[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 17390-17394]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  BIG-GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS DON'T WORK

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) is recognized for 
60 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, politicians throughout history have tried to 
solve every problem conceivable to man, always failing to recognize 
that many of the problems we face result from previous so-called 
political solutions.
  Government cannot be the answer to every human ill. Continuing to 
view more government as the solution to problems will only make matters 
worse.
  Not long ago, I spoke on this floor about why I believe Americans are 
so angry in spite of rosy government economic reports. The majority of 
Americans are angry, disgusted, and frustrated that so little is being 
done in Congress to solve their problems. The fact is, a majority of 
American citizens expect the Federal Government to provide for every 
need without considering whether government causes many economic 
problems in the first place. This certainly is an incentive for 
politicians to embrace the role of omnipotent problem-solvers, since 
nobody asked first whether they, the politicians themselves, are at 
fault.
  At home, I am frequently asked about my frustration with Congress 
since so many reform proposals go unheeded. I jokingly reply, No, I am 
never frustrated because I have such low expectations. But the American 
people have higher expectations, and without forthcoming solutions are 
beyond frustrated with their government.
  If solutions to American problems won't be found in the frequent 
clamor for more government, it still is up to Congress to explain how 
our problems developed and how solutions can be found in an atmosphere 
of liberty, private property, and a free market order.
  It is up to us to demand radical change from our failed policy of 
foreign military interventionism. Robotic responses to cliches of Big 
Government intervention in our lives are unbecoming to Members who are 
elected to offer ideas and solutions. We must challenge the status quo 
of our economic and political system.
  Many things have contributed to the mess we are in. Bureaucratic 
management can never compete with the free market in solving problems.
  Central economic planning doesn't work. Just look at the failed 
systems of the 20th century. Welfarism is an example of central 
economic planning. Paper money, money created out of thin air to 
accommodate welfarism and government deficits, is not only silly; it is 
unconstitutional. No matter how hard the big spenders try to convince 
us otherwise, deficits do matter. But lowering the deficit through 
higher taxes won't solve anything.
  Nothing will change in Washington until it is recognized that the 
ultimate driving force behind most politicians is obtaining and holding 
power, and money from special interests drives the political process.
  Money and power are important only because the government wields 
power not granted by the Constitution. A limited constitutional 
government would not tempt special interests to buy the politicians who 
wield power. The whole process feeds on itself. Everyone is rewarded by 
ignoring constitutional restraints while expanding and complicating the 
entire bureaucratic state.
  Even when it is recognized that we are traveling down the wrong path, 
the lack of political courage and the desire for reelection results in 
ongoing support for the pork-barrel system that serves special 
interests.
  A safe middle ground, a don't-rock-the-boat attitude, too often is 
rewarded in Washington, while meaningful solutions tend to offend those 
who are in charge of the gigantic PAC lobbyist empire that calls the 
shots in Washington.
  Most Members are rewarded by reelection for accommodating and knowing 
how to work the system. Though there is little difference between the 
two parties, the partisan fights are real. Instead of debates about 
philosophy, though, the partisan battles are about who will wield the 
gavels. True political debates are rare. Power struggles are real and 
ruthless, and yet we all know that power corrupts.
  Both parties agree on monetary, fiscal, foreign and entitlement 
policies. Unfortunately, neither party has much

[[Page 17391]]

