spending, the other side doesn't give up one 
penny on welfare spending, while both sides support the bailouts and 
the subsidies for the banking and the corporate elite. And the spending 
continues as the economy weakens and the downward spiral continues.
  As the government continues fiddling around, our liberties and our 
wealth burn in the flames of a foreign policy that makes us less safe. 
The major stumbling block to real change in Washington is the total 
resistance to admitting that the country is broke. This has made 
compromising just to agree to increased spending inevitable since 
neither side has any intention on cutting spending.
  The country and the Congress will remain divisive since there's no 
loot left to divvy up. Without this recognition, the spenders in 
Washington will continue to march toward a fiscal cliff much bigger 
than the one anticipated this coming January.
  I've thought a lot about why those of us who believe in liberty as a 
solution have done so poorly in convincing others of its benefits. If 
liberty is what we claim it is--the principle that protects all 
personal, social, and economic decisions necessary for maximum 
prosperity and the best chance for peace--it should be an easy sell. 
Yet history has shown that the masses have been quite receptive to the 
promises of authoritarians which are rarely, if ever, fulfilled.
  Should we have authoritarianism or liberty? If authoritarianism leads 
to poverty and war and less freedom for all individuals and is 
controlled by rich special interests, the people should be begging for 
liberty. There certainly was a strong enough sentiment for more freedom 
at the time of our founding that motivated those who were willing to 
fight in the revolution against the powerful British Government.
  During my time in Congress, the appetite for liberty has been quite 
weak, the understanding of its significance negligible. Yet the good 
news is that, compared to 1976 when I first came to Congress, the 
desire for more freedom and less government in 2012 is much greater and 
growing, especially in grassroots America. Tens of thousands of 
teenagers and college-age students are, with great enthusiasm, 
welcoming the message of liberty.
  I have a few thoughts as to why the people of a country like ours, 
once the freest and most prosperous, allowed the conditions to 
deteriorate to the degree that they have. Freedom, private property, 
and enforceable voluntary contracts generate wealth. In our early 
history we were very much aware of this. But in the early part of the 
20th century, our politicians promoted the notion that the tax and 
monetary system had to change if we were to involve ourselves in 
excessive domestic and military spending. That is why Congress gave us 
the Federal Reserve and the income tax.

  The majority of Americans and many government officials agree that 
sacrificing some liberty was necessary to carry out what some claim to 
be ``progressive'' ideas. Pure democracy became acceptable. They failed 
to recognize that what they were doing was exactly opposite of what the 
colonists were seeking when they broke away from the British.
  Some complain that my arguments make no sense, since great wealth and 
the standard of living improved for many Americans over the last 
hundred years, even with these new policies.
  But the damage to the market economy and the currency has been 
insidious and steady. It took a long time to consume our wealth, 
destroy the currency, undermine productivity, and get our financial 
obligations to a point of no return. Confidence sometimes lasts longer 
than deserved. Most of our wealth today depends on debt.
  The wealth that we enjoyed and seemed to be endless allowed concern 
for the principle of a free society to be neglected. As long as most 
people believed the material abundance would

[[Page H6363]]