concern for civil liberties. Both parties are split over trade, with 
mixed debates between outright protections and those who endorse 
government-managed trade agreements that masquerade as free trade.
  It is virtually impossible to find anyone who supports hands-off free 
trade defended by the moral right of all citizens to spend their money 
as they see fit without being subject to any special interest.
  The Big Government nanny state is based on the assumption that free 
markets cannot provide the maximum good for the largest number of 
people. It assumes people are not smart or responsible enough to take 
care of themselves, and thus their needs must be filled through the 
government's forcible redistribution of wealth.
  Our system of intervention assumes that politicians and bureaucrats 
have superior knowledge and are endowed with certain talents that 
produce efficiency. These assumptions don't seem to hold much water, of 
course, when we look at agencies like FEMA. Still, we expect the 
government to manage monetary and economic policy, the medical system 
and the educational system, and then wonder why we have problems with 
the cost and efficiency of all these programs.
  On top of this, the daily operation of Congress reflects the power of 
special interests, not the will of the people, regardless of which 
party is in power. Critically important legislation comes up for votes 
late in the evening without much warning, leaving Members little chance 
to read or study the bills. Key changes are buried in conference 
reports, often containing new legislation not even mentioned in either 
the House or the Senate versions.
  Conferences were meant to compromise two different positions in the 
House and Senate, not to slip in new material that had not been 
mentioned in either bill.
  Congress spends hundreds of billions of dollars in emergency 
supplemental bills to avoid the budgetary rules meant to hold down the 
deficit. Wartime spending money is appropriated and attached to 
emergency relief funds, making it difficult for politicians to resist. 
The principle of the pork barrel is alive and well, and it shows how 
huge appropriations are passed easily with supporters of the system 
getting their share for their district.
  Huge omnibus spending bills introduced at the end of legislative 
years are passed without scrutiny. No one individual knows exactly what 
is in the bill. In the process, legitimate needs and constitutional 
responsibilities are frequently ignored. Respect for private property 
rights is ignored. Confidence in the free market is lost or 
misunderstood. Our tradition of self-reliance is mocked as archaic.
  Lack of real choice in economic and personal decisions is 
commonplace. It seems that too often the only choice we are given is 
between prohibitions and subsidies. Never is it said, let the people 
decide on things like stem cell research or alternative medical 
treatments.
  Nearly everyone endorses exorbitant taxation. The only debate is 
about who should pay. Either tax the producers and the rich, or tax the 
workers and the poor through inflation and outsourcing jobs.
  Both politicians and the media place blame on everything except bad 
policy authored by the Congress. Scapegoats are needed since there is 
so much blame to go around and so little understanding as to why we are 
in such a mess.
  In the 1920s and the 1930s, Europe's financial system collapsed and 
inflation raged. It was commonplace to blame the Jews. Today, in 
America the blame is spread out: illegal immigrants, Muslims, big 
business, whether they got special deals from the government or not, 
price gouging oil companies, regardless of the circumstances, and labor 
unions. Ignorance of economics and denial of the political power system 
that prevails in the District of Columbia makes it possible for 
Congress to shift the blame.
  Since we are not on the verge of mending our ways, the problems will 
worsen and the blame game will get much more vicious. Shortchanging a 
large segment of our society surely will breed conflict that could get 
out of control.
  This is a good reason for us to cast aside politics as usual and 
start finding some reliable answers to our problems. Politics as usual 
is aided by the complicity of the media. Economic ignorance, bleeding 
heart emotionalism, and populist passion pervade our major networks and 
cable channels.
  This is especially noticeable when the establishment seeks to unify 
the people behind an illegal, unwise war. The propaganda is well 
coordinated by the media, government and military-industrial complex. 
This collusion is worse than when state-owned media do the same thing.
  In countries where everyone knows the media produces government 
propaganda, people remain wary of what they hear.

                              {time}  1830

  In the United States, the media are considered free and independent. 
Thus, the propaganda is accepted with less questioning.
  One of the major reasons we have drifted from the Founders' vision of 
liberty in the Constitution was the division of the concept of freedom 
into two parts. Instead of freedom being applied equally to social and 
economic transactions, it has come to be thought of as two different 
concepts. Some in Congress now protect economic liberty and market 
choices but ignore personal liberty and private choices. Others defend 
personal liberty but concede the realm of property and economic 
transaction to government control.
  There should be no distinction between commercial speech and 
political speech with no consistent moral defense of true liberty. The 
continued erosion of personal property rights is inevitable.
  This careless disregard for liberty, our traditions and the 
Constitution, have brought us disaster with a foreign policy of 
military interventionism supported by the leadership of both parties. 
Hopefully, some day, this will be radically changed.
  Everyone is aware of the law of unintended consequences. Most Members 
of Congress understand that government actions can have unintended 
consequences. Yet few quit voting for government solutions, always 
hoping there won't be any particular unintended consequences the next 
time.
  They keep hoping there will be less harmful complications from the 
solution that they are currently supporting. Free market economics 
teaches us that for every government action to solve an economic 
problem, two new ones are created. The same unwanted results occur with 
foreign policy meddling. The law of opposites is just a variation of 
the law of unintended consequences. When we attempt to achieve a 
certain goal, like, say, make the world safe for democracy, a grandiose 
scheme of World War I, one can be sure the world will become less safe 
and less democratic regardless of the motivation. The First World War 
was sold to the American people as the war to end all wars.
  Instead, history shows it was the war that caused the 20th Century to 
be the most war-torn century in all of history. Our entry into World 
War I helped lead us into World War II, the Cold War, the Korean War 
and the Vietnam War. Even our current crisis in the Middle East can be 
traced to the great wars of the 20th Century.
  Though tens of millions of deaths are associated with these wars, it 
seems we haven't learned a thing. We went into Korea by direction of 
the United Nations, not a Congressional declaration of war, to unify 
Korea. Yet that war ensured that Korea remained divided to this day. 
Our troops are still there. South Korea today is much more willing to 
reconcile differences with North Korea, and yet we obstruct such 
efforts. It doesn't make much sense.
  We went into Vietnam and involved ourselves unnecessarily in the 
civil war to bring peace and harmony to that country. We lost 60,000 
troops and spent hundreds of billions of dollars, yet failed to achieve 
victory. Ironically, since losing in Vietnam, we now have a better 
relationship with them than ever. We now trade, invest, travel and

[[Page 17392]]