last forever, worrying about protecting a competitive, productive 
economy and individual liberty seemed unnecessary.
  The Age of Redistribution.
  This neglect ushered in an age of redistribution of wealth by 
government kowtowing to any and all special interests, except for those 
who just wanted to be left alone. That is why today money in politics 
far surpasses money currently going into research and development and 
productive entrepreneurial efforts.
  The material benefits became more important than the understanding 
and promoting the principles of liberty and a free market. It is good 
that material abundance is a result of liberty, but if materialism is 
all that we care about, problems are guaranteed.
  The crisis arrived because the illusion that wealth and prosperity 
would last forever has ended. Since it was based on debt and a pretense 
that debt can be papered over by an out-of-control fiat monetary 
system, it was doomed to fail. We have ended up with a system that 
doesn't produce enough even to finance the debt and no fundamental 
understanding of why a free society is crucial to reversing these 
trends. If this is not recognized, the recovery will linger for a long 
time. Bigger government, more spending, more debt, more poverty for the 
middle class, and a more intense scramble by the elite special 
interests will continue.
  We need an intellectual awakening. Without an intellectual awakening, 
the turning point will be driven by economic law. A dollar crisis will 
bring the current out-of-control system to its knees. If it's not 
accepted that Big Government, fiat money, ignoring liberty, central 
economic planning, welfarism, and warfareism caused our crisis, we can 
expect a continuous and dangerous march toward corporatism and even 
fascism with even more loss of our liberties. Prosperity for a large 
middle class, though, will become an abstract dream.
  This continuous move is no different than what we have seen in how 
our financial crisis of 2008 was handled. Congress first directed, with 
bipartisan support, bailouts for the wealthy. Then it was the Federal 
Reserve with its endless quantitative easing. If at first it doesn't 
succeed, try again; QE-1, QE-2, QE-3, and with no results we try QE 
indefinitely--that is, until it, too, fails.
  There is a cost to all of this, and let me assure you that delaying 
the payment is no longer an option. The rules of the market will 
extract its pound of flesh, and it won't be pretty.
  The current crisis elicits a lot of pessimism, and the pessimism adds 
to less confidence in the future. The two feed on themselves, making 
our situation worse. If the underlying cause of the crisis is not 
understood, we cannot solve our problems.
  The issue of warfare and welfare, deficits, inflationism and 
corporatism, bailouts and authoritarianism cannot be ignored. By only 
expanding these policies, we cannot expect good results.
  Everyone claims support for freedom, but too often it's for one's own 
freedoms and not for others. Too many believe that there must be limits 
on freedom. They argue that freedom must be directed and managed to 
achieve fairness and equality, thus making it acceptable to curtail, 
through force, certain liberties. Some decide what and whose freedoms 
are to be limited. These are the politicians whose goal in life is 
power. Their success depends on gaining support from special interests. 
We don't need more ``isms.''
  The great news is the answer is not to be found in more isms. The 
answers are to be found in more liberty, which costs so much less. 
Under these circumstances, spending goes down, wealth production goes 
up, and the quality of life improves.

                              {time}  1420

  Just this recognition, especially if we move in this direction, 
increases optimism, which, in itself, is beneficial. The follow-through 
with sound policies is required, which must be understood and supported 
by the people. But there is good evidence that the generation coming of 
age at the present time is supportive of moving in the direction of 
more liberty and self-reliance. The more this change and direction and 
the solutions become known, the quicker will be our return to optimism.
  Our job, for those of us who believe that a different system than the 
one we have had for the last hundred years has driven us to this 
unsustainable crisis, is to be more convincing that there is a 
wonderful, uncomplicated and moral system that provides the answers. We 
had a taste of it in our early history.
  We need not give up on the notion of advancing this cause. It worked, 
but we allowed our leaders to concentrate on the material abundance 
that freedom generates, while ignoring freedom itself. Now we have 
neither; but the door is open, out of necessity, for an answer.
  The answer available is based on the Constitution, individual 
liberty, and prohibiting the use of government force to provide 
privileges and benefits to all special interests.
  After over 100 years, we face a society quite different from the one 
that was intended by the Founders. In many ways, their efforts to 
protect future generations with the Constitution from this danger have 
failed. Skeptics at the time the Constitution was written in 1787 
warned us of today's possible outcome. The insidious nature of the 
erosion of our liberties and the reassurance our great abundance gave 
us allowed the process to evolve into the dangerous period in which we 
now live.
  Today we face a dependency on government largesse for almost every 
need. Our liberties are restricted and government operates outside the 
rule of law, protecting and rewarding those who buy or coerce 
government into satisfying their demands.
  Here are a few examples: undeclared wars are commonplace. Welfare for 
the rich and poor is considered an entitlement. The economy is over-
regulated, overtaxed, and grossly distorted by a deeply flawed monetary 
system. Debt is growing exponentially.
  The PATRIOT Act and FISA legislation, passed without much debate, 
have resulted in a steady erosion of our Fourth Amendment rights. 
Tragically our government engages in preemptive war, otherwise known as 
aggression, with no complaints from the American people. The drone 
warfare we are pursuing worldwide is destined to end badly for us, as 
the hatred builds for innocent lives lost and the international laws 
flaunted.
  Once we are financially weakened and militarily challenged, there 
will be a lot of resentment thrown our way.
  It's now the law of the land that the military can arrest American 
citizens, hold them indefinitely without charges or a trial. Rampant 
hostility toward free trade is supported by a large number in 
Washington. Supporters of sanctions, currency manipulation, and WTO 
trade retaliation call the true free-traders isolationists. Sanctions 
are used to punish countries that don't follow our orders.
  Bailouts and guarantees of all kinds of misbehavior are routine. 
Central economic planning through monetary policy regulations and 
legislative mandates has been acceptable policy.
  I have a few questions. Excessive government has created such a mess, 
it prompts many questions.
  Why are sick people who use medical marijuana put in prison?
  Why does the Federal Government restrict the drinking of raw milk?
  Why can't American manufacturers manufacture rope and other products 
from hemp?
  Why are Americans not allowed to use gold and silver as legal tender, 
as mandated by the Constitution?
  Why is Germany concerned enough to consider repatriating their gold 
held by the Fed for her in New York? Is it that the trust in the U.S. 
and dollar supremacy are beginning to wane?
  Why do our political leaders believe it's unnecessary to thoroughly 
audit our own gold?
  Why can't Americans decide which type of light bulbs they can buy?
  Why is the TSA permitted to abuse the rights of any American 
traveling by air?
  Why should there be mandatory sentences, even up to life for crimes 
without victims, as our drug laws require?
  Why have we allowed the Federal Government to regulate commodes in 
our homes?
  Why is it political suicide for anyone to criticize APAC?
  Why haven't we given up on the drug war, since it's an obvious 
failure and violates the people's rights? Has nobody noticed that the 
authorities can't even keep drugs out of the prisons? How can making 
our entire society a prison solve the problem?

[[Page H6364]]

  Why do we sacrifice so much getting unnecessarily involved in border 
disputes and civil strife around the world, and ignore the root cause 
of the most dangerous deadly border in the world, the one between 
Mexico and the United States?
  Why does Congress willingly give up its prerogatives to the executive 
branch?
  Why has changing the party in power never changed policy? Could it be 
that the views of both parties are essentially the same?
  Why did the big banks, the large corporations, and foreign central 
banks get bailed out in 2008, and the middle class lost their jobs and 
their homes?
  Why do so many in the government and the Federal officials believe 
that creating money out of thin air creates wealth?
  Why do so many accept the deeply flawed principle that government 
bureaucrats and politicians can protect us from ourselves without 
totally destroying the principle of liberty?
  Why can't people understand that war always destroys wealth and 
liberty?
  Why is there so little concern for the executive order that gives the 
President authority to establish a kill list, including American 
citizens, of those targeted for assassination?
  Why is patriotism thought to be blind loyalty to the government and 
the politicians who run it, rather than loyalty to the principles of 
liberty and support for the people? Real patriotism is a willingness to 
challenge the government when it's wrong.
  Why is it claimed that if people won't or can't take care of their 
own needs, that people and government are able to do it for them?
  Why did we ever give the government a safe haven for initiating 
violence against the people?
  Why do so many Members defend free markets, but not civil liberties?
  Why do so many Members defend civil liberties, but not free markets? 
Aren't they the same?
  Why don't more defend both economic liberty and personal liberty?
  Why are there not more individuals who seek to intellectually 
influence others to bring about positive changes, than those who seek 
power to force others to obey their commands?
  Why does the use of religion to support a social gospel and 
preemptive wars, both of which require authoritarians to use violence 
or the threat of violence, go unchallenged? Aggression and forced 
redistribution of wealth has nothing to do with the teachings of the 
world's great religions.
  Why do we allow the government and the Federal Reserve to disseminate 
false information dealing with both economic and foreign policy?
  Why is democracy held in such high esteem, when it's the enemy of the 
minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority?
  Why should anyone be surprised that Congress has no credibility since 
there is such a disconnect between what politicians say and what they 
do?
  Is there any explanation for all the deception, the unhappiness, the 
fear of the future, the loss of confidence in our leaders, the distrust 
and the anger and frustration? Yes, there is. And there's a way to 
reverse these attitudes.
  The negative perceptions are logical and a consequence of bad 
policies bringing about our problems. Identification of the problems 
and recognizing the cause allow the proper changes to come easily. We 
should have more trust in ourselves, less in the government.
  Too many people have, for far too long, placed too much confidence 
and trust in government and not enough in themselves. Fortunately, many 
are now becoming aware of the seriousness of the gross mistakes of the 
past several decades.