communicate with a unified Western-leaning country that is catching on 
quickly to capitalist ways. This policy, not military confrontation, is 
exactly what the Constitution permits and the Founders encouraged in 
our relationship with others.
  This policy should apply to both friends and perceived enemies. 
Diplomacy and trade can accomplish goals that military intervention 
cannot, and they certainly are a lot less costly.
  In both instances, Korea and Vietnam, neither country attacked us, 
and neither country posed a threat to our national security.
  In neither case did we declare war. All of the fighting and killing 
was based on lies, miscalculations and the failure to abide by 
constitutional restraint with regard to war.
  When goals are couched in terms of humanitarianism, sincere or not, 
the results are inevitably bad. Foreign interventionism requires the 
use of force. First, the funds needed to pursue a particular policy 
required that taxes be forcibly imposed on the American people either 
directly or indirectly through inflation. Picking sides in foreign 
countries only increases the chances of antagonism toward us.
  Too often, foreign economic and military support means impoverishing 
the poor in America and enhancing the rich ruling classes in poor 
countries. When sanctions are used against one undesirable regime, it 
squelches the resistance to the very regimes we are trying to 
undermine.
  Forty years of sanctions against Castro have left him in power and 
fomented continued hatred and blame from the Cuban people directed at 
us. Trade with Cuba likely would have accomplished the opposite, as it 
has in Vietnam, China and even the Eastern Bloc nations of the old 
Soviet empire.
  We spend billions of dollars in Afghanistan and Colombia to curtail 
drug production. No evidence exists that it helps. In fact, drug 
production and corruption have increased in both countries. We close 
our eyes to it because the reasons we are in Colombia and Afghanistan 
are denied.
  Obviously, we are not putting forth the full effort required to 
capture Osama bin Laden. Instead, our occupation of Afghanistan further 
inflames the Muslim radicals that came of age with their fierce 
resistance to the Soviet occupation of a Muslim country. Our occupation 
merely serves as a recruiting device for al Qaeda, which has promised 
retaliation for our presence in their country.
  We learn nothing, after first allying ourselves with Osama bin Laden 
when he applied the same logic towards the Soviets. The net result of 
our invasion and occupation in Afghanistan has been to miss capturing 
Osama bin Laden, assist al Qaeda's recruitment, stimulate more drug 
production and lose hundreds of American lives and allow spending of 
billions of American taxpayers dollars with no end in sight.
  Bankruptcy seems to be the only way we will reconsider the 
foolishness of this type of occupation. It is time for us to wake up.
  Our policy toward Iran for the past 50 years is every bit as 
disconcerting. It makes no sense, however, unless one concedes that our 
government is manipulated by those who seek physical control over the 
vast riches of the Middle East and egged on by Israel's desires. We 
have attacked the sovereignty of Iran on two occasions and are in the 
process of threatening her for the third time.
  In 1953, the U.S. and British overthrew the democratically elected 
Mohammed Mossadegh and installed the Shah. His brutal regime lasted for 
over 25 years and ended with the Ayatollah taking power in 1979. Our 
support for the Shah incited the radicalization of the Shiite clerics 
in Iran, resulting in the hostage takeover.
  In the 1980s, we provided weapons, including poisonous gas, to Saddam 
Hussein, as we supported his invasion of Iran. These events are not 
forgotten by the Iranians, who, once again, see us looking for another 
confrontation with them.
  We insist that the U.N. ignore the guarantees under the Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Treaty that grants countries like Iran the right to 
enrich uranium. The pressure on the U.N. and the threats we cast toward 