                              {time}  1430

  The blame is shared by both political parties. Many Americans now are 
demanding to hear the plain truth of things and want the demagoguing to 
stop. Without this first step, solutions are impossible. Seeking the 
truth and finding the answers in liberty and self-reliance promote the 
optimism necessary for restoring prosperity. The task is not that 
difficult if politics doesn't get in the way. We have allowed ourselves 
to get into such a mess for various reasons.
  Politicians deceive themselves as to how wealth is produced. 
Excessive confidence is placed in the judgment of politicians and 
bureaucrats. This replaces the confidence in a free society. Too many 
in high places of authority became convinced that only they, armed with 
arbitrary government power, could bring about fairness, while 
facilitating wealth production. This always proves to be a utopian 
dream and destroys wealth and liberty. It impoverishes the people, and 
it rewards the special interests, who end up controlling both parties. 
It's no surprise that much of what goes on in Washington is driven by 
aggressive partisanship and power-seeking, with philosophical 
differences being minor.
  Economic ignorance is commonplace. Keynesianism continues to thrive; 
although, today, it is facing healthy and enthusiastic rebuttals. 
Believers in military Keynesianism and domestic Keynesianism continue 
to desperately promote their failed policies as the economy languishes 
in a deep slumber.
  Supporters of all government edicts use humanitarian arguments to 
justify them. Humanitarian arguments are always used to justify 
government mandates related to the economy, monetary policy, foreign 
policy, and personal liberty. This is on purpose to make it more 
difficult to challenge, but initiating violence for humanitarian 
reasons is still violence. Good intentions are no excuse and are just 
as harmful as when the people use force with bad intentions. The 
results are always negative. The immoral use of force is the source of 
man's political problems. Sadly, many religious groups, secular 
organizations, and psychopathic authoritarians endorse government-
initiated force to change the world. Even when the desired goals are 
well intentioned--or especially when they are well intentioned--the 
results are dismal. The good results sought never materialize. The new 
problems created require even more government force as a solution. The 
net result is institutionalizing government-initiated violence and 
morally justifying it on humanitarian grounds.
  This is the same fundamental reason our government uses force for 
invading other countries at will, central economic planning at home and 
the regulation of personal liberty and habits of our citizens. It is 
rather strange that, unless one has a criminal mind and no respect for 
other people and their property, no one claims it's permissible to go 
into one's neighbor's house and tell him how to behave, what he can 
eat, smoke, and drink, or how to spend his money. Yet rarely is it 
asked, Why is it morally acceptable that a stranger with a badge and a 
gun can do the same thing in the name of law and order? Any resistance 
is met with brute force, fines, taxes, arrests, and even imprisonment. 
This is done more frequently every day without a search warrant.
  No government monopoly over initiating violence is what we need. 
Restraining aggressive behavior is one thing, but legalizing a 
government monopoly for initiating aggression can only lead to 
exhausting liberty associated with chaos, anger, and the breakdown of 
civil society. Permitting such authority and expecting saintly behavior 
from the bureaucrats and the politicians is a pipe dream. We now have a 
standing army of armed bureaucrats in the TSA, CIA, FBI, Fish and 
Wildlife, FEMA, IRS, Corps of Engineers, et cetera--numbering over 
100,000. Citizens are guilty until proven innocent in the 
unconstitutional administrative courts.

  Government in a free society should have no authority to meddle in 
the social activities or in the economic transactions of individuals; 
nor should government meddle in the affairs of other nations. All 
things peaceful, even when controversial, should be permitted.
  We must reject the notion of prior restraint in economic activity 
just as we do in the area of free speech and religious liberty. But 
even in these areas, government is starting to use a backdoor approach 
of political correctness to regulate speech--a very dangerous trend. 
Since 9/11, monitoring speech on the Internet is now a problem since 
warrants are no longer required.
  The proliferation of Federal crimes: the Constitution established 
four Federal crimes. Today, the experts can't even agree on how many 
Federal crimes are now on the books. They number into the thousands. No 
one person can comprehend the enormity of

[[Page H6365]]

the legal system, especially of the Tax Code. Due to the ill-advised 
drug war and the endless Federal expansion of the Criminal Code, we 
have over 6 million people under correctional suspension--more than the 
Soviets ever had and more than any other nation today, including China. 
I don't understand the complacency of the Congress and the willingness 
to continue their obsession with passing more Federal laws. Mandatory 
sentencing laws associated with drug laws have compounded our prison 
problems.
  The Federal Register is now 75,000 pages long. The Tax Code has 
72,000 pages, and it expands every year. When will the people start 
shouting enough is enough and demand Congress to cease and desist?
  What we should be doing is achieving liberty. Liberty can only be 
achieved when government is denied the aggressive use of force. If one 
seeks liberty, a precise type of government is needed. To achieve it, 
more than lip service is required. There are two choices available:
  One, a government designed to protect liberty--a natural right--as 
its sole objective. The people are expected to care for themselves and 
reject the use of any force for interfering with another person's 
liberty. Government is given a strictly limited authority to enforce 
contracts, property ownership, settle disputes, and to defend against 
foreign aggression;
  Two, a government that pretends to protect liberty but is granted 
power to arbitrarily use force over the people and foreign nations. 
Though the grant of power many times is meant to be small and limited, 
it inevitably metastasizes into an omnipotent political cancer.
  This is the problem the world has suffered throughout the ages. 
Though meant to be limited, it nevertheless is a 100 percent sacrifice 
of the principle that would-be tyrants find irresistible. It is used 
vigorously--though incrementally and insidiously. Granting power to 
government officials always proves the adage that power corrupts. Once 
government gets a limited concession for the use of force to mold 
people's habits and plan the economy, it causes a steady erosion and a 
steady move toward tyrannical government. Only a revolutionary spirit 
can reverse the process and deny the government this arbitrary use of 
aggression. There is no in-between.
  Sacrificing a little liberty for imaginary safety always ends badly. 
Today's mess is the result of American's accepting option number two, 
even though the Founders attempted to give us option number one. The 
results are not good. As our liberties have been eroded, our wealth has 
been consumed. The wealth we see today is based on debt and a foolish 
willingness on the part of foreigners to take our dollars for goods and 
services. Then they loan them back to us to perpetuate our debt system. 
It's amazing that it has worked for this long, but the impasse in 
Washington in solving our problems indicates that many are starting to 
understand the seriousness of this worldwide debt crisis and the 
dangers we face.
  The longer this process continues, the harsher the outcome will be. 
The financial crisis is actually a moral crisis. Many are acknowledging 
that a financial crisis looms; but few understand it is, in reality, a 
moral crisis. It's the moral crisis that has allowed our liberties to 
be undermined and that has permitted the exponential growth of illegal 
government power. Without a clear understanding of the nature of the 
crisis, it will be difficult to prevent a steady march toward tyranny 
and the poverty that will accompany it. Ultimately, the people have to 
decide which form of government they want--option number one or option 
number two.