Iran are quite harmful to the cause of peace. They are entirely 
unnecessary and serve no useful purpose. Our policy toward Iran is much 
more likely to result in her getting a nuclear weapon than preventing 
it.
  Our own effort at democratizing Iran has resulted, instead, in 
radicalizing a population whose instincts are to like Americans and our 
economic system. Our meddling these past 50 years has only served to 
alienate and unify the entire country against us. Though our officials 
only see Iran as an enemy, as does Israel, our policies in the Middle 
East these past 5 years have done wonders to strengthen Iran's 
political and military position in the region. We have totally ignored 
serious overtures by the Iranians to negotiate with us before 
hostilities broke out in Iraq in 2003.
  Both immediately after 9/11 and especially at the time of our 
invasion in Iraq in 2003, Iran particularly, partially out of fear and 
realism, honestly sought reconciliation and offered to help the U.S. in 
its battle against al Qaeda. They were rebuked outright.
  Now, Iran is negotiating from a much stronger position, principally 
as a result of our overall Middle East policy.
  We accommodated Iran by severely weakening the Taliban in Afghanistan 
on Iran's eastern borders. On Iran's western borders, we helped 
Iranians by eliminating their arch enemy, Saddam Hussein. Our invasion 
in Iraq and the resulting chaos have inadvertently delivered up a large 
portion of Iraq to the Iranians, as the majority Shiites in Iraq ally 
themselves with the Iranians.
  The U.S.-Israel plan to hit Hezbollah in Lebanon before taking on 
Iran's military has totally backfired. Now Hezbollah, an ally of Iran, 
has been made stronger than ever with the military failure to route 
Hezbollah from southern Lebanon.
  Before the U.S.-Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Hezbollah was supported 
by 20 percent of the population. Now its revered by 80 percent. A 
democratic election in Lebanon cannot now serve the interests of the 
U.S. or Israel; it would only support the cause of radical clerics in 
Iran.
  Demanding an election in Palestinian Gaza resulted in enhancing the 
power of Hamas. The U.S. and Israel promptly rejected the results. So 
much for our support for democratically elected government. Our support 
for dictatorial Arab leaders remains a thorn in the side of the large 
Muslim population in the Middle East and one of the main reasons Osama 
bin Laden declared war against us.
  We talk of democracy and self-determination, but the masses of people 
in the Middle East see through our hypocrisy when we support the Sunni 
secular dictators in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan and, at one time, 
Saddam Hussein.
  In the late 1970s and the late 1980s, the CIA spent over $4 billion 
on a program called Operation Cyclone. This was our contribution to 
setting up training schools in Pakistan and elsewhere, including the 
U.S. itself, to teach sabotage skills. The purpose was to use these 
individuals in fighting our enemies in the Middle East, including the 
Soviets. But as one could predict, this effort has come back to haunt 
us as our radical ally, Osama bin Laden, turned his fury against us 
after routing the Soviets.
  It is estimated that over 12,000 fighters were trained in the camps 
we set up in Afghanistan. They were taught how to make bombs, carry out 
sabotage and use guerrilla war tactics, and now we are on the receiving 
end of this U.S.-financed program, hardly a good investment. It is 
difficult to understand why our policymakers aren't more cautious in 
their effort to police the world once they realize how unsuccessful we 
have been. It seems they always hope that the next time our efforts 
won't come flying back in our face.
  Our failed efforts in Iraq continue to drain our resources, costing 
us dearly both in lives lost and dollars spent, and there is no end in 
sight. No consideration is given for rejecting our obsession with a 
worldwide military presence which rarely, if ever, directly enhances 
our security.