                              {time}  1440

  There is no other choice. Claiming there is a choice of a little 
tyranny is like describing pregnancy as a touch of pregnancy.
  It is a myth to believe that a mixture of free markets and government 
central economic planning is a worthy compromise. What we see today is 
a result of that type of thinking, and the results speak for 
themselves.
  A culture of violence.
  Americans now suffer from a culture of violence. It is easy to reject 
the initiation of violence against one's neighbor, but it's ironic that 
the people arbitrarily and freely anoint government officials with 
monopoly power to initiate violence against the American people, 
practically at will. Because it's the government that initiates force, 
most people accept it as being legitimate. Those who exert the force 
have no sense of guilt.
  It is believed by too many that governments are morally justified in 
initiating violence, supposedly to do good. They incorrectly believe 
that this authority has come from the consent of the people. The 
minority, victims of government violence, never consented to suffer the 
abuse of government mandates, even when dictated by the majority. 
Victims of TSA excesses never consented to this abuse. This attitude 
has given us a policy of initiating war to do good, as well.
  It is claimed that war to prevent war for noble purposes is 
justified. This is similar to what we were once told that ``destroying 
a village to save a village'' was justified. It was said by a U.S. 
Secretary of State that the loss of 500,000 Iraqis, mostly children, in 
the 1990s as a result of American bombs and sanctions was worth it to 
achieve the good we brought to the people of Iraq. Look at the mess 
Iraq is in today.
  Government use of force to mold social and economic behavior at home 
and abroad has justified individuals using force on their own terms. 
The fact that violence by government is seen as morally justified is 
the reason why violence will increase when the big financial crisis 
hits and becomes a political crisis, as well.
  First, we recognize that individuals shouldn't initiate violence, 
then we give the authority to the government. Eventually, the immoral 
use of government violence, when things go badly, will be used to 
justify an individual's right to do the same thing. Neither the 
government nor individuals have the moral right to initiate violence 
against another, yet we are moving toward the day when both will claim 
this authority. If this cycle is not reversed, society will break down.
  When needs are oppressing and conditions deteriorate and rights 
become relative to the demands and the whims of the majority, it is 
then not a great leap for individuals to take it upon themselves to use 
violence to get what they claim is theirs. As the economy deteriorates 
and the discrepancy of wealth increases, as they already are occurring, 
violence increases as those in need take it in their own hands to get 
what they believe is theirs. They will not wait for a government rescue 
program.
  When government officials wield power over others to bail out the 
special interests, even with disastrous results to the average 
citizens, they feel no guilt for the harm they do. Those who take us 
into undeclared wars with many casualties resulting never lose sleep 
over the deaths and the destruction their bad decisions cause. They are 
convinced that what we do is morally justified, and the fact that many 
suffered just can't be helped. When the street criminals do the same 
thing, they, too, have no remorse, believing that they are only taking 
what is rightfully theirs.
  All moral standards become relative, whether it is bailouts, 
privileges, government subsidies, or benefits for some from inflating a 
currency. It's all part of a process justified by a philosophy of 
forced redistribution of wealth.
  Violence, or a threat of such, is the instrument required and, 
unfortunately, is of little concern of most Members of Congress. Some 
argue it is only a matter of fairness that those in need are cared for. 
There are two problems with this:
  First, the principle is used to provide a greater amount of benefits 
to the rich than to the poor;
  Second, no one seems to be concerned about whether or not it's fair 
to those who end up paying for all the benefits. The costs are usually 
placed on the backs of the middle class and are hidden from the public 
eye.
  Too many people believe government handouts are free, like printing 
money out of thin air, and there's no cost. That deception is coming to 
an end. The bills are coming due, and that's what the economic slowdown 
is all about.
  Sadly, we have become accustomed to living with the illegitimate use 
of

[[Page H6366]]

force by government. It is the tool for telling the people how to live, 
what to eat and drink, what to read, and how to spend their money. 
To develop a truly free society, the issue of initiating force must be 
understood and rejected. Granting to government even a small amount of 
force is a dangerous concession.

  Limiting government excesses vs. a virtuous moral people.
  Our Constitution, which was intended to limit government power and 
abuse, has failed. The Founders warned that a free society depends on a 
virtuous and moral people. The current crisis reflects that their 
concerns were justified.
  Many politicians and pundits are aware of the problems we face but 
spend all their time in trying to reform government. The sad part is 
that the suggested reforms almost always lead to less freedom, and the 
importance of a virtuous and moral people is either ignored or not 
understood. The new reforms serve only to further undermine liberty. 
The compounding effect has given us this steady erosion of liberty and 
the massive expansion of debt.
  The real question is: If it is liberty we seek, should most of the 
emphasis be placed on government reform or trying to understand what a 
virtuous and moral people means and how to promote it?
  The Constitution has not prevented the people from demanding handouts 
for both rich and poor in their efforts to reform the government, while 
ignoring the principles of a free society. All branches of our 
government today are controlled by individuals who use their power to 
undermine liberty and enhance the welfare/warfare state, and frequently 
their own wealth and power.
  If the people are unhappy with the government performance, it must be 
recognized that government is merely a reflection of an immoral society 
that rejected a moral government of constitutional limits on power and 
love of freedom.
  If this is the problem, all the tinkering with thousands of pages of 
new laws and regulations will do nothing to solve the problem. It is 
self-evident that our freedoms have been severely limited and the 
apparent prosperity we still have is nothing more than leftover wealth 
from a previous time.
  This fictitious wealth based on debt and benefits from a false trust 
in our currency and credit will play havoc with our society when the 
bills come due. This means that the full consequence of our lost 
liberties is yet to be felt. But that illusion is now ending. Reversing 
a downward spiral depends on accepting a new approach.
  Expect the rapidly expanding home-schooling movement to play a 
significant role in the revolutionary reforms needed to rebuild a free 
society with constitutional protections. We cannot expect a Federal 
Government-controlled school system to provide the intellectual 
ammunition to combat the dangerous growth of government that threatens 
our liberties.
  The Internet will provide the alternative to the government media 
complex that controls the news and most political propaganda. This is 
why it's essential that the Internet remains free of government 
regulation.
  Many of our religious institutions and secular organizations support 
greater dependency on the state by supporting war, welfare, and 
corporatism and ignore the need for a virtuous people.
  I never believed that the world or our country could be made more 
free by politicians if the people had no desire for freedom. Under the 
current circumstances, the most we can hope to achieve in the political 
process is to use it as a podium to reach the people to alert them of 
the nature of the crisis and the importance of their need to assume 
responsibility for themselves, if it is liberty that they truly seek. 
Without this, a constitutionally protected free society is impossible.
  If this is true, our individual goal in life ought to be for us to 
seek virtue and excellence and recognize that self-esteem and happiness 
only comes from using one's natural ability in the most productive 
manner possible according to one's own talents.
  Productivity and creativity are the true source of personal 
satisfaction. Freedom, and not dependency, provides the environment 
needed to achieve these goals. Government cannot do this for us. It 
only gets in the way. When the government gets involved, the goal 
becomes a bailout or a subsidy, and these cannot provide a sense of 
personal achievement.
  Achieving legislative power and political influence should not be our 
goal. Most of the change that is to come will not come from the 
politicians but, rather, from individuals, family, friends, 
intellectual leaders, and our religious institutions. The solution can 
only come from rejecting the use of coercion, compulsion, government 
commands, and aggressive force to mold social and economic behavior. 
Without accepting these restraints, inevitably, the consensus will be 
to allow the government to mandate economic equality and obedience to 
the politicians who gained power and promote an environment that 
smothers the freedoms of everyone.

                              {time}  1450

  It is then that the responsible individuals who seek excellence and 
self-esteem by being self-reliant and productive become the victims.
  In conclusion, what are the greatest dangers that the American people 
face today and impede the goal of a free society? There are five.
  The continuous attack on our civil liberties which threatens the rule 
of law and our ability to resist the rush of tyranny.
  Number two: violent anti-Americanism that has engulfed the world. 
Because the phenomenon of ``blow-back'' is not understood or denied, 
our foreign policy is destined to keep us involved in many wars that we 
have no business being in. National bankruptcy and a greater threat to 
our national security will result.
  Number three: the ease in which we go to war, without a declaration 
by Congress, but accepting international authority from the U.N. or 
NATO even for preemptive wars, otherwise known as aggression.
  Number four: a financial political crisis as a consequence of 
excessive debt, unfunded liabilities, spending, bailouts, and gross 
discrepancy in wealth distribution going from the middle class to the 
rich. The danger of central economic planning by the Federal Reserve 
must be understood.
  Number five: world government taking over local and U.S. sovereignty 
by getting involved in the issues of war, welfare, trade, banking, a 
world currency, taxes, property, and private ownership of guns must be 
addressed.
  Happily, there is an answer for these very dangerous trends. What a 
wonderful world it would be if everyone accepted the simple moral 
premise of rejecting all acts of aggression. The retort to such a 
suggestion is always: it's too simplistic, too idealistic, impractical, 
naive, utopian, dangerous, and unrealistic to strive for such an ideal.
  The answer to that is that for thousands of years the acceptance of 
government force, to rule over the people, at the sacrifice of liberty, 
was considered moral and the only available option for achieving peace 
and prosperity. What can be more utopian than that myth--considering 
the results, especially looking at the state-sponsored killing by 
nearly every government during the 20th century, estimated to be in the 
hundreds of millions of people. It's time to reconsider this grant of 
authority to the state.
  No good has ever come from granting monopoly power to the state to 
use aggression against the people to arbitrarily mold human behavior. 
Such power, when left unchecked, becomes the seed of an ugly tyranny. 
This method of governance has been adequately tested, and the results 
are in: reality dictates we try liberty.
  The idealism of nonaggression and rejecting the offensive use of 
force should be tried. The idealism of government-sanctioned violence 
has been abused throughout history and is the primary source of poverty 
and war. The theory of a society being based on individual freedom has 
been around for a long time. It is time to take a bold step and 
actually permit it by advancing this cause, rather than taking a step 
backwards as some would like us to do today.
  Today the principle of habeas corpus, established when King John 
signed the Magna Carta in 1215, is under attack in our own government. 
There's every reason to believe that with a renewed effort, with the 
use of the Internet, we