[[Page 17393]]

  A much stronger case can be made that our policy of protecting our 
worldwide interest actually does the opposite by making us weaker, 
alienating our allies, inciting more hatred and provoking our enemies. 
The more we have interfered in the Middle East the past 50 years, the 
greater the danger has become for an attack on us.
  The notion that Arab Muslim radicals are motivated to attack us 
because of our freedoms and prosperity and not our unwelcome presence 
in their country is dangerous and silly.
  We were told we needed to go into Iraq because our old ally, Saddam 
Hussein, had weapons of mass destruction. Yet no weapons of mass 
destruction were found. We were told we needed to occupy Iraq to remove 
al Qaeda, yet al Qaeda was nowhere to be found. And now it is admitted 
it had nothing to do with 9/11.
  Yet, today, Iraq is infested with al Qaeda, achieving exactly the 
opposite of what we sought to do. We were told that we needed to secure 
our oil to protect our economy and to pay for our invasion and 
occupation. Instead, the opposite has resulted. Oil production is down. 
Oil prices are up, and no oil profits have been used to pay the bills. 
We were told that a regime change in Iraq would help us in our long-
time fight with Iran, yet everything we have done in Iraq has served 
the interests of Iran.

                              {time}  1845

  We are being told in a threatening and intimidating fashion that if 
America were to pull out before Iraq could defend itself, the 
consequences would be absolutely predictable and absolutely disastrous. 
I am convinced, though, that the law of opposites could well apply 
here. Going into Iraq we know produced exactly the opposite results of 
what was predicted. Leaving also likely will have results opposite of 
those we are being frightened with. Certainly leaving Vietnam at the 
height of the Cold War did not result in the disaster predicted by the 
advocates of the domino theory: an inevitable Communist takeover of the 
entire Far East.
  We are constantly being told that we cannot abandon Iraq, and we are 
obligated to stay forever if necessary. This admonition is similar to a 
rallying cry from a determined religious missionary bent on 
proselytizing to the world with a particular religious message. 
Conceding that leaving may not be a panacea for Iraqi tranquility, this 
assumption ignores two things: One, our preemptive war ignited the 
Iraqi civil war; and, two, abandoning the Iraqi people is not the 
question. The real question is whether or not we should abandon the 
American people by forcing them to pay for an undeclared war with huge 
economic and human costs while placing our national security in greater 
jeopardy by ignoring our borders and serious problems here at home.
  In our attempt to make Iraq a better place, we did great harm to the 
Iraqi Christians. Before our invasion in 2003, there were approximately 
1.2 million Christians living in Iraq. Since then, over half have been 
forced to leave due to persecution and violence. Many escaped to Syria. 
With the neocons wanting to attack Syria, how long will they be safe 
there? The answer to the question, aren't we better off without Saddam 
Hussein, is not an automatic ``yes'' for Iraqi Christians.
  We have been told for decades that our policy of militarism and 
preemption in the Middle East is designed to provide security for 
Israel. Yet a strong case can be made that Israel is more vulnerable 
now than ever with moderate Muslims being challenged by a growing 
majority of Islamic radicals. As the invincibility of the American and 
Israeli military becomes common knowledge, Israel's security is 
diminished, and world opinion turns against her, especially after the 
failed efforts to remove Hezbollah from southern Lebanon.
  We were told that attacking and eliminating Hezbollah was required to 
diminish the Iranian threat against Israel. The results again were the 
opposite. This failed effort has only emboldened Iran. The lack of 
success of conventional warfare, the U.S. in Vietnam, the Soviets in 
Afghanistan, the U.S. in Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel in Lebanon, 
should awaken our policymakers to our failure in war and diplomacy. Yet 
all we propose are bigger bombs and more military force for occupation 
rather than working to understand an entirely new generation of modern 
warfare.
  Many reasons are given for our preemptive wars and military approach 
for spreading the American message of freedom and prosperity, which is 
an obvious impossibility. Our vital interests are always cited for 
justification, and it is inferred that those who do not support our 
militancy are unpatriotic. Yet the opposite is actually the case: Wise 
resistance to one's own government doing bad things requires a love of 
country, devotion to idealism and respect for the rule of law.
  In attempting to build an artificial and unwelcome Iraqi military, 
the harder we try, the more money we spend and the more lives we lose, 
the stronger the real armies of Iraq become: The Sunni insurgency, the 
Badr Brigade, the Sadr Mahdi Army and the Kurdish Militia.
  The Kurds have already taken a bold step in this direction by 
hoisting a Kurdish flag and removing the Iraqi flag, a virtual 
declaration of independence. Natural local forces are winning out over 
outside political forces.
  We are looking in all of the wrong places for an Iraqi army to bring 
stability to that country. The people have spoken, and these troops 
that represent large segments of the population need no training. It is 
not a lack of training, weapons or money that hinders our efforts to 
create a new superior Iraqi military. It is the lack of inspiration and 
support for such an endeavor that is missing. Developing borders and 
separating the various factions, which our policy explicitly prohibits, 
is the basic flaw in our plan for a forced, unified Western-style 
democracy for Iraq. Allowing self-determination for different regions 
is the only way to erase the artificial nature of Iraq, an Iraq 
designed by Western outsiders nearly 80 years ago. It is our obsession 
with control of the oil in the region and imposing our will on the 
Middle East and accommodating the demands of Israel that is the 
problem. And the American people are finally getting sick and tired of 
all of their sacrifices. It is time to stop the bleeding.
  Instead we continue to hear the constant agitation for us to confront 
the Iranians with military action. Reasons to attack Iran make no more 
sense than our foolish preemptive war against Iraq. Fictitious charges 
and imaginary dangers are used to frighten the American people into 
accepting an attack on Iran. First it may only be sanctions, but later 
it will be bombs and possible ground troops if the neocons have their 
way. Many of the chicken-hawk neoconservative advisors to the 
administration are highly critical of our current policy because it is 
not aggressive enough. They want more troops in Iraq. They want to 
attack Syria and Iran and escalate the conflict in Lebanon.
  We have a troop shortage. Morale is low, and our military equipment 
is in bad shape, yet the neocons would not hesitate to spend, borrow, 
inflate and reinstate the draft to continue their grandiose schemes in 
remaking the entire Middle East. Obviously, a victory of this sort is 
not available no matter what effort is made or how much money is spent.
  Logic would tell us there is no way we will contemplate taking on 
Iran at this time, but logic did not prevail with our Iraq policy and 
look at the mess we have there. Besides, both sides, the 
neoconservative extremists and the radical Islamists, are driven by 
religious fervor. Both are convinced that God is on their side, a 
strange assumption since theologically it is the same God.
  Both sides of the war in the Middle East are driven by religious 
beliefs of omnipotence. Both sides endorse an eschatological theory 
regarding the forthcoming end of time. Both anticipate the return of 
God personified and as promised to each. Both sides are driven by a 
conviction of perfect knowledge regarding the Creator, and though we 
supposedly worship the same God, each sees the other side as completely 
wrong and blasphemous.

[[Page 17394]]

The religiously driven Middle East war condemns tolerance of the 
other's view. Advocates of restraint and the use of diplomacy are 
ridiculed as appeasers and equivalent to supporting Nazism and 
considered un-American and un-Christian.
  I find it amazing that we in this country seem determined to 
completely separate religious expression and the state, even to the 
detriment of the first amendment, yet we can say little about how 
Christian and Jewish religious beliefs greatly influence our policies 
in the Middle East? It should be the other way around. Religious 
expression, according to the First Amendment, cannot be regulated 
anywhere by Congress or the Federal courts. But deeply held theological 
beliefs should never dictate our foreign policy. Being falsely accused 
of anti-Semitism and being a supporter of radical fascism is not an 
enviable position for any politician. Most realize it is best to be 
quiet and support our Middle East involvement.
  Believing one can have perfect knowledge of God's will and believing 
government can manage our lives and world affairs have caused a great 
deal of problems for man over the ages. When these two elements are 
combined, they become especially dangerous. Liberty, by contrast, 
removes power from government and allows total freedom of choice in 
pursuing one's religious beliefs. The only solution to controlling 
political violence is to prohibit the use of force to pursue religious 
goals and reject government authority to mold the behavior of 
individuals.
  Both sides in the Middle East are enamored with the so-called benefit 
that chaos offers to those promoting revolutionary changes. Both sides 
in situations like this always underestimate the determination of the 
opposition and ignore the law of unintended consequences. They never 
consider that these policies might backfire.
  Declaring war against Islamic fascism or terrorism is vague and 
meaningless. The enemy that we are fighting at the expense of our own 
liberties is purposely indefinable. Therefore the government will 
exercise wartime powers indefinitely. We have been fully warned to 
expect a long, long war.
  The Islamic fascists are almost impossible to identify and cannot be 
targeted by our conventional weapons. Those who threaten us essentially 
are unarmed and stateless. Comparing them to Nazi Germany, a huge 
military power, is ridiculous. Labeling them as a unified force is a 
mistake. It is critical that we figure out why a growing number of 
Muslims are radicalized to the point of committing suicide terrorism 
against us. Our presence in their countries represents a failed policy 
that makes us less safe, not more.
  These guerilla warriors do not threaten us with tanks, gunboats, 
missiles or nuclear weapons, nor do they have a history of aggression 
against the United States. Our enemies' credibility depends instead on 
the popular goal of ending our occupation of their country.
  We must not forget that the 9/11 terrorists came principally from 
Saudi Arabia, not Iraq, Iran, Lebanon or Syria. Iran has never in 
modern times invaded her neighbors, yet we worry obsessively that she 
may develop a nuclear weapon some day. Never mind that a radicalized 
Pakistan has nuclear weapons and our so-called friend Musharraf won't 
lift a finger against bin Laden who most likely is hiding in Pakistan. 
Our only defense against this emerging nuclear threat has been to use 
and threaten to use weapons that do not meet the needs of this new and 
different enemy.
  Since resistance against the Iraq war is building here at home, 
hopefully it will not be too long before we abandon our grandiose 
scheme to rule the entire Middle East through intimidation and military 
confrontation.
  But economic law eventually will prevail. Runaway military and 
entitlement spending cannot be sustained. We can tax the private 
economy only so much, and borrowing from foreigners is limited by the 
total foreign debt and our current account deficit. It will be 
difficult to continue this spending spree without significantly higher 
interest rates and further devaluation of the dollar. This all spells 
more trouble for our economy and certainly higher inflation. Our 
industry base is shattered, and our borders remain open to those who 
exploit our reeling entitlement system.
  Economic realities will prevail regardless of the enthusiasm by most 
Members of Congress for a continued expansion of the welfare state and 
support for our dangerously aggressive foreign policy. The welfare/
warfare state will come to an end when the dollar fails and the wealth 
simply runs out.
  The overriding goal should then be to rescue our constitutional 
liberties which have been steadily eroded by those who claim that 
sacrificing liberties is required and legitimate in times of war, even 
the undeclared and vague war that we are currently fighting.
  A real solution to our problems will require a better understanding 
of and a greater dedication to free markets and private property 
rights. It can't be done without restoring a sound asset-backed 
currency. If we hope to restore any measure of constitutional 
government, we must abandon the policy of policing the world and 
keeping troops in the four corners of the earth. Our liberties and our 
prosperity depend on it.

                          ____________________