[[Page H6367]]

can instead advance the cause of liberty by spreading an uncensored 
message that will serve to rein in government authority and challenge 
the obsession with war and welfare.
  What I'm talking about is a system of government guided by the moral 
principles of peace and tolerance. The Founders were convinced that a 
free society could not exist without a moral people. Just writing rules 
won't work if the people choose to ignore them. Today the rule of law 
written in the Constitution has little meaning for most Americans, 
especially those who work in Washington, D.C.
  Benjamin Franklin claimed ``only a virtuous people are capable of 
freedom.'' John Adams concurred: ``Our Constitution was made for a 
moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government 
of any other.''
  A moral people must reject all violence in an effort to mold people's 
beliefs or habits. A society that boos or ridicules the Golden Rule is 
not a moral society. All great religions endorse the Golden Rule. The 
same moral standards that individuals are required to follow should 
apply to all government officials. They cannot be exempt. The ultimate 
solution is not in the hands of the government. The solution falls on 
each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends, and 
communities.
  The number one responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves, 
with hope that others will follow. This is of greater importance than 
working on changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a 
virtuous society. If we can achieve this, then the government will 
change.
  It doesn't mean that political action or holding office has no value. 
At times it does nudge policy in the right direction. But what is true 
is that when seeking office is done for personal aggrandizement, money 
or power, it becomes useless if not harmful. When political action is 
taken for the right reasons, it's easy to understand why compromise 
should be avoided. It also becomes clear why progress is best achieved 
by working with coalitions, which bring people together, without anyone 
sacrificing his principles.
  Political action, to be truly beneficial, must be directed toward 
changing the hearts and minds of the people, recognizing that it's the 
virtue and morality of the people that allow liberty to flourish.
  The Constitution or more laws per se have no value if the people's 
attitudes aren't changed.
  To achieve liberty and peace, two powerful human emotions have to be 
overcome. Number one is envy, which leads to hate and class warfare. 
Number two is intolerance, which leads to bigoted and judgmental 
policies. These emotions must be replaced with a much better 
understanding of love, compassion, tolerance, and free market 
economics. Freedom, when understood, brings people together. When 
tried, freedom is popular.

  The problem we have faced over the years is that economic 
interventionists are swayed by envy, whereas social interventionists 
are swayed by intolerance of habits and lifestyles. The 
misunderstanding that tolerance is an endorsement of certain activities 
motivates many to legislate moral standards, which should only be set 
by individuals making their own choices. Both sides use force to deal 
with these misplaced emotions. Both are authoritarians. Neither 
endorses voluntarism. Both views ought to be rejected.
  I have come to one firm conviction after these many years of trying 
to figure out the plain truth of things: the best chance for achieving 
peace and prosperity for the maximum number of people worldwide is to 
pursue the cause of liberty. If you find this to be a worthwhile 
message, spread it throughout the land.
  I yield back the balance of my time.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Occupants of the gallery are reminded that 
it is inappropriate to express approval or disapproval of the 
proceedings of the House.

                          ____________________